… by “the young Scot” as I call him. You can call him a young Scot apologetic if you like … he’s been roundly criticised and applauded by roughly equal numbers.
The first obvious enemies are going to be the Dawkins types, inc. university academics (I know them well), also dark arts uppities such as masons, the illumined, euroroyals, black nobility, fabians, other nations e.g. China, Arabs, Babylonian Israel (Rothschilds, Sabbateans, Franks), the Venetian push (see La Rouche) … there are just so many baddies who would attack.
My reply to those who say there was no Moses, no Abraham, no Noah, it’s all just a ruse by one ethnicity from ancient times … is ok, where are your receipts, your final proof? Because I see plenty of evidence for much of it, inc. Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian et al. Why should you frame the argument your way? I’m framing mine based on a lifetime of reading too.
What I like about the young Scot, his choice of bible excepted, is that he does seem straight, exploratory … as I am. You see, I did not come to my view by some instant Damascene moment … I had one at 12 but then largely went off and lived the same life as most westerners, at one point a naughty boy, trying this and that, partial to the female.
But where my mates so easily fell into what I call the Royal Society, Fabian hegemony, zeitgeist (so academically respectable, so politically correct), I stood at a distance and said why on earth are all these documents not documents? They very much are, just as much as Enoch. For a purpose? For sure. But a Sherlock Holmes would try to clear his mind of a priori prejudice, long enough to read as dispassionately as possible.
The young Scot has simplified for his viewers, yes … e.g. the Semiramis, Nimrod, Tammuz tale, the story of Ur and Uruk, the ziggurats … but why not? He’s read quite widely, whereas Colonel Harrumph types, professional atheists, have done diddly squat by comparison … they’re just not interested.
Which eventually comes down to “old wives’ tales”, myths, legends … what is a “myth” after all? Is it not a history which the hegemony rejects at the time? What of Oz aborigine Dreamtime? People made what sense they could of the things they encountered … astrology, alchemy, annunaki. But there’s been a consistency all the same, from ancient times, much from oral tradition, then written. Dead Sea scrolls? Piltdown Man?
Do I buy Joseph of Aramathea in what is now England? Why not … but also why? We know why Blake wanted it. And Yeats across the ditch wanted his Celtic identity. Also, do you trust a Scot from the home of paganism? Goodness, even the bleedin’ Scottish Rite is seated up there. Which in turn is Templar. And if we’re starting on that … then we’re also talking Franks, Welfs, Third Temple, Genoa.
A huge bleedin’ field, innit? Were you born back then with total knowledge of all things at all points of history? Excuse me if a slight smile appears at the corner of the lips and a sparkle in the eyes. Where’s the humility of the scholar gone?
Lastly from me just now … why would youtube uploaders who are capable of clips of any length from any openly available movie … find it so difficult to run the most important scene in the movie imho? 12 bleedin’ seconds in one upload only from a major movie? Why? Why so constrained and curtailed on youtube?
Or put another way:
