Personal Theology – What I Believe – Giants

Almost eight years ago all hell broke lose in my life.  That’s not to say that things were not utter crap before that; hell, no.  Things simply went from a floater in the toilet, to completely down the plumbing.  Everything fell apart: finances, health, everything.  I even lost my faith.  Me.  The person who lived for theology, and had even tried to pursue a Bachelor of Theology.

What happened?  It would be too long a story to go into, but I do admit that a lot has to do with my temperament, as well as my overly active intellect.  That makes for a heck of a problem in the average workplace, where incompetence, dishonesty, and corruption are just the way things go.  My health was always an issue, and the only way to function was to literally force my body to perform when it was in no shape to, so no wonder it all eventually collapsed.  But what happened to make me shut off my faith?  The violence in the Old Testament.  The massive slaughters that were described there.  I couldn’t justify the violence, the ‘murder everyone who is not from the one of the tribes of Israel’.

Ah, yes.  That one gets a lot of people, doesn’t it?  Most of those people, however, are already atheists looking for justification on which to base their disbelief.  Or, they are New Agers looking for a way to trash a rival belief system.  People who truly believe in truth and greater spiritual powers than the ego don’t usually suddenly find themselves wanting to retch at the violence as described in the Old Testament.  So why did it happen to me?  I think it was because it needed an answer, an explanation that made sense.  It took me almost eight years to have that explanation practically jump up and grab me.

In the depths of my misery, I decided to entertain myself by watching some YouTube videos.  I fell on the channel ‘Stuff They Don’t Want You To Know’.  It’s an interesting, and very mild, channel that looks at conspiracy theories in a fairly objective manner.  One of their videos involved mysterious mounds found around North America, and it caught my attention because there one such mound in the woods near the house I grew up in.  I looked further into this, and came across information on giants.  Somehow, I came across videos featuring L.A. Marzulli.  I did not know at the time who he was, or that he was a man of faith.  I found the topic so interesting (I have an intense interest in paranormal and other odd things) that I watched video after video where he spoke about these things.  I also came across other videos from other people speaking on the subject, and eventually found the answer to the question that had slapped me across the head seven years previously.  I also entertained myself by poking around in ufology.

I could have gone either way at the time, but what Marzulli was saying rang so true on a visceral level that I knew, no, I know, it is truth.  The ufologists creeped the hell out of me, particularly when they started talking about going into meditative states and letting the aliens in to their consciousness.  My gut instincts have always been as sharp as a chef’s favorite knife, and I instinctively veer away from from things that give off a certain type of stench – which the alien-love movement gives off.  That, however, is beside the point. Ufology draws, and it draws big time; in fact, if I put the term ‘UFO’ into the title of this post, it would draws readers as surely as shit draws flies.  There is a massive, if hidden, belief, and intense interest in, the UFO phenomenon.   A solid explanation of biblical passages won’t draw any views – of that I am sure.  That is the difference in interest these days.

Getting back to the point at hand, I have to thank L.A. Marzulli for the work he has done in getting the message out.  More so, I have to thank the man for how he gets the message out.  As I said above, at first I did not even realize that he was a man of faith.  When I did, I found it a bit annoying having this vital information prepackaged in such a manner, but that soon passed.  The best way to describe it is that he presents the his findings in a palatable manner where the findings come first, and the interpretation second.  I am telling you this, because I want you to get familiar with this man’s work.  It should ignite your interest in a big way, whether or not you are a believer in biblical history.   In a nutshell, the answer to the question of why God ordered the wiping out of various peoples and cities inhabiting the land given to the Israelites – and I should point out that He ordered only specific groups to be wiped out entirely – is that these groups carried the DNA of the fallen angels.  Many of them really were giant in stature.

The strange thing about this is the fact that acceptance of this new understanding is growing among people who actually spend time pondering on scripture, and who actually know what they are talking about.  These are not people who memorize passages as per their church guide books, and who don’t really understand them in their proper context.  Of course, some of these people have pounced on it and plastered it everywhere with very much the same abandon with which they call everything else demonic, and/or profess that Jesus is Lord, without thinking too much about it.  It is a shame that they do this, because it is like putting a gorilla into a tutu and asking people to take it seriously.  The damage to its credibility is enormous.  Make something cringe-worthy and you end up driving away people who might otherwise listen.

