Origins and history of Abrahamism

NLI Seattle conference presentation script

Martin Štěpán is a senior fellow of the Natural Law Institute and specializes in integrating insights from the rest of the internet right into the Institute’s work.

This is the script to my second presentation in Seattle. Preparation for the upcoming conference took precedence over Substack now, original content will be coming back in two weeks.

---

This presentation is going to cover history and tactics of Abrahamism and if you’re new to our work, you’ll be surprised that I will not be covering only the three Abrahamic religions, but I trust it will all make sense in the end. Abrahamism as we use it is not a term for a single group strategy, but a set of tactics shared by different groups across different time periods for different purposes, named as such both because the three Abrahamic religions exemplify but also because so does the character of Abraham himself. I need to preface this by saying that I will not be presenting the following narrative with absolute certainty of everything I say and that all of my opinions may not be shared by other fellows. My goals is to present as best understanding of this history as I currently have and can fit into my allotted time, and I apologize that I will not be giving most of these topics space they would individually deserve and will especially in modern era skipping over a lot, with the intention being only to show the origins, the shared threads, and where we are today. The intent is not to blame anyone, merely to understand the strategy so we may become resistant to it.

Contrary to what you’d expect, we will not be starting with Abraham and will instead be going to ancient Sparta. Spartans are most associated with discipline, heroism and fanatical zeal but what we need to understand here is the conditions at home, produced by the law of mythical Lycurgus. First characteristic was radical egalitarianism, every citizen getting the same share of land and property allotted. No one was to act in self-interest, all was to be motivated by shared benefit. Currency was made of iron to make it impractical to carry around in large quantities and unacceptable in other states, isolating Sparta from foreign goods and making it impossible for the rich to have any meaningful advantage over the poor. All superfluous arts and luxuries were banned. Privacy was effectively outlawed, with everyone forced to eat prescribed meals in common.

Women were forced to take on masculine sports such as wrestling to exorcise tenderness out of them and both sexes would be naked at processions and festivals, with women shaming manhood of those whose conduct in war was not up to standard. Marriage was promoted by forcing old unmarried men into naked processions in winter while singing self-degrading songs. Brides had their hair shaved and got dressed in men’s clothes for their wedding night, with the bridegroom going back to sleeping with other men afterwards and only meeting with their wives when unobserved, often in the dark. At the same time, providing access of wives to other fit men was seen as honorable.

Children were seen not as property of their parents but of the state and upon birth were carried to be examined by the elders who decided to assign fit ones to be brought up in one of the other households and unfit ones to be thrown into a chasm.

From seven years old, all boys would be educated in the same schools to ensure ideological conformity and following of orders. From twelve years old, they had no shoes, a single coat for a year with baths reserved for only a few days each, slept outside and only being allowed very small allowance of food, being expected to steal the rest with the threat of whipping should they be caught.

 All of this, as you may know, was running on agricultural slave labor of the Helots. Sparta was a completely synthetic society without any connection to history before the law of Lycurgus got imposed and it’s unclear whether Lycurgus was even real or invented as a later justification. Its laws were artificially made up with political goals as opposed to naturally emerging via people negotiating and eliminating antisocial behavior.

With norms of Sparta established, we’re moving to Athens, a participatory government of all free adult male citizens, only interrupted and replaced during and after the Peloponnesian War by oligarchic revolutions. It is before this period that Socrates was teaching the youths and whilst we know little about the details of his teachings beyond were different pictures painted by his defenders and his critic but we understand that he was deviating significantly from the traditional religion and worship of the pantheon, claimed to have his own communication with God, developed his own personal system of morality and taught his student to question traditional authority. At least three of his students including Alcibiades, Charmides and Critias turned into Spartan collaborators during the war and the last was among the Thirty Tyrants, the oligarchs chosen to manage Athens after its loss.

Critias was a militant atheist who believed religion has only ever been a means to control the masses and unleashed terror in his war on traditional religion to bring about his utopian vision and had no scruples about any action that would lead there, having no moral code to restrain his actions. The rule of him other oligarchs was a complete failure, they were overthrown by democrats who regrouped in exile, democracy and old traditions were restored, and Socrates promptly condemned to death for a vague charge of corrupting the youth, with specifics not mentioned due to general amnesty.

It is in this context that a relative of Critias and Charmides and another student of Socrates, Aristocles, known by his wrestler nickname Platon, starts developing his philosophy and his own utopian political vision. Even before or right after the death of Socrates, he got involved in a coup against the tyrant of Syracuse Dionysius, although details of this involvement differ between the sources.

Plato’s philosophy exists exclusively in the form of Socratic dialogues where the vehicle for Plato’s philosophy is fictional portrayal of Socrates who typically confronts likewise fictional portrayal of other citizens of Athens who badly argue strawmen of various moral or political positions, with Socrates asking leading questions that produce either no resolution at all, leaving everyone confused, or gets the interlocutors to agree with Socrates on Plato’s positions and on other occasions seemingly hiding Plato’s real positions within speeches of the Socrates’ opponents. We will not be going over metaphysics such as theory of forms, our interest is in the primary political works, those being the Republic and the Laws.

