Was Jesus the Mother of All Conspiracies?

Is Jesus the mother of all conspiracies? According to a documentary published a few years ago, Caesar's Messiah, the founder of the Christian religion was the psychological warfare tool of the Roman emperors to control the empire in the aftermath of the Jewish revolt which was finally crushed in 73 AD - only to be crushed again in 135.

While other theories of Roman uses of the Christian religion focus on the fourth century Constantine, Caesar's Messiah takes the story back to the Flavian emperors who ruled from 69-96 AD. In order to avoid future costly wars, the Flavians turned to psychological methods to pacify its captive populations, and to quench the spread of Jewish messianic aspirations calling for the overthrow of the Roman occupation of Palestine.

The protagonists in this plot were the Flavian caesars themselves, most notably Vespasian and his son Titus, the Jewish historian Josephus who was adopted into the Flavian family, and the Jewish Alexanders of Alexandria, one of whose scions was Philo. While Josephus and the Alexanders were Jewish, their sympathies were clearly Roman, the latter of whom had married into the Flavian family.

Josephus led a rebellion against Rome in the mid 60s, but when faced with defeat changed his allegiances to Rome, after which he became the highly feted court historian. But there is some argument that Josephus himself was a fictional character.

One of the main commentators in the documentary, Joseph Atwill, compared the writings of Josephus with those of the gospels. He found 40 points of similarity between actions of Titus, whom he argues is the Son of Man spoken of by Jesus in the Gospels, and those of Jesus. One example offered is that both Jesus and Titus go to Jerusalem sending messengers ahead of their arrivals. Another example is that Titus found the Jews fighting among themselves, with the parallel Gospel event being Jesus' saying that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

An even more interesting parallel is that Titus ordered all of the fruit trees leading to Jerusalem from the Roman camps cut down which corresponds to Jesus cursing the fig tree. While some may dismiss the parallels as somewhat vague or inconclusive, the cumulative weight of 40 of them running in sequence makes it virtually impossible to be coincidence. The conclusion is that the Gospels relied upon Josephus for their constructions. This connection might help resolve unknowns regarding the elusive Q document spoken of by modernist theologians as being a source document for parts of Luke and John.

The prophecies which Jesus gave concerning the destruction of Jerusalem were fulfilled precisely as "predicted" with Titus, the Son of Man, fulfilling the eschaton. In short, Jesus is the alter ego or type of Titus.

The reference to the Son of Man is quite possibly the relationship between Vespasian and Titus whom the Roman Senate decreed were gods, and whose images were placed in all temples throughout the empire, including the Jewish Temple. This relationship anticipates the trinity members the Father and Son. Perhaps the 2d son Domitian represents the Holy Spirit.

At this point we get to the allegations of anti-Semitism in the Gospels. As an aside, we note that the Jews are not the only Semitic people - in fact they are a miniscule percentage of them. So the term is used for more Jewish whining and special pleading. According to Caesar's Messiah, the Romans took the incendiary Jewish writings, including the Old Testament, in order to remove any possible future incitations to rebellion. In their places, the Romans invented the Gospels to teach a pacifist, cheek turning attitude, and compliance with Roman authority. So the Messianic Jews were made to be the sinister heavies in the crucifixion of Jesus, with Pilate washing his hands of the dastardly deed.

Thus good Jews would follow the Son of Man, ie Titus and the Roman emperors exemplified by the beatific and pacifistic teachings of the Gospel Messiah, while the bad Jews would follow the bellicose Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes and their messianic Christ - not Jesus - who would deliver them from the Romans.

In this context, Jesus' troubling statement that he came only for the lost tribes of Israel makes perfect sense. The word for lost is actually a Greek word meaning punished or destroyed; it does not mean misplaced. Thus the Roman Jesus came with a new gospel for the recalcitrant Jews who needed to fall in line. While messianic rebels certainly paid it no heed, much larger and docile swaths of the population did.

The Alexanders of Alexandria bankrolled much of the literary production which formed the Gospel writings, while Josephus and other unnamed authors produced either the source material or perhaps the Gospels themselves. With these documents, Christians and good Jews would learn submissiveness to the authorities.

On its surface the case seems persuasive with Christianity being exposed as a pagan Roman religion foisted upon its peoples in order to suppress rebellious tendencies. If this is the case, then the Gospels would have been written sometime between 80-150, with 70-90 being the most likely span since this was a Flavian project.

It would be interesting to find out what the subsequent emperors did with this legacy. Returning to Constantine, Atwill suggests with strong evidence that the emperor chose Christianity as the state religion because it was the family cult. In other words, Constantine was probably a descendant of the Flavians - he was known as Flavius Constantine - and was honoring his family by selecting their religion as the new Roman established religion.

