The Abomination of Desolation

Chapter 5: The Sin of Sins

 

 

 

“Woe to the stubborn children,” declares יהוה, “to make counsel, but not from Me, and to devise plans, but not of My Spirit, in order to add sin to sin.” Isaiah 30:1

 

In the previous chapter we have examined why God evidently made allowance for the consumption of animal flesh after the Flood, as recorded in the Bible, and how even this idea comes from a mistranslation and misunderstanding of the text, which actually supports the opposite conclusion. We would be remiss to conclude from this that Genesis 9:3 documents the first time a human ever ate meat. Therefore, we must now turn our attention to the more fundamental question of how and why humans began to eat animals in the first place, which is no small feat, given the lack of information we have on the subject.

The importance of constructing a rational hypothesis to explain how and why meat-eating first began on this planet cannot be overstated. (This includes animal sacrifice, for as we shall see, the histories of animal sacrifice and flesh-eating are inextricably linked.) This is not just necessary for achieving certainty regarding the present book’s main thesis, but rather because a proper examination of this matter will reaffirm certain metaphysical truths about the nature of God which are commonly and rightly put into doubt by the Christians’ reading of the Bible (i.e. his justice and benevolence). It should also help to unveil the nature of the cosmological drama that the human race is currently embroiled in.

Clearly mankind’s flesh-eating practices began sometime between the Fall and the Flood. Whether or not we take the metaphor of the Fall literally, we see that the inclination to sin began with the incident with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, meaning that a choice between foods, or whatever the respective foods each represent, was offered, and the wrong decision about what to “eat” was made. After this episode, ‘good’ and ‘evil,’ when used in contrast and applied to food choices, are rendered ‘clean’ and ‘unclean,’ respectively, throughout Scripture. The only foods that are unclean are certain (nearly all) varieties of animal flesh, so if the metaphor is meant to be taken literally as a matter of choices between foods, then it necessarily involves consumption of animal products, and meat in particular.

This could mean that some meats were the “evil” and some the “good,” or it could mean that all meat was deemed evil and all plant-based foods were deemed good. We could simply leave it at that and declare the will of our Creator established. However, we do not take the metaphor so literally, and do not imagine that anyone reading this does, either. Therefore our focus is on developing a hypothesis of what the meaning behind the metaphor is, as a plausible explanation addressing the main points of the description of the Fall is sorely lacking in the mainstream Christian literature. In order to do this, we need to examine the actual meaning of the words employed in the narrative, rather than allowing the antiquated image of a snake tempting Eve to eat an apple and then biting at her heel when she tries to stomp on it, to persist here.

As with the seduction of Eve by the Serpent, it is obvious that humans would not have one day decided, entirely of their own accord, that it is a great idea to eat flesh. Rather, it was clearly some “god” or some “beast” who introduced the idea to them and encouraged them along those lines, and it was a temptation no less grave in import than that of the Garden of Eden. Just as the Serpent had to deceive Eve in order to manipulate her, so also would this god (or devil, or dumbass) have been responsible for deceiving humans into eating meat. This is not a problem for us, because it is already generally assumed that Adam and Eve were very young, innocent, impressionable, and perhaps naïve at the time. Deceiving them would have been the easy part; convincing them it was in their best interest to disobey Yahweh’s rule on pain of death would have been more difficult, and necessarily accomplished with the blatant lie “You shall not surely die.” As the practice would have been both highly unnatural and explicitly off-limits, to break these taboos would have required nothing less than a divine sanction—some sort of higher intelligence or authority figure to displace Yahweh, even for a short time when he was out of sight, or else the observation that it did not immediately result in the stated consequence from someone else showing them.

Let us consider the validity of this hypothesis in the light of sacrificial rites. A ritual sacrifice is an act performed for the purpose of pleasing or appeasing God/the gods, so we know that when this practice first began, it must have carried that same purpose. Is it more likely that some human somewhere decided on his own that, out of all possible actions he could perform, the act of killing an animal with gratitude in his heart (or whatever—some gods evidently prefer malice that is not disguised as something else) was what would be most pleasing to some god, or that some god told humans that this is what would please him? Obviously it is far more plausible that the sacrifices were rituals instituted by the gods and handed down to men, especially considering how unnatural yet profoundly universal such ceremonies were in the ancient world, and that our species is naturally herbivorous.