The propositions in the Republic clearly demonstrate infatuation with the Spartan system, such as women and children as shared property of the state, with children ignorant of their biological parents and parents of children. Pairs of adults were to be chosen for reproduction by the rulers to achieve eugenic breeding. Indoctrination of children would start from early years, traditional religion with imperfect and capricious gods, including Homer’s works, was to be rejected, outlawed and replaced by entirely good gods. Citizens would be made to accept their predetermined social roles using a noble lie. This inclusion was conceivably a reaction to the failure of Critias’ atheist rule. All imitative art was to be banned. Slavery was only allowable if the subjects were non-Greeks. All of this is managed and enforced by an unimpeachable philosopher king with a class of guardian enforcers, effectively putting Plato’s class into dominance over the whole project. The was to be need of rule of law as indoctrinated citizens would never act unlawfully. The city serves as a metaphor for the soul and but this being the idea of a perfect city to represent the perfect soul nonetheless tells us a lot.

The Laws in contrast is the only surviving dialogue not to feature Socrates, his role replaced by Athenian Stranger, and deviates from the design of the city of the Republic in various respects, being more realistic, allowing some private property and private families and having written laws, most of the dialogue covering those.

Of mention are also Timaeus, describing the whole world designed by a single god, the Demiurge, Phaedo concerning immortality of the soul, and Gorgias, which contains the judgement of the bare souls, sending sinful ones to Tartarus and virtuous ones to the Isles of the Blessed.

Plato was known to burn books of other philosophers rather than even trying to compete on some supposed marketplace of ideas. His own philosophy continued to inspire generations of philosophers following him, but he didn’t live to see his political system put into practice.

And this this is where we move to ancient history of the Jewish people. In so far we can trace it back, it appears the kingdoms of Israel and Judah emerge in hills of Canaan out of Canaanite civilization in 10^th century BC or earlier at a time when Canaan itself has already been weakened and largely abandoned, with Jerusalem then being but a small unfortified town. The Canaanites that didn’t become Israelites were absorbed into Philistines and Phoenicians.

At that time, Israelites continued to partake in Canaanite polytheistic religion, with Yahweh gaining ascendancy over other Canaanite gods, though at that time still having a consort Asherah.

In 8^th century, kingdom of Israel fell to the Neo-Assyrian Empire whereas Judah became a vassal state and continued growing until the end 7^th century when Assyria collapsed, and Judah, including the temple in Jerusalem, got destroyed in competition between Neo-Babylonian Empire and Egypt. Aaronite priests of the temple at Bethel in Benjamin are gaining prestige during this period while Zadokites of Jerusalem are in exile and basis of unique religion starts being formulated by these exiles, informing their views on now failed kingship, their nation and divinity. This is where the earliest books of the Bible, the books of Prophets as well as the basis of the historical books, such as likely entirely fictitious united monarchy of Solomon and David, originate from. Noteworthy patterns are justification of Yahwist monopoly of control, every act of kings that promoted worship of other gods or deviated from priest’s preferences portrayed as evil and emphasis of distinct Jewish identity distinguishing themselves from all others by costly traditions such as circumcision and observance of Sabbath.

In 6^th century, Persia conquer Babylon and exiles are allowed to return to Jerusalem and build the Second Temple, ideological views of the exiles subsequently imposed on the rest of the population. Yahweh is presented to the Persians as a universal God, same as their own Ahura Mazda, while internally, her remains understood as a tribal god.

Persia gets itself conquered by Alexander the Great at the end of 4^th century and the Jewish region becomes part of Ptolemaic Kingdom and later Seleucid Empire, followed by Maccabean Revolt against Seleucids in the middle of 2^nd century, becoming semi-autonomous under Hasmonean dynasty only to become a vassal state of Roman Republic in 1^st century BC and province of the empire at the turn of a millennium.

It is under Ptolemys that Jews are coming under influence of Hellenic philosophy, and it is at this time that Library of Alexandria is getting built under Ptolemy II. The narrative goes that he tried to collect every possible text in the world and get it translated to Greek and asked seventy-two Hebrew translators to provide translation of Jewish law known as Septuagint. However, we have good reasons to believe much of it was invented on the spot. Pentateuch and the following books bear clear marks of Hellenic and particularly Platonic influence.

The creation story appears to be inspired by creation narrative presented in Timaeus more so than any other known creation story, Yahweh becoming Plato’s Demiurge, a universal creator God, despite still acting as a Jewish tribal God throughout the text and is explicitly treated as such in pre-exilic texts. Moses performs the same role as Lycurgus, a mythical lawgiver who was given law from God a millennium ago to make people accept it rather than something that has only just been invented to justify rule of the priests, in the place of Plato’s philosophers. Laws of Moses bear clear marks of being derived from Plato’s Laws. Judges are based on Greek heroes, Samson is Heracles all the way to his end by female deceit, Gideon and his three hundred is Leonidas.

Other sources include Sumerian flood myth we can find in the Epic of Gilgamesh or myth of Sargon being let down the river in a basket as a child. Story of Exodus is of interest as a likely reaction to history written by Egyptian priest Manetho where he describes invasion of Semitic people Hyksos who tried to take over Egypt and were chased out by the Pharaoh and his son. It’s evident that the prophets of the earlier books had no knowledge of these myths.

