Joy Of Satan Forums

This is perfect , I can't say anything else really , the way this economical pattern is repeating itself, can have just one cause , and you explained it virtuously. Thank you for this article !

Funny that you would post this, I was searching for info about Caesar in the groups the other day.
In my search, I found an article shared by Maxine which said that Caesar was an agent of the jews:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/JoS ... essages/16

Obviously, just because she shared an article a while back doesn't mean she agrees with it completely, and I don't mean to invalidate your essay by sharing this, but I thought it was interesting and I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Although, now that you've written the full names of Brutus(Brutii?), one has to wonder if the middle name Junius has any connection to the jews. Like the surname of Stalin, Джугашвили - (Joo)ghashvili. Not definitive, but it could be another piece of the puzzle.

I've started to watch some history documentaries about the hole pre- and post-Rome geopolitical influences and all this non-sense can be traced back to the Akkadian kingdom in the middle-east , the ones that later will become Persia and be conquered by Alexander.. After His death that eastern part became what is known as the Seleucid Empire , after one of Alexander lesser in command -Seleucos. Somehow , meanwhile Rome was still just expanding , the remaining parts of Alexander's kingdom battled one another --in the sense that Antigonus decided to subdue him and the babylonian territory (Antigonus was the general that , just by ''coincidence'' ruled over the what we'd call Syrian territory, all the way to the Sea and some northen parts of Asia Minor, and down at the border with Egypt...). Basically Seleucos risponded to this attack and started a campaign to reunite the Alexander's Empire . He conquered Antigonus's territory at the battle of Gaza, scored diverse victories back home towards Macedon indeed reuniting the Empire for a while, and at the hight of his reign , was killed by Ptolemy Keraunos- the son of king Ptolemy I of Egypt (also a general in the army of Alexander, not a bad guy but he didn't want to wait untill Alexander successor was to be born, thus he took Egypt)....now the pattern starts to get pretty (((predictable))) _ Antigonus (Syria) wants to take over Babylon _ Seleucos says ''nay'' and wants to put an end to this splitting Alexander's empire non-sense(in the meanwhile makes so that this Ptolemy Keraunos succedes the father-although he was highly looked down upon by Ptolemy I- _Reunites Macedonian Former empire,also mostly with the help of his buddy Ptolemy I_Dies murdered by Keraunos at just 1 year before incoronation (281), mostly because one year later Ptolemy I would also die...suspicious to say the least.( Not that Keraunos was a jew or something but there must have been some connections.)
Under Ptolemy I Egyptian economy flourished , under his son however not an inch was moved ...eventually this decadence would project down the dynastic line making the reign worse and worse.
In the meanwhile the Seleucid Empire back in Babylon acquired some (((interesting))) individuals down the dynastic line -- the somehow ''direct'' third generation descendant of Selucos , namely Antiochos III -this guy here:
Decided to wage war with fresh expanding Rome to the West ....Why so???....Also after loosing the battle and getting killed , his descendants start coping with (((well social ranked noble-men))) of Syrian and Babylonian territory -going as far as to arrange marriages between those (((guys))) and what remained of the Ptolemaic dynasty back in Egypt ! This IS FUCKING OUTRAGEOUS !!!
In fact Rome stepped down in both regions , for the most part to deal with (((rebellions))) that those dynasties couldn't do nothing about anymore , and also to provide supervision over the political landscape...
By simply following the steeps of pseudo-Ptolemaic individuals (Cleopatra aside) , we would see that around the same time Rome start having big internal troubles , the presence of this cast was surely visible within italic-roman borders...needless to say the seleucid territory would be taken by ''make Persia , monotheistic again'' by ''native armies'' and SHTF again in former Babylon ...some 150 years latter Rome succumbs to Constantine of the Flavius spawn (who knows what ties those had..) and SHTF in Rome latter for real with Theodosius, and the (((Dark ages))) officially begun.

Thank you for all of the wonderful information you have shared with us Zola

I look forward to reading more!
This was interesting! Both the post and your replies

I've had these thoughts not of my own saying: "No! Don't read this! Noooo!"