Reference
Caesar's Messiah - The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus

Copyright 2017 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

The Historicity of Moses

The debate over the historicity of Moses burns on, largely because two different groups employing two different epistemologies believe that they can persuade their opponent of the truth of their position. It is a hopeless cause where both sides would do well to agree to disagree.

After visiting several forums purporting to answer questions about the Biblical Moses, I can assure you that hostility reigns on both sides with the skeptics holding a good edge over the believers in invective.

There are actually 3 groups engaged in tug of war over Moses' historicity. The traditional group accepts the divine inspiration of the Pentateuch and thus accepts the story of Moses as a fact of history, based largely on the manner in which his deeds are told. The second group are the skeptics who believe that the Bible is either pure fiction or a mishmash of vague memories of a minor figure embellished over time. A third group doesn't really care either way because it believes that the didactic value of the Bible, in this case Moses and the Exodus, trumps any concern for historical or factual substance.

The skeptic demands historical evidence for the existence of historical figures. For example, one can point to letters written and signed by George Washington attesting to his historicity. Likewise contemporary accounts affirm the deeds of the Founding Father. In fact we can even visit his home today.

The case with Moses is quite the opposite. After nearly a century of excavation all over the Levant and Egypt, there is not a single shred of archaeological or documentary evidence substantiating the existence of Moses or the Exodus. Thus through an empirical epistemology, one has no basis for believing in the existence of Moses or the Exodus.

This point is lost on the believer who insists that the book of Exodus is of divine inspiration, and thus may be trusted as an historical document. However, if pressed to demonstrate that the Pentateuch is of divine origin, the believer is at rope's end to substantiate the claim.

Some believers err by stating that certain archaeological evidence corroborates certain events in the Bible, but this conflates causality with colinearity. Simply because an artifact is found at a certain Tel which conforms with a Biblical narrative does not substantiate that an event occurred or that a person existed. It could be intriguing and the basis for additional excavation, but it is simply a coincidence.

For example, Charles Dickens wrote the Tale of Two Cities which occurs in Paris and London. Paris and London indeed exist, but just because they exist does not mean that Dickens' story is historical. We can only say that it is historical fiction.

Finally, we would be remiss if we did not note that it is entirely possible that historical evidence for Moses and the Exodus could materialize. After all, the most famous rejoinder to skepticism is the discovery of the city of Troy after centuries of scholarly denial. Yet belief in the existence of Moses and the Exodus is an exercise of faith.

Now why are we discussing this point on a blog devoted to American history? The reason is that the debate closely parallels the case of Lee Oswald who was framed by the criminal Warren Commission led by murderers Allan Dulles, John J McCloy, and Gerald Ford. There isn't a shred of evidence substantiating the allegation that Oswald murdered the president let alone fired a shot at him. In fact we have his alibi, of which neither it nor the allegations were tried in a court of law. As such, those who cling to the Warren Commission Report and its findings are the Bible believers who affirm the existence of Moses based upon Holy Writ.

Thus not only will the debate over Moses continue through the ages, but so will that of the innocence of Lee Oswald whose reputation was destroyed by the very murderers who murdered the president of the United States. The great irony is that in both cases Jews were behind the story of Moses and that of the Warren Commission - in one case a blood thirsty priesthood; in another case a cabal of Jews hiding behind the mask of Permindex.

Copyright 2017 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Did Japan Really Bomb Pearl Harbor?

Some skeptics have questioned the standard history that Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Instead they attribute the attacks to American traitors acting on orders from Franklin Roosevelt. We believe that there are enough unanswered questions about the events of December 7, 1941 to warrant further examination of this idea.

Indeed at least 5 official inquiries by both Congress and executive branch departments investigated the attack on Pearl Harbor because of its enormity and inexplicable anomalies.

The claimants, at least in our case, argue that real attacks occurred, but that they were executed under American command using Japanese Americans and German planes painted in Japanese colors. Given that many documents from World War 2 remain highly classified, one would be remiss in not considering the possibility of a fifth column attacking the United States as an act of treason to further the aims of the Jewish New World Order.

So many strange anomalies accompanied and surrounded the attacks on Pearl Harbor that only an imbecile could trump them up to coincidence. For example, only certain parts of the military base were attacked when reports circulated widely of Japanese spies on the island plotting in grid form the location of every plane, ship, and militarily significant target around the military base.

As examples, the military intelligence buildings were untouched, as were the repair depots, large fuel tanks, and torpedo magazines. These are just a hand full of the important and ripe targets which were studiously avoided by attackers who were said to have highly detailed layouts of the military base.

American shipping was diverted away from the alleged path of the Japanese armada headed toward Hawaii. Long range patrols from the Aleutian islands were also grounded. This latter act is often interpreted as the means for providing security for the Japanese fleet, but another interpretation is that Roosevelt and Chief of Staff George Marshall did not want any witnesses who could claim that there were no Japanese ships in convoy toward Pearl Harbor.

Yet it is also possible that the grounding of air reconnaissance was to provide cloaking for the American carrier groups which carried out the attacks.

Admiral Kimmel and General Short were assured that Pearl Harbor faced no threat from the Japanese navy. In fact Admiral Stark in Washington ordered Kimmel to return all ships to port in Hawaii when the latter took the time honored precaution of sending its fleets to sea when diplomatic relations with a foreign power were in jeopardy. The only warning Kimmel received was that of sabotage, the approved precaution against which was to huddle planes together, thus making them an easy target for bombing attacks. Surely Marshall and his lieutenants knew this and chose artfully sabotage as the key threat.

So what about the 3 American aircraft carriers, Enterprise, Lexington, and Saratoga? It is reported that they were miraculously at sea to be saved by an act of deus ex machina. Since no one knows exactly where they were, it is best supposed that they were carrying a total of 50 planes - a fact not questioned, perhaps German Fokke Wulfes or American AT-6s, painted as Japanese Zero bombers and other planes which then attacked Pearl Harbor. A naval task force of  aircraft carriers is always accompanied by other ships such as battleships, destroyers, and submarines. Thus the best of the American fleet was used to attack the United States while the aging iron was left for destruction. How convenient.

How is it that the American carriers, along with their escorts, did not come to the aid of their countrymen or pursue the Japanese? The Enterprise was allegedly only 215 miles west of Pearl Harbor - and yet it could not help? The Japanese navy was said to be 275 miles west of Pearl Harbor.

The counter arguments to this theory are not trivial. There are many intercepts of Japanese transmissions which would seem to prove that Japanese attack formations indeed headed toward Hawaii. But could these transmissions be fabricated? On the other hand, no one saw any of the Japanese ships. How could this be for the size force needed to attack a large military installation such as Pearl Harbor?

Other contemporary reports state that there were no Japanese airplanes seen in flight although one said that he saw a crashed Zero - possibly a Japanese painted AT-6?

Another argument against a Japanese fleet in Hawaiian waters is the logistical difficulties of such an operation at least 3700 miles away from home base. That was one of the arguments which Roosevelt's staff used to claim that Hawaii faced no credible threat from the Japanese.

False flags are part of the warp and weft of American history. They have been used time and again to drag the United States into Jewish wars. Pearl Harbor has the odor of such a false flag attack, but requires additional evidence to clinch the case.

Reference

blocula, Americans Bombed Pearl Harbor With Airplanes Designed To Look Japanese, abovetopsecret.com, April 8, 2012, accessed 9/6/2017

James Perloff, Pearl Harbor: Hawaii Was Surprised; FDR Was Not, New American, December 7, 2016, accessed 9/6/2017

Copyright 2017 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.

Did The Cubans Kill Kennedy?

CIA hacks propagate many theories about the power behind the murder of President John F Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dallas' Dealey Plaza, the latest of which we address is the Cuban theory. Although it has a grain of truth, like all CIA murmurings, it is ultimately a fraud to fix primary culpability on the anti-Castro Cubans who were indeed a vital part of the matrix.

Recently an anonymous poster posited that Cubans betrayed in the Bay of Pigs fiasco formed the nucleus of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. The interesting aspect of the theory is that it was a concession that there was a conspiracy at all. But like the mob theory of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, it falls far short of the mark and only serves to obfuscate the real murderers.

The important point about the Cuban involvement in the murder of Kennedy is that they were only one of numerous elements who had an axe to grind with the President. They simply lacked the means, on their own, to murder a president of the United States.

McGeorge Bundy, Richard Bissell of the CIA, and Secretary of State Dean Rusk colluded to ground the air support of the CIA operation after Kennedy had reluctantly authorized it earlier in the day on Sunday of the week of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

Thus the foolish Cubans were led to believe that Kennedy grounded the planes when it was actually traitors in his administration who did so. Without air support, Operation Zapata, ie Bay of Pigs, had no chance of success. This subterfuge was intentional for recruiting anti-Castro Cubans for the murder of the president. It also created yet one more rabbit hole down which researchers would fall, never to return, in attempting to trace the real blame for the murder of Kennedy.

As we have stated many times before, not even the CIA was the ultimate power which killed Kennedy. It answered to the Jewish Permindex which had targeted Kennedy for assassination before he entered office.

Murders of presidents typically take a village, which in this case included a bevy of heavy and lightweight assassins of which the Cubans are only one piece of the puzzle.

Copyright 2017 Tony Bonn. All rights reserved.