Many of these similarities were already seen at the time but the explanation of Biblical adherents has been that it was the Greeks and everyone else who stole from the Jews rather than vice versa.

Whereas Platonic project was justified by supposed internal good of the society, the project of these Jewish priests was quite a bit grander, and we’ll demonstrate this by going over what the text is teaching.

The story of Adam and Eve involves an evidently not omniscient Yahweh who bans first humans, or in any case first Jews, from gaining knowledge via eating a fruit from a specific tree. A snake appears and tells Eve that Yahweh is lying to them, and they will be like gods upon eating the fruit, attaining knowledge of good and evil. They do and it turns out Yahweh was indeed lying when they don’t die and become more knowledgeable. Yahweh nonetheless kicks them out of Eden for this. This story teaches the Jews to put faith only in Yahweh’s representatives and distrust foreigners who may be trying to teach them new knowledge, especially concerning morality that contradicts the priest teaching.

The story of Abram in Egypt is that of him prostituting his sister-wife Sarai to Pharaoh with plausible deniability, with the Pharaoh getting punished by Yahweh for sleeping with her rather than Abram, then renamed Abraham, for lying.

His grandson Jacob scams his brother Esau out of his birthright by deceiving his father. This is treated as an entirely legitimate way to obtain something and Jacob is rewarded by becoming Israel, the father of the whole Jewish nation.

His son Joseph in conspires with the Egyptian government, excessively taxing the Egyptians of their grain only to subsequently use a famine to get them to sell him all their property and then themselves into slavery in exchange for getting some of their own grain back. Jews that afterwards settle in Egypt are supposedly then enslaved for no reason at all other than Egyptians being mean. Yahweh hardening Pharao’s heart later in the Exodus is among the examples of gentiles being mere puppets to teach Jews lessons.

Funny example of inconsistency is however when Yahweh is unable to deal with Hittites because they have chariots, showing not every author considered him all-powerful.

Of further note is a Book of Esther where a Jewish woman marries into a Persian royal family and manipulates the king for the benefit of her nation.

We need to talk about character of Yahweh, the jealous god. Despite supposedly being a creator of all nations in the world, he demonstrates total hatred and contempt for them and commands his chosen to destroy their places of worship, just like Critias in the old religion, and often outright exterminate the entire populations in conquered territories. Such victims include Canaanites, Midianites, inhabitants of Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir and Hazor and Amalekites.  Jews are forbidden to make any pacts with gentile nations and their gods, effectively making cooperative relations impossible.

This is part of Yahweh’s Covenant with the Jews which demands exclusive worship and unquestioning obeisance of his commands in exchange for them forever remaining separate and gaining total supremacy over the rest of mankind. They’re promised a country with great and prosperous cities they have not built, with houses full of good things they have not provided, with wells they have not dug, with vineyards and olive trees they have not planted. They are promised sucking on milk of nations and wealth of kings, to be creditors to many nations and ruled by none.

Mosaic law takes the artificiality of law still further, claiming that law is equivalent with God’s commands, unchangeable and making it impossible to adapt to new circumstances.

The strategy is self-reinforcing, whenever victories are gained, that is evidence of Yahweh’s blessings, and he needs to be worshipped harder. Whenever losses are experienced, that is the evidence of disobedience and Yahweh needs to be worshipped harder and his commands obeyed more accurately. The Book of Job teaches not to question Yahweh regardless of how cruel his actions and decisions.

A thread of messianism runs through the texts, first referring to Cyrus as the messiah and later promising a future messiah from Davidic line who would restore Israel.

What we’re looking at in the Tanakh, known to Christians as the Old Testament, is nothing other than an application of a Platonic political program for Jewish parasitic world domination, with their priesthood at the top.

The entire ideology is also completely materialistic. Throughout the whole text, there is no sign of souls or afterlife. Sheol appears to be nothing but literal burial in the ground. Where other gods reside in heaven and rewards or punishments are promised in the hereafter, Jewish god resides on Earth and promises the material rewards in this life. The only immortality Jews are promised is that of their nation as a whole. The so-maligned worship of idols of other nations also points to this, the claim being that literal stone and wood are being worshipped rather than these serving as a symbolic connection to actual divinity.

And here with the first example of first proper Abrahamic ideology, we will examine it as a group strategy. The nature of the entirety of Semitic people appears to be feminine, as even Aesop attests in one of his usually ignored fables where Arabs steal all the lies Hermes was trying to distribute around the world. And it is this feminine nature that is appealed to. Extreme collectivism, simply following an authority, not having to make any moral judgements beyond a very simple one (we’re good, everyone else is evil, if it’s good for us, it’s moral), getting status and power over others and exploiting them without any sense of responsibility.

The very notion of being the chosen people serves to maintain cohesion because why would any feminine individual want to defect from the highest status people in the world? Ideological conformity is enforced via feminine means of coercion, deviation leads to ostracization and again, you don’t want to be ostracized from the chosen, do you? Status within the group goes to the priesthood, that is to the most verbally skilled members who can best justify the ideology.