What we can be immediately certain of is that the practice was not instituted by God or anyone representing him. Even in Genesis 4, where Cain and Abel are presenting their respective offerings, and Abel’s seems to be an offering of flesh, the word in Hebrew is the same as that used to describe Cain’s offering, normally rendered as ‘grain offering’ throughout the Bible. It may convey that Abel gave a portion of his flock to Yahweh as a tribute; what it certainly does not convey is ‘ritual slaughter.’ The next such offering to Yahweh is Noah’s one-time burnt offering, so if we assume that the practice began before the Flood, then there is no biblical precedent for establishing that either Yahweh or the gods associated with him established it anywhere in the world. On the other hand, Cain’s rage is evidence that he was acting on his animalistic impulses, or perhaps even on his father’s (the Serpent’s) orders or advice—either way, the apple did not fall far from the tree, and it was inevitable that Cain’s offspring would wind up in the service of the gods who demanded sacrifice after his exile from Eden.

While this vaguely explains the origin of animal sacrifice in terms of which ideological faction of the gods instituted it, it does not explain how this practice came to be so widespread. After all, we are not supposing that there was only one small group of gods or extraterrestrials on Earth, and that they had a free hand to subvert the creation of a prior group that had inexplicably abandoned it. The actions of these malicious gods were opposed with great vehemence, but the fact that the marks of their sins are prevalent to this day demonstrates just how great the temptation was to follow them, and how narrow the path of perfection really is.

There are two main alternatives as to how the sacrifices became so popular that they continued even after the Flood, and they are not mutually exclusive. The first alternative is that sacrificial offerings were once made to beings (not necessarily ETs) who devoured them, and the practice was continued even after they disappeared. This is the less likely of the two, as the practice would have had to have remained universally, even though they were not there anymore, but it is still plausible if we consider that the people in charge of presenting the offerings took to devouring them themselves and acting as though the gods had done it. We know that religious castes have done this in other ways, and that they actually did it with meat in the classical era (“food offered to idols”), so it is certainly in keeping with the nature of priestcraft. Traces of the practice may be found in Asia to this day, where offerings are made both to idols (as stand-ins for flesh-and-blood gods) and to ancestors. This is true even where the priesthood does not devour the food and is perhaps absent altogether, and where food offerings are made to the priests (Buddhist monks, considered “gods” by their understanding) on a daily basis.

The second alternative is that the rituals were started by “evil” gods who did not need offerings for sustenance or who had nothing to gain from them, in which case the point was to get people doing something which was out of the ordinary for them. The only tangible outcome of animal sacrifice for the supplicant is that he has some flesh to eat, so obviously the purpose would be to get him to eat it, with the excuse that it had been commanded by or just offered to the gods first. By the time the “good” gods came along, people had already fallen into sin by beginning to eat meat, and when they saw that it was too late to reverse the damage, they instead insisted that if sacrifices were going to be done at all, they had to be done with proper ritual first (i.e. by offering the meat to the gods who would not be eating it, in order to deter the men from doing so, and by eating the grains themselves). This seems to be the case with the story of Cain and Abel. Either way, it would be implicitly known that the act being committed was wrong, and an abomination, but by making it a sacrifice rather than just taking the animal’s life outright, at least the supplicant had demonstrated a little bit of humility and submission to God first.

Understanding these matters is necessary in order to counter the specious reasoning typically employed with regards to animal sacrifice in the Bible. That reasoning goes something like this: the Mosaic Law demanded animal sacrifices, and it was said that God delighted in their “pleasing aroma,” so it could not possibly be true that he detested these sacrifices, which is what Israel’s prophets constantly asserted, so there is a massive contradiction between the Law and the Prophets—fuel for atheists, and a controversy which needs to be reconciled by circular reasoning for Christians. In fact, the only way to reconcile the Law and the Prophets is to realize that there is no inherent contradiction here, apart from the will of Man and the will of God. That is, God hates sacrifice, and Man rather enjoys it, so it is no wonder that we find the words “pleasing aroma” used to describe it in the Bible, or that wicked men would tell us that it is God who found the aroma pleasing, as opposed to the men who wrote it. After all, it was not God who said that he found the aroma pleasing, much less that he changed his mind and was now convinced that he needed more sacrifices for ages to come, was it? (See Appendix B.6 for our rebuttal of this whole line of reasoning.)

Ignoring for the moment that there are many passages testifying that God does detest sacrifice and finds no satisfaction in it whatsoever, we might consider that God’s ways, and his reasons for acting as he does, are far more nuanced than what Christians typically allow for. For instance, it is in the identification of what constitutes an acceptable sacrifice that we find the biblical basis for distinguishing between animals which were deemed fit for human consumption (“clean”) and those which were not (“unclean”). This makes perfect sense in light of the fact that the dietary restrictions of the Law seem to be aimed at preserving human health in ways that could not have been known before the advent of modern science. It makes even more sense in light of the fact that God takes no delight whatsoever in the practice, and the policy (at least under Moses) was essentially designed to curb the growth of the already existent animal slaughter industry, as it gave a sanctimonious air to what was otherwise a very profane event. (However one looks at it, the sacrificial system under Moses was preferable to what Aaron was doing with the Golden Calf when Moses was receiving the Law at Sinai. For all we know, the tablets which Moses destroyed in anger were even stricter than the ones which were ultimately given to Israel, and forbade meat altogether. In fact, it is illogical to suppose otherwise, given how angry Moses was about this event.) By turning a normal Sunday barbecue into a regular, organized affair presided over by a priest, you reduce the likelihood that the attendees will try barbecues of their own during the week, or eat or ask for any more than they are given. Such sanctimoniousness is still normal, and people of all religious dispositions are still more likely to pray or offer thanks before a special holiday feast than before any other meal.

If this does not make sense enough to overcome the notion that God has delighted in animal slaughter at some point in time, then consider that the instances in Scripture which seem to suggest he does (and there are many that explicitly state the opposite) all pertain to God receiving his portion, not because he benefits from it, but as a demonstration of humility indicating that the supplicant is willing to let him have his way in a more general sense. It is not as though God comes down from heaven and eats his fill, the way Santa Claus tumbles down the chimney to gorge on milk and cookies. That would be ridiculous, and if it was ever the case that any gods accepted offerings in this way, then it would only serve to show how far out of line we are with the ancient customs, which means there is no longer any justification for it, and how far out of line with God’s character the practice really is, as such gods are overtly evil, if not actually parasitic extortionists. Sacrificing to them may serve a different purpose than sacrificing to Yahweh would have, but sacrifices made to Yahweh according to the rituals handed down by Moses, as well as those evident earlier during special occasions (Abel, Noah, Abraham, etc.), still serve the purpose of inducing a healthy respect for the supplicant’s role as a steward of his creation, and recognition that all belongs to him, and that all life is precious, so that we are not inclined to throw it away easily.

By virtue of his character alone, God cannot possibly want or relish in sacrifice, and to suggest otherwise is to blaspheme him and bring his name to naught (the actual meaning of the Third Commandment, contrary to popular belief, which interprets it as telling us not to use expletive speech). He is not malicious, and has nothing to gain from us in any sense, much less at such a mundane level that we are feeding him because he is too lazy to feed himself. On the contrary, it is he who feeds us; he gives so freely that it is self-apparent that he wants us all to be satisfied and well-nourished in abundance. It is humans who invented overconsumption (to the end of malnutrition) and world hunger by means of a fraudulent, exploitative monetary system based on privation. Sacrifice is self-deprivation (not to be confused with self-denial, or temperance), and where it concerns an animal, it is the privation of life, the greatest gift of all. Privation/deprivation is sin. How could God delight in sin?

So God (or the “good” gods) allowed for sacrifice because it taught sanctity of life and restriction of meat consumption by turning a common practice into a solemn affair to be presided over by set-apart priests, with no exceptions. Now assume that the “bad” gods’ motivation for meat consumption was altering human genetics. Their purpose of introducing sacrifice, then, was the exact opposite: they wanted people to eat meat, and this meant more sacrifice, not less, so they had to remove the stigma from it by attaching it to powerful rituals. That is, sacrificial rituals were probably not meant to excuse a practice that most inherently knew was wrong so much as they were intended to reinforce the divine sanction and indeed the mandate to eat meat.

But still, why teach humans to eat meat? Why not just shoot them up with advanced pharmaceuticals? The answer to this is that meat is self-administered and more destructive. “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Put another way: Teach a man to grow things, and you show him how to acquire a renewable food source which has no adverse effects on the environment that do not heal themselves over time; teach a man to fish, and you get him to depopulate the oceans for you, thereby doing the work of remodeling the world in your image.