And once I've read it, I felt amazing knowing so much more than what I had previously known, thank you for adding this to my slowly, but steadily growing knowledge, I look forward to learning more!!! ^o^

HAIL FATHER SATAN FOREVER!

Antiochos the III was tolerant to the Jews as was the Imperial policy of not oppressing any group so as to stop rebellions that cost major amounts of money and years to put down. The Romans were the same way in their Empire you pay your taxes to Rome and send Pranam to the Emperor and don't get uppity and they leave you be.

Antiochos the III, son. Antiochus IV Epiphanes that worked to wipe Judaism out after seeing this Jews for what they where after they had been in the Empire long enough to show everyone what they really are. This is common in history one King lets Jews in and the next King kicks them out as they have been in the realm long enough to show everyone what they really are. When the Jews decided to take advantage of the fact he was busy fighting in Egypt to attempt to take Jerusalem. Antiochus IV Epiphanes marched his army out of Egypt and took Jerusalem back and wiped the Jews out there.

Antiochos the III, image you have here is strange this is his likeness:

There are many coins and even sculptures of historical figures from that era that are false and added jewish features on purpose, which shows how manipulated the story is, one of the most flagrant cases is that of Cleopatra, (((they))) made coins and false sculptures of her.

Fake coins of Cleopatra and Marc Anthony:






And this is the physical aspect that Cleopatra and Marc Anthony really had:

my bad , I got myself caught in my dualistic perception, I must study things better before pointing fingers.

but there's a question still...Why did they wage war at each other ? Or better yet , was there a higher purpose in waging war against another gentile empire? What was the point , just to not get invaded without putting up some fight ? Now that I can understand and it is only natural to be so , but at the end of the day only the political administrations would change under Rome ,so why Antiochus was so eager to provoke Rome in the first place? At this point for a man of it's caliber , it is stupid to assume that it was only for political power. The only variant left is that there's some kind of collective growth for both sides because of war , if not to chase down the possible jewish administration of a certain empire (Persia I'm looking at you). Either that or Rome was governed most of the time by jerks , and eventually people like Caesar ,Titus and Diocletian would sometime elevate Rome from her flaws. Essentially what I see , exactly like in the case with Octavian , Marcus Antonius and Cleopatra , these are basically genius best of the best Aryan stock and leaders destroying each other ... It's this just non-sense isn't it?

Your asking why do Empires fight each other...…. Its right in your last post. To build their own Empire and become more powerful. That is what the wars are about. The Roman wars between the different groups that left Augustus as Emperor was a simple Roman civil war for control of the Empire. This ideal that Gentiles wouldn't fight each other ever if not for Jews is also obviously false. What did you except from the Greek leaders who divided up Alexander's Empire for themselves and not under a new Greek Emperor. They wanted their own Empire. Its that want that pushes for more want.

Yes indeed - You're right - I was going to explain how in reality Ptolemy had not much choice but to take something anyway because of how Perdiccas (the commander that wanted to wait for Alexander's son to be born) treated the other commanders,(killing one in the process) but if they really wanted what Alexander would , they would have waited and not attempt to arrest Perdiccas -or at least choose somebody else to take this responsibility in the meanwhile. Thank you for your time and answers H.P.Mage !

@zolaluckystar that statue of Caesar was built in the Renaissance period and is very idealized.

The real physical aspect of Caesar was like this:








It is also possible that his accounts of the conquest of Gaul are false and were actually written more than a century after his death.

According to Ben Klassen, It was actually Caesar, who did the biddings of the jews, not the catonians.

Cicero for example is widely known for his anti jewish stance.

One thing is sure: If Rome remains a Republic, It would have been much harder for the jews to take over via christianity.

zolaluckystar wrote:Oh, no curio, I don't feel like you invalidated my essay, your comment is very interesting and I appreciate it. Also, if I missed something or made a mistake, best to correct me. I don't wish to misrepresent anything or mislead. I didn't think to touch on the Library, but since you bring it up I'm happy to share my thoughts on it

I've always been very interested in history, it was one of my fave subjects in school and I always got A's. Of course, what we're taught in jew managed 'school' and what actually happened are two very different things. As an SS I've been enjoying to take a second look at history and this time look at it through Satanic eyes. It's quite different when you do! Its exactly like when you look at things through a kaleidoscope, one twist and everything re-assembles and you see all those same elements in a totally new pattern. Fascinating! So, re-visiting history, I felt compelled to write this timeline essay to try to point out how the jews have been doing the same damned shit to us over and over in history in terms of the financial manipulation, as I feel such a resonance - the events of the past happening now, today.

