Air Brushed Jesus Came From The Zadokites - The Al-Qaeda Of The Day

Nobody has brought the mythical figure of Jesus to life for me more vividly than John Lash. There was a time many years ago when I learned of the historical figure of Jesus (more likely known as Yeshua) described as a freedom fighter, and that resonated with me much more than the white skinned, slightly effeminate hand-lotion and baby talcum powder figure that the Roman (Army) Catholic church has in part fashioned over the centuries. (I hear he was big nosed, swarthy skinned and reeked of garlic but don't ask my sources).

However after listening to and understanding better John Allegro's translation work of the dead sea scrolls with it's description of Jesus as entheogenic mushroom (psilocybin) cult , it is this metaphorical narrative which is just as valid as any other historical account. So we have three templates worthy of closer analysis here. Real life figure (freedom fighter to terrorist), historical revisionist tool of Roman rule portrayed as sacred bleeding heart with Unilever/Proctor&Gamble skin-whitening corporate sponsorship and then finally underground entheogenic mushroom cult allegory. Frankly all three are real in some sense, but paradoxically the latter is the best documented metaphorical narrative as those familiar with the work of Aramaic scholar John Allegro's seminal and Vatican-infuriating work in translating the dead sea scrolls.

But it's John Lash's impartial (non denominational) and scholarly yet human analysis of Jesus the Zadokite or 'of the Zadokim' that I find most healthy for it's challenge to the illusory hijacking by the Roman Catholic church. This action finalises more concretely through a religious codification artfully outlined by Lash with a candid account of Christianity as locked in a victim/perpetrator head-lock complex at a Congregational/sheep/flock level but as a much more aggressive and persecuting entity when proselytizing as a religious body capable of burning and torturing it's way across Europe (and later the New World) in order to snuff out any competing belief systems. In this manner the feminine Pagan and Gnostic traditions contrasted with the pernicious and virus like salvationism ideology of Christianity and was brutally stamped out by Rome despite these peaceful groups' ability  and desire to live with tolerance alongside differing beliefs.

It is the emergence of the Christian/Roman Catholic mint machine that is most incapable of living within it's proselytized gospel of love thy neighbour. If there's one recurring Christian theme since the beginning it is the Grand Canyon reality check between what Christians say and what Christians do. In this way we have the final measure of Rome.

But it is the Zadokim cult where we drill down into the seeds that sprouted into, and were fashioned by, a Roman Catholic Christianity. Their profile is described in the dead sea scrolls and is concisely articulated by John Lash as follows:

 1. A small and intense cult of extremist Jews who formulated their doctrines from King Saul and King Solomon and thus marinated in eight or nine hundred years of exceptionalism gestation before the birth of Jesus. More Branch Dravidian than Heavens Gate in contemporary terms.

2. A belief that they were the most righteous people on Earth (Tzadik/Zadik/צדיק in Hebrew means righteous)

3. A belief they had a contract with God and a mandate to rule over their chosen land and live a life that was so righteous and pure, that they were to be an example before the nations of the Earth.

4. They were xenophobic and had an attitude of retribution and violence towards anybody who did not recognise them in their self-appointed mission.

Sound familiar? 

To me it's the DNA of the Abrahamic faiths from the intolerance of Islam, exceptionalism of Judaism and the righteous warring of globalised Christianity.

All of these definitions were extracted from the dead sea scrolls by among others Robert Eisenman's (or Professor Robert H. Eisenman's) translation of those records along with his New Testament Code work.

I see more of this interpreation in the veneer of the redeemer complex that Christianity proselytizes  abroad alongside the victim/perpetrator legitimization it preaches at home. It's a brilliant memeplex for controlling a planet long after people have stopped attending church or reading the mickey mouse bible. Such is the power of ideas. I mean look at how the white man speaks and look at how he behaves. Surely this psychosis is less coherent than the rantings and actions of the Islamic fundamentalists? 

Our insanity is empathize through punctuated New York Times hand wringing at home while disconnecting from the carnage abroad. The psychotic wing of our preaching classes with their sermons of forgiveness and silence over drone slaughter is a manifestation of our remote controlled sickness.

This post is purely to encourage a listen to the John Lash podcast above. It is there where the cauldron is bubbling up nicely with a tasty soup on the go. The Gnostics or Teleste have got it going on like no other story around. 

It's the best story that wins.

John Lash - Mystery Religions, Gnosticism & The Antichrist

John Lash is interviewed here by Red Ice Radio and takes us through the real meaning of the destruction of the mystery schools around the middle of the first millennium.  He tackles the belief system of the Christians that he describes as psychotic salvationism,  victim/perpetrator meme-pushers and pernicious redeemer-class peddlers. 


I agree with that.

The mysteries were open to all people of every class from slaves to emperors. They were egalitarian and not even remotely connected to contemporary associations of illuminati manipulations. John elaborates at length how the mysteries are part of the solution for very contemporary problems when looked at as ancient ways to solve our challenges.

He also reminds us that Emperor Constantine was the most threadbare of Christians obliged to portray himself as one (much like George Bush) to codify the religion in order that the Roman military empire could subsume it. Christianity then ripped off the existing pagan ceremonies and symbols so that the people would react favourably. He talks about the emergence of Christianity originally from the Zadokite (or Zealots) cult (inspired by the shadowy figure of Melchizedek) and how the redemptive obsession of Christianity was totally antithetical to the sentiments of the day. Here he elaborates on how the messiah complex was a new and mind-like virus introduction to daily life. 


Later John questions that if Christianity really espoused love of all men it would have been able to peacefully coexist with the existing Pagan and Mystery Schools. He describes the early Christian monks as storm troopers so fanatical they raged through the temples of Luxor and Memphis in Egypt to fanatically destroy the books and engage in cultural genocide. He posits that the reason we have lost our way in the world is because we have lost our vision and our purpose.

The Christian Victim-Perpetrator Syndrome

Daniel Pinchbeck writes in a comment on the victim perpetrator complex over at Reality Sandwich a much better contribution than I could:

This idea of unconditional love and unconditional forgiving not only seems like an impossible and non-human ideal, it also seems to me that it feeds into what John Lash calls the "victim - perpetrator bond" that was written into the Bible.

Lash's perspective in his amazing book, Not In His Image, is that the Judeo-Christian tradition was created intentionally as a deviation that took people away from the proper path of spiritual development. Lash writes from a Gnostic perspective, arguing that the Gnostics were the holders of ancient mystery school knowledge, and that they recognized Christianity was designed to imprison humanity in the spell created by the Archons and the Demiurge. Christian constructs such as "love thy neighbour as thyself, "turn the other cheek" and the underlying concept of "original sin" secretly functions to keep people enslaved in a culture based on domination.

This is most obviously the case with "turning the other cheek": This extreme form of masochistic, passive resistance allows the perpetrator of violence to have the upper hand, while the cheek-turner maintains a sense of moral superiority, despite the violence being perpetrated against them and others like them. According to Lash, such extremes of masochistic passivity coupled with idealized moral superiority were written into the Bible code by the Archons and the dominators to prevent the overthrow of the dominator culture by the oppressed, who far outnumber the oppressors, and could potentially make use of the means of violence to address their victimized state.

I remember when I visited the Hopi elder and I asked him what should be done with the CEOs and boardmembers of the coal company that was destroying their land and ruining their culture. "Cut off their heads," he calmly replied. I was shocked by this at first, but then as I thought about it over time, I could see his point of view.

Even Gandhi, who is associated with non-violence  promoted "active non-violence " direct action against the oppressors, and he also said that in situations where "active non-violence  could not be effective, violent resistance was preferable to "passive non-violence " What Harvey seems to advocate in his book is a toothless, passive non-violence that will ensure a personal sense of moral superiority but have no meaningful effect on changing the underlying structure of society, which is based on domination and oppression.

By nature, I support non-violence and pacifism. However, it may be that situations arise where violence - or at least the threat of violence - is the only answer to interrupting a cycle of domination. To cede the capacity for violence to the oppressors is, potentially, to give up any hope of making real change. I find it troubling to think these thoughts, yet I feel these subjects must be examined impartially and scrupulously, so that greater clarity can be attained.

Several people recently brought to my attention the connection between the Tibetan Buddhists, who promote non-violence  and the CIA. Is it possible that the Tibetan Buddhists are given so much cultural cache in the West because of their principled stand of non-violence  which also renders them helpless when facing a militarized regime? If we do away with moral absolutes and deal with the world as it is, we may have to find that there are times when violence is a necessary evil - for instance, against the Nazi regime during World War Two.

On an abstract and absolute level, one can "unconditionally forgive" Nazi torturers, Chinese armies, or corporations that profit off of the desecration of land and people. On the relative level of human actions, however, these malignant forces still need to be dealt with if we ever want to see our world thrive in peace. It may require means other than prayer or Harvey's rather meek brand of "sacred activism" to bring them down.

I am curious to hear others' thoughts on this complex, delicate, and extremely important issue.

Finger Pointing

We're all good at it aren't we. You only need to go on the BBS and IRC to see the screaming, shouting and finger pointing going on. I guess it all comes down to binary thinking. Stuff like 'Four legs good two, legs bad' which is from an allegorical tale called Animal Farm, that intelligent people from around the world should have access to read (that and Down and out in Paris and London). I can appreciate some of my Chinese American friends who were raised with pluralism of opinion and free access to any countries' media including China, feel that the picture below and doing the rounds on the net, is the sort of managed message that makes them feel uncomfortable.

One sent this to me: "In the streets of the March 14th event, the government is using these signs to promote 'unity' again in the country by saying, "Tibetans and Han Chinese are daughters of one mother. Our mother is called China."

Here is the poster with that slogan on being posted in Lhasa and on the Net


I couldn't help looking at it in a simple semiotics kind of way. Why is it illustration? Are those national costumes? Is there room for only one flag on the poster? Is there even a flag for Tibet? I did a quick search to find out and this is what I found?


It's quite distinct isn't it?

The British are famously reluctant to haul out a flag and wave it because we've seen how symbolism gets people fired up in the wrong way in tense situations. Nazi Germany springs to mind, and particularly memories of the ugliest people gathering round symbolism as if it were worth more than life itself which it most certainly isn't.

Just for reference here is Hong Kong's flag which is unquestionably part of China and has returned back to the fold under the good guidance of Chris Patten who was vilified at the time by Beijing as "sinner for a thousand generations" and is now broadly welcomed by the PRC as having managed a tricky job quite even handedly.


I wrote back here that what happened in 1949 is history and the riots on March 14 2008 were news. Separating history from news is important for constructive dialogue because the news in this instance was that the ethnic Tibetans rioted in Lhasa and attacked the ethnic Han Chinese. If we're going to be brutally honest, history discussions aren't embraced in China because pluralism of opinion isn't accepted, in much the same way that discussion of the Rape of Nanking isn't debated in Japan or Extraordinary Renditon, the loss of Habeas Corpus and the ugly stain of Guantanemo Bay for the 'Enemy Combatants/Bin Laden Clique that the Neo Conservatives and their unholy alliance with the Christian Fundamentalists have to smash and crush isn't accepted.

Look at that finger pointing in one direction and notice the other three pointing back at you.