To anyone who supposes the validity of the concept of macroevolution or of the notion that humans, being now largely omnivores, must always have been so, these questions will seem absurd. Our focus is on the Bible, however, and the Bible makes it clear that we were created to be strict vegetarians, and that one day all humans will be the same once again. So the question is not so much “Why did God make a one-time allowance for meat-eating thousands of years ago,” but rather, “How did meat-eating become so pervasive as to seem perfectly natural, especially since it is most certainly not so?”

This is the type of understanding that can only be derived from the study of Scripture, which has a great deal to say about the eschatological fate of our species. But in order to learn what our end shall be, we must attempt to understand our beginnings. This is alluded to in one of Yahshuah’s most important prophecies, the one which addresses the question of how to determine the time of the end of the world:

“And as it came to be in the days of Noaḥ, so also shall it be in the days of the Son of Aḏam: They were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noaḥ went into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.” Luke 17:26-27

“And as the days of Noaḥ, so also shall the coming of the Son of Aḏam be. For as they were in the days before the flood, eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noaḥ entered into the ark, and they did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also shall the coming of the Son of Aḏam be.” Matthew 24:37-39

Of course, most people have no understanding whatsoever of what “the days of Noah” were like, and that assumes they acknowledge that there ever was such a time, as scientists holding to the ex nihilo creation bias of Christianity have proved ad nauseam. This passage inadvertently reinforces the typical Christian belief that thousands of years ago, people were just living out their lives, oblivious and content in their undifferentiated sin (simply existing is a sin, by their reckoning), when one day God decided he had had enough and destroyed them all. By that logic, he could have done the same on any given day for the last several thousand years, so one must wonder what God is waiting for, if their assumption that theirs is the gospel of the kingdom of heaven is true, for we all know it has been preached in all corners of the earth.

“And because of the increase in lawlessness, the love of many shall become cold. But he who shall have endured to the end shall be saved. And this Good News of the reign shall be proclaimed in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.” Matthew 24:12-14

Apart from the obvious fact that the true gospel has not been proclaimed in all the world, but is only beginning to emerge, the answer is that God is waiting for, and anticipating, the very same sin that caused him to unleash the Flood. Although Christians are altogether ignorant of this cause, it is well and attested documented in Scripture.

And it came to be, when men began to increase on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of Elohim saw the daughters of men, that they were good. And they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. And יהוה said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever in his going astray. He is flesh, and his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of Elohim came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, the men of name. And יהוה saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And יהוה was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. And יהוה said, “I am going to wipe off man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping creature and birds of the heavens, for I am sorry that I have made them.” Genesis 6:1-7

The key components of this passage are “the sons of Elohim” and “the Nephilim.” Whoever these groups were, it is apparent that were the key players in the events leading up to the Flood. If all we had to go on was this short passage, we might still be largely in the dark. Fortunately, the Book of Enoch (which was regarded as canon by early Christians, just like the Tanakh or Old Testament was) contains far more detail.

The main focus of Enoch is how and why our world was destroyed some 5000 years ago. Its central revelation is of a war between a faction of renegade angels called the Watchers, evidently corresponding with “the sons of Elohim” of Genesis 6:2, and the angels aligned with Yahweh, the God of the Bible. It was this war—not some mundane human sin or gradual or sudden proclivity to wickedness in general—that culminated in the Flood.

We might pause here to appreciate the lengths to which mainstream Christianity has gone to induce ignorance of our place in the universe, not to mention what God expects of us. “Angels” are not at all what Christians imagine them to be: some kind of unfathomable and description-defying immaterial light beings with wings whom God created to be our supernatural butlers. A far more accurate description to apply to them is ‘gods,’ and so that is the term we have been using and shall apply to them henceforth, for the Bible itself refers to the Watchers only as the ‘sons of (the) gods’ (bene ha’elohim), in contrast with the ‘daughters of Adam’ (benowt ha’adam).423

Christians, more than any other group, should be well aware of the existence and attributes of these gods, given that the worship of them is proscribed in the First Commandment and that the Old Testament is largely an extended documentation of how thoroughly our ancestors transgressed this command. Instead we find that, far from avoiding their worship, Christians, because of their doctrine of monotheism, deny their very existence. In so doing they show themselves to be little more than atheists in terms of their cosmological beliefs, with the exception of only one deity, which they make no effort to understand, know or obey, though they conflate his person with that of several pagan emanations of the Sun. In light of our rapidly approaching eschatological end, the denial of the very existence of these gods essentially gives them free reign to manipulate us toward their malevolent ends with absolutely no opposition.

