The New World Order

Thus to begin mystery religion with Egypt still leaves a layer of language and cultural identity simply, err, "lost". The Old Word Order began in Babylon, not Egypt... Maybe it traveled through Egypt on its way to Babylon... The "order" itself came from Cain and Able.

Nebuchadnezzar saw the writing on the wall...

Melchizedek had no earthly parents (like the sun)... No priestly line... No patriarchal family to reign in on his decisions. No, err, " banks" to receive and collect interest on his tithes.. He seemed autonomous to the Babylonian "old world order"...

In one month of depriving the US banks of money would make their world BOGUS bank creditors fold. Banks would retreat from governments or lose their shirts....Then the middle class could keep their earnings, inflation, insurance fees and interest etc...

Actually I believe in social security... Something would have to be done to protect that.

As someone "new to agnosticism," you sure do quote the bible a lot. Maybe you don't really have a good grasp of this whole agnosticism business.


If you announce that you're leaving the site, the proper etiquette is to then leave the site. You're doing it all wrong.

You just make this **** up as you go along, don't you Rex.

Actually some of this stuff I have known for over 20 years.

having listened to william coopers mystery babylon (about 40 hours of audio), i've not seen anything i didn't already know

Yeah, sure . . . like the derivation of cannibal or the story of the "Elysian" mysteries . . . uh huh . . .

Did you know the word cannibal was Chaldee for priests of Baal... How about a little honesty? That info did not come from Cooper's literature. Had you known you might have stuck up for the research rather than let Set tear me down.

straightforward research supports set's point of view, your point is supported by obscure publications

i find this information more entertainment than anything i'm likely to believe in

so i'm reading along

* The word Cahna is the emphatic form of Cahn. Cahn is "a priest," Cahna is "the priest."

** From the historian Castor (in Armenian translation of EUSEBIUS) we learn that it was under Bel, or Belus, that is Baal, that the Cyclops lived; and the Scholiast on Aeschylus states that these Cyclops were the brethren of Kronos, who was also Bel or Bal, as we have elsewhere seen. The eye in their forehead shows that originally this name was a name of the great god; for that eye in India and Greece is found the characteristic of the supreme divinity. The Cyclops, then, had been representatives of that God--in other words, priests, and priests of Bel or Bal. Now, we find that the Cyclops were well-known as cannibals, Referre ritus Cyclopum, "to bring back the rites of the Cyclops," meaning to revive the practice of eating human flesh. (OVID, Metam.)

The Two Babylons
Alexander Hislop

Set, argue with Alexander Hislop

Nothing whatsoever to do with the, err, Caribbean...

So, Eusebius, who wrote in Koine Greek, has been translated into Armenian, and used by your source to make claims about the use of a Chaldean term in the worship of a "god" whom the Chaldeans did not worship. The appearances of the words cannibal and cannibalism in English have been attested by hundreds of scholars working on a variety of dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary, the Merriam-Webster dictionaries (there's more than one from those folks, you know) and the American Heritage Dictionary, and yet you continue to insist on your author's obscure and dubious claim. Can you explain to me how a Chaldean term, or an Armenian version of a Koine Greek version of a Chaldean term (alleged), entered the English language--more than 1200 years after it was allegedly coined?

You don't do scholarship very well, Rex, and i now doubt more than ever your claim about a classical education.

there seems to be a lot of history between some of the posters here

In any event, I read the opening post, and being not really highly educated beyond the bare minimum of a high school education, sometimes I have hard time following some the posts written here.

But I think the gist of it is, what would be so bad with having just one country? Kind of like John Lennon theories I guess.




Not sure what kids snack foods have to do with all that, must have missed something somewhere which is nothing new. Might go back after writing this and see what I missed. Probably won't.

On the topic as well as I can understand, i have no opinion, you may wonder why I bothered to show and say anything, but my interest was pricked a while ago with Red Rex and his not being a conservative anymore and the reasons why. Not everyone is clear cut and logical, some people are simply complicated.

Your author cites Ovid's Metamorphoses as a source for a call to bring back the practice of eating human flesh. Perhaps you could give us the specific citation from Ovid. Frankly, i think your source is a liar, or at the least, as deluded or more deluded than you. I've read Ovid (Publius Ovidius Naso), specifically Metamorphoses, more than once, and i don't recall any passage calling for a return to the eating of human flesh.

By the way, your boy Alexander Hislop is a joke among serious scholars of the middle east. Not that i think that will mean anything to you. Basically, you've got a poorly educated Scots minister, ignorant of the most basic history of the middle east, ranting about "the Two Babylons" and you expect us to consider that a reliable source. Hislop was ranting against the Catholic Church, and came up with the most hilarious drivel about "the new Babylon." That's your source, Rex.

Truly pathetic.

I never even look to see if someone votes me down, maybe they do all over the place.

Anyway, I did go back and try read some more red rex's posts , I totally missed the cannibalism and Babylonian posts.

Leave aside the accuracy of it all, I wouldn't want to attempt to find out about it, was the gist of it, that all this technology is like eating (replacing) real people and filling them up to be carbon copies of one another. If the goal is wanting to be a world order, it would be kind of impossible without modern day technology.

Again you take low jab at Hislop and give no actual meat to your flimsy argument, low, DIRTY below the belt Set style... That is why his book is still in print and FEATURED on the phileologos site to boot! 100 years after it was written because he is a joke right Set? Well you are an even bigger joke. You did not address the actual point of cannibalism. You know the point where YOU were WRONG and all of your stinking links were WRONG TOO!!! But it is again how your delinquent, sociopath mind attacks someone's character rather than having some actual sum and substance to anything that comes out of your gluttonous pie hole.

All Babylonian theorists are treated with disdain by your cooks from the, err, "middle east" just as you have come into my thread UNINVITED and treated me. Are these the same SERIOUS SCHOLARS who wrote that the word Cannibal came from the Caribbean and Columbus? Ask those serious scholars from the middle east, whose laughing now?