...

Your passion for learning and writing about our history definitely shines through.
My educational background was much different from the norm, but I get what you're saying about seeing things with satanic eyes. Ever since SS became a part of my life, everything seems so much clearer and makes so much more sense now. It's also more meaningful. One of my favorite things about learning is making connections, particularly between things that don't really have anything to do with each other. Being able to abstract from one area and see how things relate to one another and to be able to create analogies and frameworks from them and extrapolate onto other things is very satisfying to me. It's kinda like a way of synthesizing wisdom. You do a good job of this in your writing. It's funny that I was also getting Trump-y vibes from Caesar and then you started writing about your own realization of the similarities.

It didn't make sense to me that Caesar would have been a jew puppet either, and I'd like to believe he was not, but I was curious how someone seemingly more knowledgeable than I would refute it. The thing about Alexandria did make me wonder a bit though, and your explanation makes sense, so thanks for researching this and sharing it with us.

Savitar wrote:According to Ben Klassen, It was actually Caesar, who did the biddings of the jews, not the catonians.

Cicero for example is widely known for his anti jewish stance.

One thing is sure: If Rome remains a Republic, It would have been much harder for the jews to take over via christianity.

Cicero was woke on the jews, but taking sides against Caesar doesn't mean that Caesar was necessarily aligned with the jews. Although they were friendly and Caesar had tried to include Cicero and gain his favor on several occasions, including an offer to join the first Triumvirate, they had an intense working relationship and Cicero, in contrast, had a fairly good one overall with Cato & Co., and he favored the stability and the longevity of the Republic above all else; probably to a fault. Caesar and some of his associates are known to have threatened the established order of the Republic at times, but whether this was done for jew or gentile interests... you be the judge. I personally don't think it was in service to the jews.

But taking all of this into consideration, and given that Pompey was in control of the vast majority of the Empire with all its resources and with an army outnumbering that of Caesar's and not facing the level of logistical and strategic concerns that weighed on Caesar's mind, it makes sense that Cicero would side with Pompey. It seems to be more of a case of enacting a political vengeance against Caesar and joining his friends on the team that's most likely to win(and therefore, least risky and most likely to achieve stability in the least amount of time) than a matter of jew vs gentile for Cicero at this time.

Cicero has been political enemies with Caesar, having been banished by him indirectly by proxy of supporting Clodius and trying to implicate Caesar with the Catiline Conspiracy. The two agreed on some things like fighting corruption and bribery, but on the whole, Caesar was a reformer and Cicero largely favored preserving the status quo. It wouldn't make any sense to side with people that have historically been your political rivals, and which you have tried to implicate as being enemies of the state, and especially not to side with them over your own party and your own friends and the faction with the best odds of winning(on paper). And even if it did make sense, it wouldn't reflect very well on you.

I think he was ultimately hoping that after things settled down, the Pompeians would restore the Republic that Cicero knew and loved. After all, the Republic was his pride & joy and the highest point of his life was shutting down the Catiline Conspiracy and earning the extremely honorific title of Father of the Republic, so you can understand why he would be so attached to it. Loss of the Republic would mean a loss of a major part of Cicero's identity, and maybe he feared becoming irrelevant if the Republic ever were to be replaced. However, he soon found his decision regrettable once he realized the level of incompetence and disunity within his chosen faction during the civil war.