As for me, well, if I had not come across this information presented in the way it was presented – that is, by someone who put the information first, and kept his beliefs low-key – I would never have been able to open a bible again.  I know that the question I had plagues a lot of people, and that it is used quite frequently to attack people of faith.  I hope that anyone who is troubled by these questions takes the time to look into the subject.  At the very least, you will find something worth thinking about.

World – What the Hell is Happening in Europe and the West?

This post comes with a warning: if you can’t deal with weird ideas, stop reading right now.  I am a devotee of ideas, all ideas, even those that seems so far out of the stratosphere that most people cannot grasp them.  I feel that just because an idea sounds strange, it does not mean that it is unsound, or ludicrous.  Just as you can find a nickle hidden under a dust-bunny, you can find an infinite number of truths hidden within the clouds of outlandish sounding hypotheses.  So, please allow me to formulate a couple of hypotheses that may offend some people, and cause other people to scratch their heads in bewilderment.

So, the question is, what the hell is happening to Europe and the West?  By that I mean, what is going on with the mass immigration that is literally drowning the indigenous populations of countries such as France, Germany, the UK, and Sweden?  I am neither right-wing, nor left-wing in my politics, but I am acutely aware of the fact that left-wingers are going to pitch a hissy-fit over what I am about to put forward, and the fact that I am completely appalled by the situation as it is unfolding.  Europe and the West are drowning, and the question is if it is being done intentionally for nefarious purposes.

Theory 1

The notion of population replacement has been bandied about by various right-wing pundits, and while this has some basis as a theory, I feel that it is somewhat off the mark.  The problem with the theory is that it denotes a slow takeover of Europe and the West in an almost natural process.  Huge amounts of immigrants are brought in, they breed more prolifically than the local populations and interbreed with Caucasians, and thus, inch by inch, a new European people is created.  This theory presupposes that left-wing governments are stupid twits with visions of one muddy-colored world race.

I think this is not what is happening.  Caucasians are a special race from a global perspective; we discovered that the key to success and prosperity is smaller families.  We can put more resources into our children if we have less of them.  A loaf of bread goes a lot further if there are only three or four mouths to feed.  Houses can be bigger because fewer people need to be packed into the available acreage.  Smaller families mean better standards of living.  That is our strength.  Unfortunately, some people mistake it for our weakness.

Because we don’t breed prolifically, I believe that it is possible that some of the ‘powers-that-be’ have decided we are a race that is about to die out.  Our lands, therefore, are up for grabs.  If the reader is familiar with the shenanigans that go on in the shadows, it will not be too big a stretch to envision what I am about to put forward.  You only need to have an understanding of how the State of Israel came into existence, in order to understand what may just be behind the inundation of Europe and the West by largely Muslim, Middle-Eastern, and African migrants.   In a nutshell, our lands have been given given away while we are still living in them.  Somewhere, some schmuck, has cut a deal with someone in that part of the world, basically saying to them, ‘They’re dying out anyway, so you take their lands, and we get XYZ in return’.

Sound familiar?  Except for the dying out part?  Does the Balfour Declaration mean anything to you?  And, what happened next, once it came into existence?  A gigantic war that literally drove Jews who had integrated into European society, and did not want anything to do with a Jewish homeland, into that very homeland.  You may also have heard about the purported plans of Rothschild Zionism (a bastardized and hijacked version of Zionism) to extend the boundaries of Israel into neighboring Arab states.  Well, where do you think those local populations are going to go?

You got it: into the new lands that have been given to them in Europe.

That is one interesting theory to consider.  There is another, far stranger one that could be happening.  This one draws on ideas that come from the likes of David Icke, L.A. Marzulli, and quite a few others who talk about the same things, albeit from vastly different perspectives.