Next typical feature of Abrahamism is universalism. It can never be simply an organization for some isolated group, it demands taking over the world and changing it. It’s not universalistic in the sense of everyone in the world being part of the same group if they believe the same thing as some of the subsequent ideologies would be so perhaps the more applicable term is globalism.

Finally, we identify seduction with a false promise of freedom from laws of nature as shared thread through Abrahamistic ideologies and yet Judaism is where I struggle with this as the promise of their pact with Yahweh appears to be getting delivered on, sort of.

Unsurprisingly, a psychopathic behavior of such strategy leads to hatred of other nations and Jewish feminine minds, unable to systematize causality, take this as an irrational prejudice towards them and in a typical feminine fashion, everyone else is accused of trying to genocide despite their own religion being the only explicitly genocidal one.

Continuing Jewish history where we ended, it wasn’t only Israelites who came under Hellenic and Roman domination but so did their Canaan-descended cousins, Phoenicians, including their empire of Carthage. These were largely mercantile cosmopolitan populations and could have very well been sympathetic to Israelites due to hatred of their shared enemy and the messianic promises. It seems highly likely that these populations contributed millions of converts to Judaism, not experiencing the usual entry costs due to already practicing circumcision, the irony of Canaanites becoming the new Israelites notwithstanding.

These new Jews easily outnumbered the original Israelite stock and quickly became elites of the religion due to their already accumulated wealth and expertise in mercantilism. They brought it in their own religious traditions and symbols and somehow managed to reconcile them with the Israelite holy book, giving us the origin of rabbinical Judaism and sects such as Pharisees. All the Jews we’ll be speaking of from here on out originate from this population, including Ashkenazim and Sephardim whose progenitors originate as males of this population mixing converted north Italian and Spanish women respectively.

Time to get into Christianity. We don’t really know what happened, whether Christ was real and if so, whether his characterization in the text is anything close to the inspiration but it’s clear the origin of Christianity as an ideology and a movement can be traced to Saul of Tarsus, known as Paul the Apostle. Paul appears to have been trying to get out of the bind of Judaism, in letter to Galatians, he refers to it as curse of the law.

A popular strain of belief at this time was Gnosticism. This is a post hoc name invented in the 19the century by German sociologists, nobody at the time called himself a Gnostic, but there is a clear strain of thought found in Nag Hammadi library that recognized Yahweh’s character for what he is but unfortunately accepted his pretensions to being the Demiurge and thus concluded material world must likewise be evil and that there is other actual divinity that Christ represented and emphasized attainment of spiritual knowledge to see through the illusion. Some of Paul’s own beliefs may have originated there and that their notion of celestial Christ only later got conflated with the human character of Jesus and that his resurrection originally referred to apotheosis, the Greek concept of transcending ordinary human life and after death becoming divine, and influence of Jewish materialists turned this into literal physical resurrection.

Next to this, we have a faction of Romanized Jews who sided with the Romans in their conquest of Judea against the separatists, bought their freedom with accumulated treasure that presumably helped Vespasian come out victorious in the year of the four emperors, accepted that Roman power can’t be resisted militarily and argued for assimilation while trying to produce favorable conditions for themselves in the Empire, among them Flavius Josephus famous for his surviving history of the conflict with the Romans as well as apologetics of the largely fictional or skewed Jewish history. It is reasonable to assume these prominent Jews would use their influence to manipulate Rome in the same way Babylonian exiles previously manipulated the Persians and support development of a new ideology that is tolerant and supportive of the Jews. Likewise, the Roman emperor would have an interest in assimilating the Jews instead of them continuing in their separatist ways and may have contributed to the development of Christianity.

In the first half of the second century, the first Christian canon was compiled by Marcion of Sinope, included Paul’s letters along with the gospel, now known as Gospel of Marcion and no Tanakh, at that point still not known as the Old Testament, which Marcion, just like the Paul and Gnostics, regarded as evil. The gospel of Marcion contains no references to the old Jewish religion and while mainstream view is that Marcion edited Gospel of Luke to be in line with his beliefs, this remains contested with the alternative views being both being independently based on an older source or Marcion’s Gospel later getting injected with pro-Jewish elements, yet some anti-Jewish themes have persisted in the surviving Gospels, such as when Satan tempts Christ in Gospel of Matthew with the same pact that Yahweh has made with the Jews.

Meanwhile, Carthaginian converts gained an influence in the Catholic Church and these became the source of Judaization on Christianity, slandering the Gnostic faction as Manicheans, with Tertullian calling Paul the father of all heresies. It is this faction that eventually won out the ideological battle, won as all these battles are via networking and violence, and cemented its dominion in Council of Nicaea that declared one true Christian faith, including the incoherent concept of Trinity, and every alternative interpretation declared heretical. Canonical book of Revelations in particular appears to be entirely Jewish, having little to do with Christ.

Agustine of Hippo, another Carthaginian, later called Jews the older brothers in faith who must be protected by the Church as such. Other Augustine’s claims were that evil doesn’t exist, that it’s all part of God’s plan, calling the old gods demons, itself a subversion of a Greek concept of daemon, and that it doesn’t matter if what our earthly city is destroyed since we’ll be rewarded in heaven, the City of God, specifically referring to disintegration of the Western Empire in the 5^th century. One might wonder whether he wasn’t happy about it.