After Caesar won the civil war and things finally settled down, Cicero returned to Rome where he was pardoned ... by Caesar. Now, if Caesar were jewish or an agent thereof, wouldn't it make sense to remove the people that work to expose your (((tribe))) - especially when you have the popular support and you have in all other ways crushed your opposition? Regardless of whether things were in Caesar's favor or not, he tended to pardon his enemies, even if they were not of Cicero's status. This is in stark contrast with actual jew takeovers, such as the communist revolutions in the east in which any and all beings, ideas, structures and objects were systematically eliminated if they conflicted in any way with (((the party))).

However, another thing to note is that Cicero was (not reliably, mind you) implicated during the assassination of Caesar, and the assassins even met with Cicero after the fact, and apparently he later sympathized with the act and expressed the wish that he had taken part(assuming he didn't, and also assuming he would have). However, would Cicero really result to such underhanded tactics when he tried so hard in the past to work within the system to eliminate corruption and keep public deeds done in the daylight? And would he repay Caesar's mercy by, quite literally, stabbing him in the back? Was this really in the interests of the People, the State, or someone else?

This could have been an attempt to bloody both sides and play the gentiles against each other, and maybe the history is corrupted here, but we can only speculate as to the higher motive, and to what extent Cicero may or may not have been involved. Maybe Cicero was ironically, knowingly or not, more in line with jewish interests than Caesar partly because he tried so hard to preserve The System. The jews already infiltrated it and knew how to exploit it, and if The System never changes, this is all the better for those who know how to take advantage of it.

Caesar, even if he pursued a new form of government in the way of dictatorship, was clearly a man of the people, and though some may find his methods disagreeable, maybe they were exactly what was needed to restore the lives and livelihood of the Roman people, and to deliver Roman sovereignty back into gentile hands. Cicero was certainly commendable in his almost self-sacrificial desire to keep order & stability and prolong the lifespan of the Republic, but maybe it's this single-mindedness and inflexibility that would have harmed Rome and himself in the long run.

My personal verdict is that neither Caesar nor Cicero were working for the jews, at least not intentionally. They had similar interests and got on quite well on a personal level, but their political ideas and methods clashed and caused a rift between them where it mattered most. I also think some of their admirable traits may have turned out to be their greatest weaknesses and opened them to exploitation by the (((folks))) in the rift. Overall, I think their hearts were in the right place, but they fell victim to the will of other (((actors))) behind the scenes and their own personal motives.
[/thesis]


As for republics being resistant to jewish takeover, I don't see what makes you suggest that. Significant jewish influence presides over most, if not all of the major republics in the world today, and if you're thinking about delving into alternate history... I would prefer to leave that can of worms unmolested.

It seems to me that the most easily exploitable system for running a country would be any form of democracy, but I'd like to hear why you think the Republic would have been resistant to the jewish takeover.

curio wrote:

Savitar wrote:According to Ben Klassen, It was actually Caesar, who did the biddings of the jews, not the catonians.

Cicero for example is widely known for his anti jewish stance.

One thing is sure: If Rome remains a Republic, It would have been much harder for the jews to take over via christianity.

Cicero was woke on the jews, but taking sides against Caesar doesn't mean that Caesar was necessarily aligned with the jews. Although they were friendly and Caesar had tried to include Cicero and gain his favor on several occasions, including an offer to join the first Triumvirate, they had an intense working relationship and Cicero, in contrast, had a fairly good one overall with Cato & Co., and he favored the stability and the longevity of the Republic above all else; probably to a fault. Caesar and some of his associates are known to have threatened the established order of the Republic at times, but whether this was done for jew or gentile interests... you be the judge. I personally don't think it was in service to the jews.

But taking all of this into consideration, and given that Pompey was in control of the vast majority of the Empire with all its resources and with an army outnumbering that of Caesar's and not facing the level of logistical and strategic concerns that weighed on Caesar's mind, it makes sense that Cicero would side with Pompey. It seems to be more of a case of enacting a political vengeance against Caesar and joining his friends on the team that's most likely to win(and therefore, least risky and most likely to achieve stability in the least amount of time) than a matter of jew vs gentile for Cicero at this time.