Theory 2

This is a fun one, if quite hair-raising.  If you are not familiar with the biblical Nephilim and Rephaim, I suggest that you become familiar with the topic.  The Nephilim and Rephaim were the descendants of the fallen angels, giant in stature, and quite nasty pieces of work by all accounts.  Some people theorize that they were the what we call the Old Gods, and that some people living today may still carry their genetic code.  In other words, there is a genetic composition which may make it possible for the fallen angels to re-enter the world.

A similar story is believed by hard-core ufologists.  In their version, the fallen angels were really aliens, and we are now in a period of time where an active alien-human interbreeding program is underway.  This interbreeding program would enable aliens to integrate into this world and live here with us.  However, it does not end there.  The long-term goal is to upgrade human genetics through hybridization, thus producing a new type of superior human being.

Sadly, some ufologists welcome this advent.  They think it a wonderful thing.  Those who take a biblical perspective on it realize that what might be happening is the recreation of the times of Noah, when the descendants of the fallen angels were roaming around the planet causing all sorts of mischief and mayhem.  To be brief, no matter which side of it you look at it from, the idea is to spread a certain genetic code far and wide, thus enabling a non-human race to re-enter the world.

How do you like them apples?  If you do a little research into people who claim to have this alien-human bloodline, you will notice that there is something terribly off with them.  If that is what a ‘superior’ human is supposed to be like, the original version is at least a thousand times superior.  The ‘hybrids’ all behave like a computer program that is riddled with bugs and viruses.

Okay, so how does this relate to what is happening in Europe and the West?  Well, we are being flooded with people who come from the exact area that the Nephilim and Rephaim touched down in, and spread their seed throughout.  The genetic code might be trying to assert itself, and spread through populations that do not carry it.  Intentional, or otherwise, this might be an invasion of real illegal aliens!

Well, there you have it.  Two off-the-wall theories that you can mull over while Europe burns.  I give you something to think about… .

Personal Theology – A Woman’s Place?

A Woman’s Place?

I will start straight off by telling you that I have never considered myself a feminist.  In fact, I have never particularly liked feminists.  When I was growing up, Gloria Steinem was at her zenith, preaching a largely man-hating doctrine.  As a tom-boy, I did not appreciate men being bashed.  I hung out with boys, and found them a hell of a lot more interesting and fun to be with than the stupid girls I went to school with.  Girls played with dolls, wore silly dresses and uncomfortable shoes, and were fascinated with makeup and hairstyles.  I did not have time for that nonsense, and certainly thought that their tendency to cry every time they skinned their knees was… well, it was just plain girlish.  I was trained by my brother to take things like a boy, and that meant not crying over minor injuries, not wearing dresses, and definitely not wasting my time grooming and being groomed by other females.

So, in a nutshell, I was trained by my older brother to behave and think like a boy.  This did not change the fact that I was a girl, that I had girl-type interests and tendencies; it only changed the way in which I choose to view my role, and my limitations, as a girl.  My brother taught me how to fight.  He taught me so well that I no longer fight because I go into the state that the Vikings used to call ‘berserk’, and it is terrifying to behold.  I won’t stop beating the crap out of my opponent, or getting the crap beaten out of myself, until one of us is pounded into the ground to the extent that they cannot get up again, or even move a single digit of a single finger.

All of that is to say that, in my opinion, a woman is a wimpy, simpering thing only because she is trained by her family and her society to be that way.  Instead of mental and physical toughness, women are taught to be manipulative.  To some degree this is not their fault, but to a greater degree it is.  It is easier for a woman to find her way in life if she plays the delicate little flower who needs a man’s help to carry her groceries home.  She also knows that men like nothing more than to have their egos stroked.  So she plays the damsel in distress, and her target gets to play Sir Galahad.  Women are conniving, and men eat it up because they have fragile egos, largely due to the fact that they know in their heart-of-hearts that they are most definitely not the men their ancestors were.