Where surviving Christian mythos is concerned, the life of Jesus is modeled on a typical Greek heroic myth, possibly also taking influence from Egyptian Horus, with the metaphysics of souls and afterlife much more familiar to gentile peoples taken once again from Plato’s works, and this was among the reasons why it was able to gain so many European converts, along with prestige and connections that it started to represent. On the other hand, in a typical Platonist/Abrahamist fashion, there was increasing suppression and oppression of those that held onto their old pre-Christian beliefs, with the world pagan originally being a slanderous term equivalent to modern redneck or hick. The symbols and places of worship of the old order were defaced and destroyed, and books burnt. Any negative reaction from to Christian behavior was turned into a martyrdom narrative without any mention of what was getting punished.

The influence however went both ways, Christianity, Judaized as it was, became more pagan-like due to taking over existing Roman religious institutions and later to convincing Germanic peoples to convert, making Christianity more folkish and outward looking, more in line with the spirit and strategy of European peoples, a sort of mirror image of influence of Phoenician and Carthaginian converts on Judaism.

All this only touches on the rabbit hole that is early history of Christianity and various competing theories that we could spend all day on, including a possible hoax of conversion of emperor Constantine or influence of cults of Mithras and Sol Invictus, but the point is to show development of Christianity was by no means straightforward but a result of various competing interests and competing beliefs trying to attain domination and this is probably why it appears both pro-Jewish or anti-Jewish depending on what text you’re looking at.

As a strategy, Christianity copies Judaism in various respects, all the feminine means of coercion are in place but at least in comparison, Christ’s Sermon on the Mount is genuinely a largely actual moral teaching that motivates treat each other well, be forgiving and take some responsibility. It is universalistic in a complete sense, breaking down tribal and familial loyalties, thus promoting extreme individualism, and setting conversion of everyone in the world as a goal, justified as saving them. The false promises and false threats have all been moved to the afterlife.

Jews during all this, of course, didn’t all convert, those that stuck with the old mix of Israelite and Canaanite religion developed a murderous hatred for Christianity and produced Talmud, a book that largely contains Jesus boiling in excrement, advice on deceiving and defrauding gentiles but otherwise largely pedantic nonsense and hair-splitting over precise interpretation of the Jewish law with all sorts of exceptions, sometimes meant to fool their own god, with those recent TikToks where they come up with ridiculous schemes to something during Sabbath without it supposedly being work being a nice example. Reproductive selection pressure specifically favored those most capable of inventing such justifications and excuses, further selecting for female cognition and associated verbal intelligence. Messianism was retained, the supposed Messiah supposed to be a warlord who’d bring about victory over and submission of the gentile nations and there have a few failed attempts by supposed Messiahs, most famously Simon bar Kohba.

In the early 7^th century, Islam emerges as a reaction to power vacuum created by wars of Eastern Empire and Persia, again justifies itself by being the one true interpretation of the message revealed to the line of Adam all the way to Jesus, while calling Christians stupid for believing in the Trinity and that God would sink as low as to produce a human son. They proceed on a rampage across north Africa, Middle East, eastern Asia, murdering, pillaging, enslaving, raping, taking war brides and making inroads into Europe as far north as France and as far east as Philippines, precedent for this murderous ideology clearly set in the Old Testament. The myths of Islamic golden age persisting to this day, to the extent of being true being exclusively a product of stolen wealth and books that they didn’t burn as well as smarter Persian converts, and never being a paradise for common people living under it or anywhere nearby. Europe was eventually able to organize enough resistance to drive Muslims out of Europe and go on the offensive via Crusades.

As a strategy, Islam is today thought of as a masculine by likes of Andrew Tate, delusion created purely out of Islam being violent and seemingly keeping women down. In fact, women are internally the biggest enforcers of the Islamic norms, all the feminine coercion of previous Abrahamic religions is still there. Universalism of Christianity persists, with anyone technically being able to convert into it, but with obvious significant differences in lengths Muslims will go to to promote this, with genocide being just as good the alternative, so long as no non-Muslims remain. Motivation is provided once again by false promise of afterlife but this time consisting of eternal sexual access to 72 beautiful virgins. They’ve further managed to develop an extremely feminine philosophy that doesn’t recognize causality. While there were some attempts to modernize Islam among more civilized peoples such as Persians, now Iranians, the radical and primitive dogmatic element tends to win.

Jews, while often on the receiving end along with Christians, Hindus and Buddhists, kept looking for opportunities to profit from fostering the conflict, playing both sides against each other and getting involved in Mediterranean slave trade.

Jewish coexistence with European Christians in general has been characterized by them trying to corrupt their morals, bait them into hazard of addiction such as alcoholism and use of exorbitant and compound interest on loans for property seizure while Christians themselves are unable to practice interest lending. Blood libel also appears and there’s at least some evidence that these weren’t false accusations, possibly an example of north African converts maintaining their Canaanite tradition of child sacrifice. Far too often, Church would protect Jews accused to these crimes and subject to violent response from the peasants.