Cicero has been political enemies with Caesar, having been banished by him indirectly by proxy of supporting Clodius and trying to implicate Caesar with the Catiline Conspiracy. The two agreed on some things like fighting corruption and bribery, but on the whole, Caesar was a reformer and Cicero largely favored preserving the status quo. It wouldn't make any sense to side with people that have historically been your political rivals, and which you have tried to implicate as being enemies of the state, and especially not to side with them over your own party and your own friends and the faction with the best odds of winning(on paper). And even if it did make sense, it wouldn't reflect very well on you.

I think he was ultimately hoping that after things settled down, the Pompeians would restore the Republic that Cicero knew and loved. After all, the Republic was his pride & joy and the highest point of his life was shutting down the Catiline Conspiracy and earning the extremely honorific title of Father of the Republic, so you can understand why he would be so attached to it. Loss of the Republic would mean a loss of a major part of Cicero's identity, and maybe he feared becoming irrelevant if the Republic ever were to be replaced. However, he soon found his decision regrettable once he realized the level of incompetence and disunity within his chosen faction during the civil war.

After Caesar won the civil war and things finally settled down, Cicero returned to Rome where he was pardoned ... by Caesar. Now, if Caesar were jewish or an agent thereof, wouldn't it make sense to remove the people that work to expose your (((tribe))) - especially when you have the popular support and you have in all other ways crushed your opposition? Regardless of whether things were in Caesar's favor or not, he tended to pardon his enemies, even if they were not of Cicero's status. This is in stark contrast with actual jew takeovers, such as the communist revolutions in the east in which any and all beings, ideas, structures and objects were systematically eliminated if they conflicted in any way with (((the party))).

However, another thing to note is that Cicero was (not reliably, mind you) implicated during the assassination of Caesar, and the assassins even met with Cicero after the fact, and apparently he later sympathized with the act and expressed the wish that he had taken part(assuming he didn't, and also assuming he would have). However, would Cicero really result to such underhanded tactics when he tried so hard in the past to work within the system to eliminate corruption and keep public deeds done in the daylight? And would he repay Caesar's mercy by, quite literally, stabbing him in the back? Was this really in the interests of the People, the State, or someone else?

This could have been an attempt to bloody both sides and play the gentiles against each other, and maybe the history is corrupted here, but we can only speculate as to the higher motive, and to what extent Cicero may or may not have been involved. Maybe Cicero was ironically, knowingly or not, more in line with jewish interests than Caesar partly because he tried so hard to preserve The System. The jews already infiltrated it and knew how to exploit it, and if The System never changes, this is all the better for those who know how to take advantage of it.

Caesar, even if he pursued a new form of government in the way of dictatorship, was clearly a man of the people, and though some may find his methods disagreeable, maybe they were exactly what was needed to restore the lives and livelihood of the Roman people, and to deliver Roman sovereignty back into gentile hands. Cicero was certainly commendable in his almost self-sacrificial desire to keep order & stability and prolong the lifespan of the Republic, but maybe it's this single-mindedness and inflexibility that would have harmed Rome and himself in the long run.

My personal verdict is that neither Caesar nor Cicero were working for the jews, at least not intentionally. They had similar interests and got on quite well on a personal level, but their political ideas and methods clashed and caused a rift between them where it mattered most. I also think some of their admirable traits may have turned out to be their greatest weaknesses and opened them to exploitation by the (((folks))) in the rift. Overall, I think their hearts were in the right place, but they fell victim to the will of other (((actors))) behind the scenes and their own personal motives.
[/thesis]


As for republics being resistant to jewish takeover, I don't see what makes you suggest that. Significant jewish influence presides over most, if not all of the major republics in the world today, and if you're thinking about delving into alternate history... I would prefer to leave that can of worms unmolested.

It seems to me that the most easily exploitable system for running a country would be any form of democracy, but I'd like to hear why you think the Republic would have been resistant to the jewish takeover.

I really enjoyed reading this and appriciate your input, vast knowledge of history, mine is nowhere near yours, however I thought It's worth mentioning,that there are (pro-white) sources stating Caesar was on the jewish side - since this thread become a bit too subjective on Iulius O think. The one mentioned (Ben Klassen) is also referenced by HP Mageson.