Enoch has much to say about this, and its warnings ought to be sobering to the modern reader due to familiar associations. It summarizes the fallen state of mankind prior to the Flood primarily with reference to three things: Man’s violence against Man, his materialism and vanity, and his consumption of flesh. Clearly, the vision of Enoch is prophetic, as these same sins are what best define the present world in its fallen state. In it, the eating of flesh takes precedence over the wars and vanities, and it is presented as the straw that broke the camel’s back in terms of what the gods allowed. Sin, in a nutshell, according to Enoch, is oppressing and devouring animals, i.e. whatever is entailed in animal farming.

And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another’s flesh, and drink the blood. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones. 1 Enoch 7:5-6

And their hands commit lawless deeds, and the sinners devour all whom they lawlessly oppress: yet the sinners shall be destroyed before the face of the Lord of Spirits, and they shall be banished from off the face of His earth, and they shall perish for ever and ever. 1 Enoch 53:2

This was mankind’s transgression, which warranted its destruction. As for the Watchers, Enoch predicts that they would be bound for 70 generations (10:11-12), in an obvious allusion to the end of the world, if not Daniel’s “70 sevens.” (Generations were counted by sevens: depending on how they are enumerated, Enoch was the seventh from Adam; Eber, the namesake and patriarch of the Hebrews, was the seventh from Enoch; Abraham was the fourteenth from Enoch; Joshua was of the seventh generation from Abraham, David was the fourteenth from Abraham etc. This pattern is clearly deliberate, as some of the unwanted entries are omitted in the accounts of Yahshuah’s genealogy, among other places.) From the above passage we might infer that their crime consisted merely of tempting or encouraging men to make war with each other and all sentient life, but it was, in fact, much, much worse.

Scriptural references to transgenic experimentation and DNA corruption, especially in the non-canonical texts, are obvious, as is the connotation that righteousness is largely (if not entirely) a matter of genetic purity (hence the genealogy omissions, as 7 is the mystical number of perfection). This “sin of sins” is actually referred to as a “great sin” in Enoch, where it is described as the reason for which not only Semyaza, the mal’akh ha’mastema or ‘angel of adversity’ (i.e., the Devil), but also all the fallen ones who followed him, were punished by being consigned to Tartarus. Even if we take it so literally as to assume that the text is speaking of nothing but natural physical birth, this is still a matter of the deliberate genetic engineering, known by the culprits to be strictly forbidden by the Most High God, of a hybrid human-ET race which came to dominate the planet and exterminate the descendants of Adam while corrupting and consuming the other species which he had placed on the earth.424

And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: “Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.” And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: “I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.” And they all answered him and said: “Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.” Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. 1 Enoch 6:1-7a

The Hebrew term for a self-made god is gibbor (גבור, H1368). The word rapha or rephaim (from רפא, H7497, or רפה, H7503) denotes the ‘shades’ (of the dead), i.e. the “demons” (or disembodied spirits) of the nephilim who were destroyed in the Flood. Pharmakeia, as we have discussed it, actually denotes gene therapy, and serves the express purpose of making human bodies suitable for possession by demons (the rephaim in particular).

The gibborim existed both before and after the Flood (Genesis 6:4). It is evident from Genesis 10:8 that the gibborim existed right after the Flood; Nimrod “began to be a gibbor ba’ares [a mighty one in the land].” He is significant because he is the only person given any special attention in the Table of Nations in Genesis.

And Kush brought forth Nimroḏ, he began to be a mighty one [gibbor] on the earth. He was a mighty hunter before יהוה, therefore it is said, “Like Nimroḏ the mighty hunter before יהוה.” Genesis 10:8-9

The real-life person of Nimrod certainly considered himself the ideological and genetic offspring of his patron Inanna (a.k.a. Ishtar), the goddess of killing and fornication, as well as the origin of the Whore of Babylon motif, so it is no wonder that the Whore still reigns supreme over the world’s institutions and its billions of subjects, considering that Nimrod laid the foundations both of Babylon and of “the great city,” and this is the reason he is esteemed by the Satanists, Luciferians/Illuminati and high-level Masons who now run it.