But eventually starts recognizing their disloyalty and their negative and tries to forcefully convert them into Catholicism, which, along with apostasy, meaning leaving the faith, and heresy, culminates in Inquisition, Catholic ideological enforcement. In Spain and Portugal in 16^th and 17^th century, this was primarily motivated by growing influence of crypto-Jews, Jews who have outwardly converted to Christianity, usually due to being forced to, but soon figuring out the benefits of having access to all the networks accessible to Christians while still inwardly keeping the Jewish law and acting for the benefit of the Jews. Some have gone on to marry into aristocracies and gained influence by doing so, a feminine hypergamy in action.

In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas would produce his magnum opus Summa Theologica that reintegrates work of the ancients, especially Aristotle, back into European thought, and successfully combines natural law with the scripture, explaining God’s commands as laws designed by a rational lawgiver for a good of the community. He may have unknowingly doomed European Christianity by doing this as Abrahamism doesn’t survive under scrutiny of causality.

Church meanwhile is undergoing schisms with theological disputes on the surface and power struggles underlying them, first Great Schism in the 11^th century where the Eastern Orthodoxy is getting away from the papal impositions. Among the interesting differences in theology is the Eastern church openly acknowledging Christianity’s Platonic heritage while Catholic maintains Christianity as entirely Jewish.

This same ideology taken to its conclusion would motivate more schisms, revolutions and states abandoning papal dominion and rather obvious corruption of the Church in the West, justified by dissents of Wycliffe, Hus, Luther and Calvin, among the theological complaints ironically being recent insertions of Greek philosophy that have nothing to do with Scripture into Church’s theology.

Actions of Protestant revolutionaries, beginning with Hussites, were reminiscent of those of Critias and of Christians in Roman Empire, once again destroying the symbols of the old faith. Hussites, like Church before them, considered themselves a New Israel, i.e. new chosen people, and got inspired by Israelite Old Testament cruelty and intolerance and like Israelites believed that no action that promotes interests of this New Israel and correct belief can be wrong. Catholic Church was a new Babylon and Jan Žižka seen as a reincarnation of Joshua. Jews collaborated with the Hussites and Hus himself, just like in subsequent Protestant revolutions. These Jews viewed Catholic Church as oppressive to them and wanted to bring about more beneficial conditions for themselves.

Hussites would go on to create parallel societies on the hills, naming them Tábor after biblical Mount Tabor, with radical egalitarianism, no private property, nudism and sexual liberation, in many ways resembling Spartans. And since the movement involved many peasants who stopped tilling their fields, not pursuing the revolution to its end ceased to be an option and victims who had their houses burnt had no option but to join, often buying into the promises of utopia without violence, class differences and property, where power to make decisions would lie in the hands of common people, a heaven on Earth without sin.

Hussite revolution failed after the loss of tactical genius of Žižka, himself in the revolution more out of anti-German and specifically anti-Sigismund sentiment rather than same utopian belief, but subsequent Protestant revolutions succeeded.

In 16^th century, Isaac Luria would produce Lurianic Kabbalah, named after him, which contains the concept of Tikkun Olam, meaning healing the world, which in practice means transforming the world for Jewish benefit. This isn’t a new concept; it’s merely putting into different words what Jews have already been doing the whole time as part of Yahweh’s pact.

Following the enlightenment in the 17^th and 18^th century, revolutions attained justifications via very different materialistic false promises and yet in practice, much was identical. French revolutionaries were motivated by ideology of Jean-Jacques Rousseau arguing private property is the source of inequality, equality itself necessary for liberty, and some general will of the people which would in practice once again be ideological conformity. Robespierre was effectively in the role of Critias, chopping off head of everyone who didn’t go along with his program. The republican regime tried to eliminate the old Catholic religion, replacing it with artificial religion of reason worship and even instituting a new calendar.

After failure of the new French regime, Napoleon takes power and assembles Grand Sanhedrin, a Jewish court, to answer his questions about whether Jews can be assimilated into French society. Rabbis lie to him and are rewarded with Jews being granted citizenship and getting freed in every territory Napoleon conquers, for which he is declared another Messiah before he gets defeated, an event that proved to be very profitable for Nathan Rothschild in Britain due to clearing out gilt market after getting early news about Napoleon’s defeat. Here again, they played both sides as they would in many subsequent conflicts, demonstrating once again their only loyalty is to themselves.

The influence of enfranchised Jews everywhere grew thanks to their international networking and new ability to acquire more wealth than ever before. Throughout 18^th and 19^th century, there was a Jewish movement Haskalah, which involved outwardly acting as regular members of society, though as crypto-Jews in Portugal and Spain before, this involved no internal change in strategy, the consistent ethical question remained: “Is it good for the Jews?”

These Reform Jews try to portray Baruch Spinoza as one of the most important figures of the enlightenment, even though he was previously ostracized and wasn’t seen as a remarkable philosopher and nothing about his philosophy was particularly Jewish, mostly being similar to Descartes, in fact, in his Theologico-Political Treatise, he identifies Yahweh as Jewish tribal god, that Jews are kept to kept in existence by their hatred of all other people and disputing their chosenness.

This is part of a larger program to portray Jews as uniquely intelligent and moral nation and that Judaism is a moral beacon for the rest of humanity. Now actively involved in gentile politics, they start advocating secularism and tolerance that would remove all obstacles in their way.