The roles of men and women in history

Modern men, particularly those on the political and social right, have a romanticized notion of what the historical and biblical roles of men and women were.  I can only assume that they get these strange ideas from watching 1950s television shows.  The 1950s, by the way, are not considered ancient history.  The 1950s were, however, a nasty and regressive time in male – female relations.  The reason so many feminists hate the 1950s is because it was the era when Rosie the Riveter was stripped of her job as welder in an airplane factory, and forced back into the house.  During WWII women had proved themselves in a wide variety of ways.  They had gained self-respect and a sense of independence.  Then the men-folk came back home, and Rosie was forced to play the role of the modern housewife.  That is, she was told to be dependent on her husband for money, food and shelter, and, above all, to behave in a manner that he would consider non-threatening to his fragile masculinity.  Rosie cooked, cleaned, popped out children on a regular basis, and provided sex on demand.  Her husband expected her to keep her weight at an acceptable level, to primp and groom herself to his liking, and to fetch his slippers on demand.

Rosie had never been so humiliated!  Never had womankind been treated as such unequal partners!

Did I say ‘never had womankind been treated as such unequal partners’? Well, hadn’t it always been that way?  Wasn’t it always so?  Doesn’t the bible state that a woman’s place is in the home?  Wasn’t Eve created for this very reason?

No.  Absolutely not.  What I am about to say requires a certain degree of intelligence that I fear many people lack, as well as an ability to perceive subtleties along the lines of the difference between a brick and a rock.  A brick is one thing, and a rock is another.  They are similar, but not the same.

All right.  Let us start with Adam and Eve.  Eve was created as a helpmate for Adam, and a companion.  Adam and Eve did not have a kitchen.  Eve was not confined to the kitchen.  She helped Adam tend the garden.  They worked together, and kept each other company.  There is no record of how they split their roles when they had kids.  One can assume that they shared the job of child-rearing.  However, the fact remains that there is no record of how they split it up.  For those too dense to get it: there is no proof that Eve was the first housewife, just as there is no proof that she was the first feminist.  Period.

Now, let us move a little further down in history.  Men and women eventually settled down into family units and households where the men went out and did the heavy work, while the women stayed home and cooked and cleaned.  Wrong.  Look at a farm family: when there is work to do, all members of the family pitch in to do it.  Women milk cows, help plant and help harvest.  They slaughter animals, too.  As soon as the kids are old enough, they are given jobs to do, too.  Everyone pitches in to the best of their ability, talent and strength.

The same holds true when home-industries start up.  Women contribute to the business in some form or another.  A miller’s wife did not remain in the kitchen.  She helped her husband grind the grain, bag the flour, and deal with the customers.  The success of the business was as much her concern, as it was her husband’s.

That is the historical reality of a woman’s role in the family.  The family was a business, and she was a worker in that business.

That is not the same as what befell poor Rosie the Riveter.  Rosie became a victim of the changing times.  The 1950s brought with it a major change in womens’ roles in the family, and not one for the better.  During the two world wars women had contributed greatly to the war effort.  They were moving forward as radio operators, and front-line nurses, they worked in intelligence and went behind enemy lines as spies.  They flew airplanes from base to base, and in Germany, Hanna Reitsch became a legendary aviatrix.  Then, suddenly, the menfolk decided that women should cook, clean, and had over the control of the family finances to men.  Rosie, who a century earlier would have taken payment from people coming to the mill, or the haberdasher, or other home-enterprise, was suddenly given a weekly allowance for groceries, and worse yet, had to ask her husband for permission to buy a new dress.  She wasn’t even allowed to pay the utilities.  Her husband kept the cheque book locked in a drawer in his den.

All of this is to point out how unnatural a woman’s role had become.  It is no wonder that backlash in the form of feminism would soon occur, or that women were so angry at men.

The right or the wrong of what happened next is not the point I want to make here.  What I want people to understand is that the housewife of the 1950s is an anomaly in the history of the human family – at least in the west.  The problem is that it has become enshrined as the role God has assigned to women by men (and other women) on the political and religious right, and this is dangerous in our day and age.

