I can't find it in the Zohar so I wanted to know if he saw that himself in there or was just stating something he heard second hand.
Maybe someone could point to me where in the Zohar it describes that? AI ofc is getting its panties in a knot when I try requesting that info.
The part you’re talking about of my comment was a quote from Trevor Labonte.
"Judaism is a plan for a world with no countries, only one border, one that separates Jews from gentiles. Judaism's plan is a bi-level world (the communist template), with God's chosen people living in paradise where no one has to work, and with the gentiles inexorably trapped in a lower world which is a hell on Earth, where we exist as slaves, cattle for the Jews. The Jews' plan to create this bi-level world is described in explicit detail in the Zohar, one of the "holiest" (it's pure evil of course) books of Judaism. This plan is exposed to the world in 'Jewish History, Jewish Religion' by Mr. Israel Shahak. So never let ANYONE tell you Judaism is not a problem, it is THE problem, and if it is not reckoned and neutralized, there is no future for humanity." - Trevor Labonte
Hmm but you don't know where it describes it? Damn it... I wanted to read it.
Alright, so I had AI run through it I've noticed a pattern.
AI (taking the jewish side obviously) says this person's take is a misinterpretation. What it says is that Shahak was criticizing old Judaism for harboring similar beliefs and that new Judaism needs to do away with it. He says in the Talmud, Rabbis mention it as a discussion but it's not how the laws in practice developed. Then in the Zohar it was actually a spiritual metaphor and doesn't translate into reality.
I'm realizing that this is how jews communicate. They take both sides so they can claim either side as it is convenient to them. They do this in politics and in everything. It's highly deceptive and difficult for normies to understand.
They say both hi and bye then pick whichever ends up better for them for the circumstance, arguing the other was a hypothetical possibility but not real so-to-speak.
Hahahaha.
Talmud: “it’s okay to rape 2 year olds”
Jew apologists: “ACKSHUALLY IT DOESNT REALLY MEAN THAT…”
Yeah, that's actually what it says.
"Well actually, the Rbbi was just making an argument to better refine the rule. The takeaway from the script though is thet the group of Rabbis concluded his argument was wrong"
Although, I've read the full chapter of the Talmud that gets referenced by people saying it says raping 2 years is okay and that is not what it's saying. It's saying that if someone rapes a 2 year old girl she isn't considered a non-virgin. This is relevant for purposes of marriage. The passage is actually an early feminist passage because it was protecting the sanctity of young girls despite what atrocities were committed against them. I don't like defending jews but using that passage to try and harm jews does really just make goys look stupid.
I haven’t read the Zohar so I couldn’t tell you where it says that exactly, but I’ve heard other rabbis talk about how “god” promised the jews control of everything on earth, and that each jew would someday have 2,800 goy slaves to serve their every need and want, that’s probably somewhere in the Zohar.
Pro (forwards) mise (to release). Everything moving forwards releases each thing within...that's how God works. If God releases forwards, then con (together) trol (to roll) detains many (gentiles) under few (jew).
A chosen one cannot control until ones choice is freely given. It's gentiles who are collectively holding together the fiction "control", while ignoring the reality of being set apart from one another, while given free will of choice.
Oh hey. Word salad is back on the menu.
a) Ask yourself what came first...beings making promises to one another or nature forwarding (pro) the release (mise) of each being from one another?
b) The phrase "word salad" (also gibberish) originated from psychiatry and is used be few to manipulate many.
Where AI is helpful.
Here is a plain-English breakdown of the ideas presented in that passage:
God’s nature is freedom: The author plays with the roots of the word "promise" to argue that God’s way is to constantly move things forward and grant freedom or "release."
Control is the opposite of God's way: The author then plays with the roots of the word "control" to describe the opposite of freedom. The passage relies on an antisemitic trope, claiming that a small Jewish minority suppresses or "detains" the non-Jewish majority (Gentiles).
Power requires consent: The text argues that those in power cannot actually control anyone unless the masses voluntarily surrender their ability to choose.
People are limiting themselves: Ultimately, the author claims that "control" is just an illusion. They argue that the larger population is actually maintaining its own subjugation by choosing to believe they are controlled, rather than recognizing their own individuality and exercising their God-given free will.
In short, the passage argues that people are willingly giving up their God-given freedom by believing in the illusion that a small elite controls them.
My point: if I don't pay taxes, I get forced to be a government that has men with guns that force me to do things. If I do what I want to do, I land in prison. I can claim to be free all I want but reality is much different than spirituality which only exists in one's head.
Zohar aka "brightness; splendor"...referring to light generating a visible spectrum of light for each ray within, which implies God illuminating being. It's ignoring Gods illumination (perception) through obscurity (suggestion) among one another, which establishes a dual/duel conflict in-between light vs dark.
Suggestion casts shadows over ones discernment...a jew suggests for example social aka soc (together) i (within) al (all) to tempt gentiles closer together as to increase the darkness, which prevents the light from shining through.
Society implies the two-tier conflict between gentiles together and each jew apart... https://www.amazon.com/People-Apart-Political-History-1789-1939/dp/0199246815
a) Rule/reg - "to move in a straight line"... https://www.etymonline.com/word/*reg-
Nature moves being (life) within a straight line (inception towards death)...each jew tempts gentiles into an inward (logic) and outward (reason) circle by distracting from the straight line.
b) Goyim/gollum/golem implies the animation of an anthropomorphic being from outside aka each jew shaping suggested information to tempt each consenting gentile into a consensus with one another, which then can be controlled from outside through the suggested information held within as faith; belief; meaning; definition; truth etc.
That's how each jew utilizes the almighty golem of gentile consensus "over the centuries to connote war, community, isolation, hope, and despair"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem
Yeah, I posted it. Should still be there somewhere