Russian Bolshevik revolution was motivated by similar reasoning as French along with some economic pseudoscience of Karl Marx and oppression narrative of capitalists vs. proletariat, now once again by driven by actual Jews with grievances towards the Tzarist regime and using the promise of communist utopia as an excuse to get into power, Lenin being the new Critias, with Trotsky’s permanent revolution being a new version of Tikkun Olam, intended to bring about communist revolution across the whole world.

Soviet Russia would subsequently adopt anti-racist policies and sexual liberation at a time when these were still unthinkable positions but over time had to push the latter back as it proved unworkable, as did its Marxist economic policies, similarly leading to adoption of some level of market economy.

Mao’s later revolution would yet again fit the same format as the previous ones with explicit effort to destroy the Four Olds, old ideas, old culture, old customs and old habits. And just like Soviet Russia, the extremes had to be abandoned and China today would much more accurately be described as a fascist country with communist political formula justifying the regime.

On the American side, revolution was occurring comparatively slowly. Founding fathers were largely deists who’d leave Abrahamism behind if they had the option, Jefferson edited his own version of the Bible that consisted of life and teachings of Jesus purged of any supernatural content and Thomas Paine in his The Age of Reason analyses the Bible and comes to much the same conclusion about Old Testament’s Yahweh as Gnostics and Marcion before. They had to accept population that they had and so enshrined separation of church and state and the federal level as a compromise to enable coexistence of various Protestant sects as well as Catholics, something that would later be abused to invite and protect completely alien and hostile religions.

While Puritans brought in delusional utopian notions of equality and unity of different classes and races that were a major contribution to justifications for the unnecessary bloody civil war, these largely died out in the early 20^th century as Darwinistic explanation for inequality won the debate.

At this time, large numbers of Jewish immigrants, many with communist views and Soviet sympathies, start arriving, bringing their capital with them and start meddling in politics as they were already doing in the British Empire, contributing to the involvement in two disastrous world wars despite the popular isolationist sentiment that leads to Soviets controlling half of Europe and British Empire falling apart. America becomes the global superpower and every ideological development that follows would later infect the rest of the West, if not the world.

One of these would be Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis, a discipline that poses as a scientific psychology but is for the most part just feminine psychologizing, attributing false motives, making absurd connections, sexualizing children, justifying irresponsibility and much of this clearly motivated by Freud’s self-interest and interests of this tribe.

Frankfurt School that moved to America during interwar years, involving figures such as Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse, worked along similar lines, justifying what went wrong in Germany as a product of German nature, explained as authoritarian personality disorder, and after the war would start a process of denazification of West Germany with the approval of the US government. Authoritarian personality disorder included such things as high-investment parenting, not being promiscuous and basically any expression of masculinity. Far from stopping with Germans, this ideology would be imposed on America with the rest of the West following with the entire European culture getting the blame with various founding myths to go along with it, Holocaust with at best highly spurious connections and numbers to what actually happened, ignoring Jewish role in impoverishing the Germans in Weimar Republic and destroying their culture, colonialism with similarly inflated numbers of supposed victims, ignoring how the colonized countries were improved, slavery that ignored the global context of everyone practicing, Europeans and Americans themselves not being involved in actual enslaving, treating slaves far better than anyone else and being the first ones to free the slaves.

All of this remains in effect today as a function of therapeutic state where every belief and behavior that contradicts ruling ideology is psychologized as some kind of pathology, some irrational prejudice, some phobia, some -ism, completely disregarding the real causes, stereotypes being accurate, phobias being justified resistance or disgust sensitivity. Any concern about one’s community and nation and effect that other people’s presence and behavior has on them is considered extremism.

On a related note, there is the pseudoscientific blank-slatism of Franz Boas, Stephen J. Gould and Richard Lewontin who basically lied about observed race differences like skull size or producing a fallacious argument about individuals between different races often being more genetically similar than within one race. These justifications would eventually be widely adopted and used for justifying the 60s revolution with large role played by NAACP, a Jewish advocacy organization outwardly posing as acting in the interest of black Americans. However, the only figureheads they supported would be likes of the communist Martin Luther King who, with prewritten speeches from people behind him, advocated for black inclusion in white society without any responsibility for black behavior that made whites dissociate in the first place. Figures like Malcom X and Marcus Garvey who advocated separation and independence or repatriation into Africa were undermined.

The result was Civil Rights Act that ensured white people can have no spaces reserved for themselves and their only legal means of defense wherever effects of diversity are felt is to move away before diversity would inevitably follow, rinse and repeat. This was made much worse by passing of Hart-Celler act that overturned the popular policy of preserving the ethnic makeup of America, instead letting in anyone who’d work, regardless of effects on shared culture, trust or sense of community.

Civil Rights would justify entitlements to any group that could conceivably be thought of as disadvantaged due to some perceived prejudice or historical injustice which in practice produced a hierarchy that puts everyone above white men.

Equality of the sexes followed this same logic. The first wave feminism of high agency women may have been misguided but only from the second wave feminism with Jewish women like Gloria Steinem taking over did it acquire a character very reminiscent of Judaism with the goal being female supremacy and men in their service while externally presenting itself as merely being concerned with equality and justice.