As for Republics: Republic is not Democracy.
I believe It's much harder to subvert a Republic where power is not overly centralized like in Monarchies, where you can subvert the whole empire by controlling only a few people. When my Ideal Republic is a National Socialist one, the same what the American Founding Fathers envisioned: A Society led by the best (true aristoracts) and leadership is based on meritocracy rather than family history/prestige/privilege.

Savitar wrote: I really enjoyed reading this and appriciate your input, vast knowledge of history, mine is nowhere near yours, however I thought It's worth mentioning,that there are (pro-white) sources stating Caesar was on the jewish side - since this thread become a bit too subjective on Iulius O think. The one mentioned (Ben Klassen) is also referenced by HP Mageson.

As for Republics: Republic is not Democracy.
I believe It's much harder to subvert a Republic where power is not overly centralized like in Monarchies, where you can subvert the whole empire by controlling only a few people. When my Ideal Republic is a National Socialist one, the same what the American Founding Fathers envisioned: A Society led by the best (true aristoracts) and leadership is based on meritocracy rather than family history/prestige/privilege.

I appreciate that you shared a conflicting view in a thread that seemed to be so unanimously in favor of Caesar. I'd hate to see what the world would be like if there weren't anybody willing to openly question the narrative and popular opinion. Since my last post, I can see that it seems like I'm president of Caesar's fan club or something, but that can't possibly be true, because that title belongs to Zola.

However, I do admit that I may be a little biased because I like Caesar and Cicero, and I am partial to them and would like to believe that they were, in the grand scheme of things, on our team(kinda like the real Curio in the sense of hoping they could be unified). But this doesn't mean that my mind or my eyes are closed to the truth, which is where my favor ultimately lies.

The problem is that the truth regarding our pagan past can be difficult to find, because so much knowledge and information has been lost thanks to the jewish takeover, and whatever did survive was in all likelihood corrupted, especially accounts by the historians of the period, and memoirs for example can be unreliable even when they're unadulterated because it is inherently biased to the author's motives and perspectives. It takes extensive research and a keen, intuitive eye to be able to figure out how things really were, especially in the ancient world.

Now, I admit that I don't know everything there is to know about this period, but from what I know at the moment, a case can be made against Caesar from his dealings with Clodius. This post is already getting to be very long and I'm going to resist the temptation to give another lecture on this for now, but I'm going to look into the period a little more and see if I can get a clearer picture of what's going on and figure out who Caesar's allegiance really lies with(other than himself). I'm not familiar with Klassen's works or which ones cover Rome, but I'll keep him in mind going forward. Thanks.

I do not doubt that Ben Klassen was a good nationalist and he hav good intentions, but the historical sources from which he recopiled the information are surely incorrect, the key in this is that after the murder of Emperor Nero,the Jews put the Flavians in the power, they destroyed the historical record of Rome and rewrote it again inventing all the lies they wanted.

The reality about Julius Caesar is closer to the version that says zolaluckystar: in the year 48 BC Caesar eliminated the speculation of the Jews with the wheat and other cereals and lowered their price and also tried to limit the Jewish monetary influence and that angered them and that's why they killed him, probably Caesar's murder was a military coup and not a simple conspiracy.

I also believe that the famous account of his conquest of Gaul is false and was written much later during the dynasty of the Flavians, Julius Caesar never conquered Gaul and this is one of the greatest historical frauds.

Marcus Junius Brutus who was the one who directed the assassination of Cesar was a member of the Cato family, who were Jews, Cato the Elder was one of the influential Jews who promoted and pushed the destruction of Carthage by Rome.
Another curious fact is that Caesar was killed just during the Jewish Passover, when they make their blood sacrifices.

Another interesting fact is that Caesar was initiated into the Mysteries of Dionysus in his youth when he spent several years in Anatolia and visited Pergamon.
The story of his homosexual relationship with the King Nicomedes IV of Bithynia ocults an initiation ritual, with Julius Caesar as cupbearer and dressed in a purple robe.
The purple in Hellenic paganism was a sacred symbol representing the gods and also the crown chakra and the cup represents the grail https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals ... 1B18AC2E27

So surely he had spiritual knowledge and was not a stupid GOY.