The role of women as viewed by the political/religious right vs. Islam

I am not going to get into the whole lunatic-left ideology of feminism, because, quite frankly, that rubbish is simply a case of ‘we have a common enemy, therefore we are friends (for now at least – after the revolution, we’ll dump you)’.  What I find very concerning for sensible modern women is how the political/religious right wants to impose the 1950s on women all over again.  This is utter stupidity, and I have to say, it is the result of men who are basically losers being frightened of real women.  Think about it: how different is their view of women in society from that of the radical Islamists they purport to be fighting?

Not very.

In radical Islam, a woman remains in the house at all times.  She cannot leave, unless escorted by a male relative.  The husband is even responsible for the household shopping.  When she does set foot outside the door, she must be clothed correctly, lest she bring shame on her husband and her sons.

The political/religious right believe the same thing: a woman’s place is in the home.  The man controls the finances. He decides on all purchases, and she requires his approval to spend money beyond her pocket-allowance.  When she steps out of the house, she must wear makeup and heels and generally maintain her appearance so that she does not embarrass her husband by looking too fat, too plain, too unkempt.  And, even though she can go out on her own, it is only to hen-parties.  Having coffee with a male friend is really not acceptable.

Islam: a woman must provide her husband with sex on demand.

Political/religious right: a woman must provide her husband with sex when he’s horny.  This includes doing it on the living room sofa during televised ballgames.

Islam: a woman has no right to vote.

Political/religious right: women voting fucks things up.

Oh, and here comes the big one… .

Islam: an unmarried woman is a disgrace to her family.  Women must marry and produce offspring.  It is the will of Allah.

Political/religious right: an unmarried woman is a thing of horror.  Women were created for one reason, and one reason only – to produce offspring.  That is what God made them for.

Well, no.  The political/religious right has been ignoring important parts of scripture, and applying only those parts that support its agenda.  Well, in Luke 20, and in Matthew 22, Jesus says something quite different.  In fact, it is based on these scriptures that the monastic life got its start.  Jesus clearly says that the children of this age (his own) marry and are given in marriage, but that in the age to come, they will neither marry, nor be given in marriage, because they will be like the angels (paraphrased).  So, marriage, as we know it, is not God’s will for humans.  It is an aberration resulting from a fallen state.  Humans, and that includes women, who chose not to marry are not acting against God’s will.  We are acting as He made us, and if you believe in Jesus, then you also believe that all the old rules and traditions are no more.  The only rules a true believer must follow are those set out by Jesus himself – and Jesus said marriage would one day be no more.

That is a brief synopsis of a complicated situation.  So now, to the bones of the dilemma.  The left is aligning itself with a foreign religion that is oppressive to women, much in the same way that all the parties opposed to the rule of the Shah in Iran aligned themselves with an Islamic group in order to overturn the existing state of things.  But, in Iran (this comes from someone I once knew who was involved in that revolution), those same groups were sucker-punched by the Islamists and denied their part of the pie.  Bit by bit they were driven out, imprisoned, executed and exiled.  That is the fate that awaits the radical left in the west.  They haven’t learned their history.

The right claims to be opposed to this foreign religion, but we have seen some lackluster opposition to it.  Why would the Austrian president be so la-dee-dah about the fact that women will probably one day have to go under the veil in Europe? (FYI: I am not saying he is right-wing – I am simply using his behaviour as an example.) Well… maybe because, on some level, this is what men who are not like the men of old really want.  The idea of dominating women is appealing to weak men, particularly men on the political/religious right.  As disgusting as it seems, women are actually better off with the ‘feminist’ men of the left, men who are terrified of playing the man, than they are with these fake ‘macho’ men of the right, who have history and religion all wrong.  This is not good for those women who are not the conniving, manipulative type, though.  We – normal, natural women – are now caught between several forces who want to strip us of our person-hood.  If Islam wins, we are screwed.  If the right wins, we are screwed.  If the left wins, with their men-can-have-vaginas nonsense, we are really screwed.

All I can say is ‘God help us all’, because nobody else seems to have the sense or the balls to do it.