Sexual liberation would justify total irresponsibility and remove connection between sex and family, with the result, as we see today, being not only fewer people forming families than ever but also fewer people having sex than ever.

Gay rights, once again, follow the same train of thought as the others, ignoring correlations between various sexual and behavioral disorders, presenting regular gay people as perfectly well-adjusted and responsible individuals with the result of their legal equality demonstrating nothing could be further from the truth. Lesbianism was equated with male homosexuality even though in most cases, it really is just a phase and experimentation rather something a woman is born with. This has recently been taken even further with restored transgender ideology of Weimar Republic that states there’s something called gender independent of sex and that one could be born in a wrong body. What it is that’s born in the wrong body is never explained by these people who clearly reject any notion of soul.

For explicit Jewish advocacy, there’s ADL originally founded to posthumously defend the murderer Leo Frank via pressuring the media and businesses, through boycotts and pressuring advertisers.

All these things together culminated in what’s known as wokeness, an inevitable result of Civil Rights that’s nothing but thinly veiled hatred of white people and their civilization. They all share the same promise of utopia after true equality is achieved, an impossibility due to underlying traits of the people involved, and white people, especially men, are portrayed as in the way.

While this is mostly associated with Democrat Party today, Republican Party accepts earlier versions of all this, serves to blow off stream without anything ever getting rolled back, and on top of this being an outlet for Neoconservatives. Neoconservatism is basically just Zionism which former Trotskyists adopted when they figured out global communist revolution isn’t going to work out, that even communist Russia didn’t turn out so well for the Jews. In practice, this means America getting involved in wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel while America’s own borders remain undefended. In light of origin of most modern Jews as Canaanites and original Hebrews staying exactly where they were, their descendants going through conversions to Christianity and Islam, today being Palestinians, the support of propagandized Evangelicals is especially ironic. Canaanites are driving Hebrews out of the Promised Land.

Backing this is Jewish control of the financial system via Federal Reserve, Blackrock and Vanguard that allows pressuring of politicians and businesses to go along with the agenda as well as control mainstream media that allows manipulation of public opinion, most mainstream social media which allows censorship technically not breaking 1^st Amendment and control of Hollywood that allows injection of new myths and morals into public subconscious.

Common aspects across all these different versions of Abrahamism is then seduction with false promise of freedom from laws of nature, usually human nature, and of some utopia that will come about when people in the way are converted or removed. There’s typically some myth of oppression that denies incentives involved and especially how one’s own behavior contributes to how they’re treated, inventing false heroes and false martyrs. People involved are generally feminine population that buys into those promises and myths. It’s particularly attractive to those undesirable on regular markets for association, production or reproduction as they cannot obtain value by providing value to others and so being part of some network where only value they need to provide is to agree with some ideology they don’t even need to understand and feeling undeserved sense of superiority is a very attractive prospect for them.

Internally, it’s dominated by connected and verbally skilled elite capable of providing most elaborate justifications and excuses. It’s a meritocracy of sorts but only in the sense of attaining and using status and influence, not in producing any real-world results beyond this. Feminine means of coercion are used to maintain an ideological conformity and ensuring that their otherwise undesirable members remain undesirable so not to be incentivized to defect. Outsiders are viewed at best as means to an end and never as equals or true allies deserving of reciprocity.

Abrahamists outside of power will make appeals to liberty, tolerance, individualism and equality or whatever values of dominant group are to expand their access to resources and sphere of influence to bring about conditions for revolution. Revolutions either occur fast when enough supporters exist to overthrow previous regime, or slow via march through the institutions and replacing previous elites, and always involve an effort to wipe off past and introduce a fictional one that justifies the new order.

Abrahamists in power will grant the group they deprived of power any of the privileges they themselves demanded and will instead start censoring them and persecuting them even while still portraying themselves as the underdogs and victims, accusing the other of what they are themselves doing. They either don’t hold onto power for long or must be reinterpreted pragmatically to make it compatible with works in the real world, which is why subsequent generations can think of an originally revolutionary ideology and system based on it as somehow conservative and traditional. As long as radicals can hold onto power and maintain fanaticism in their subjects, they’ve been consistently able to punch above their weight.

The question at the end of this is, how do we resist and fight this and how do we immunize ourselves. While I won’t be answering this here beyond hopefully helping you identify an Abrahamic ideology, major goal of our work is precisely this and so hopefully other presenters here along with the rest our available material will provide some answers.

Sources:

I haven’t given proper credits during the presentation due to rushing it but some people’s work had massive impact on my model of history which is reflected here so I’m correcting it here.

Kevin MacDonald: the trilogy on the Jews

Laurent Guyénot: From Yahweh to Zion and Unz articles (not necessarily endorsing everything like stuff on 9/11)

E. Michael Jones: The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit (Certainly not endorsing early chapters where Jones cannot admit there was anything wrong with Old Testament, Jews living according to it, or early Christians, the Bolsheviks of their time. Otherwise very insightful.)

Rurik Skywalker: his Substack, especially The Great Metaphysics Conspiracy series

Ron Unz: The True Origin of the Jews as Khazars, Israelites, or Canaanites

Primary sources:

Plato: The Republic and The Laws

Various anonymous: The Bible

Plutarch: The Life of Lycurgus