And the beginning of his reign was Baḇel, and Ereḵ, and Akkaḏ, and Kalnĕh, in the land of Shinʽar. From that land he went to Ashshur and built Ninewĕh, and Reḥoḇoth Ir, and Kelaḥ, and Resen between Ninewĕh and Kelaḥ, the great city. Genesis 10:10-12

The fact that the writer of Genesis chose a Hebrew word signifying ‘rebellion’ to describe the popular neo-Sumerian (or Akkadian) hero-king Gilgamesh is evident in the verse that follows: “He was a gibbor sayid [god-chaser] (in opposition to) Yahweh; (for this reason) it is said, ‘Like Nimrod, the gibbor sayid (in opposition to) Yahweh.’” This term, gibbor sayid, is normally translated “mighty hunter,” and this could be considered an accurate translation, but the word sayid (ציד, H6718) actually means ‘to catch’—the hunting element is inferred. The story of Gilgamesh, which was by far the most influential story at the time of the writing of Genesis (and Genesis 10:9 alludes to a popular story as common knowledge), is about a king (a “mighty one” or gibbor) who both hunts and kills the “Bull of Heaven,” for which he is cursed by the gods, and spends the rest of his life on a quest for immortality.

So it is plainly evident that the remarks in Genesis 10:8-9 are in reference to the Epic of Gilgamesh. The meaning, therefore, of gibbor sayid, is of one who is seeking to make himself a god by cheating death, and this is evidently why Enoch describes the gibborim as demons in several places, with deliberate allusions to the rephaim of the antediluvian era, rather than that the nephilim will be resurrected or whatever. We might infer, then, that the other central character of the Epic, Enkidu, the “wild man of the mountain,” is none other than the “serpent” of Eden, and that Gilgamesh was seeking immortality because he was unhappy about the fact that people die in general, rather than that he was affected by the death of a personal acquaintance.

That the Akkadian story is figurative and that it relates to the depiction of the Fall in Genesis is evident, for instance, in the fact that when Gilgamesh tracks down Utnapishtim, the man who built the Ark to escape the Flood, for advice, he finds him in Dilmun (i.e. Eden). The old man tells him to lay hold of a certain “serpent” at the bottom of the sea (code for ‘abyss,’ i.e. Tartarus). Dilmun was said to exist in the land, or perhaps to actually be the land submerged by the Persian Gulf, where Eden is buried, according to the description in Genesis 2:8 and 10-14. That is to say that Utnapishtim told Gilgamesh that he needed to undo the effect of the Fall, thereby getting access to the Tree of Life, if he wanted to live forever. The serpent, however, eluded his grasp.

If not part of the basis of the Creation and Fall accounts in Genesis 2-3, this is evidently a metaphor for the knowledge of good and evil (gibborim and elohim both mean ‘mighty ones’), and therefore the sin of eating flesh. (This will be explained in a moment). Gilgamesh (or Nimrod) did not actually become immortal in either depiction; he is only said to have been seeking immortality. It is obvious that he was a flesh-eater, as the Akkadian version actually has him participating in what seems to be, in the interpretation of Genesis, the event of the Fall, and then sharing in the serpent’s curse. The fact that he and the other gibborim were “mighty” at all, and that they spawned the post-Flood giants called the anakim (and also the “remnant of the rephaim,” such as Og of Bashan) suggests that they were consuming the growth hormones in milk, and thus practicing the same policies of the pre-Flood nephilim. This is also evident in how the gibborim are depicted in ancient art, as enormous in comparison with those around them.

So we see that the prophecy in Genesis 3:15 of the “bruising” of the serpent’s “head” (explained further on) was fulfilled by the Israelite conquest of Palestine, and by the “ban” (the systematic extermination of the anakim and the other descendants of Canaan, led by Moses and Joshua), brought about as the result of the quest for the knowledge of evil, and for the salvation of the human race. The non-canonical texts affirm all this; according to Enoch and Jubilees, etc., there was once a racewar between humans and transgenic gibborim. That is exactly what Nimrod instigated when he hunted the righteous ones, and what is being instigated a third time, hence Yahshuah’s statement “as in the days of Noah.” It has been said that when this calamity was visited on us before, only Noah was saved, because only he was “perfect in his generations” after the rest who were uncorrupted died (were killed) off.

And Methuselah called his name Noah, saying, The earth was in his days at rest and free from corruption, and Lamech [Akkadian: ‘Servant of God; Priest’] his father called his name Menachem [Masoretic Hebrew: ‘Comforter’], saying, This one shall comfort us in our works and miserable toil in the earth, which God had cursed. And the child grew up and was weaned, and he went in the ways of his father Methuselah, perfect and upright with God. And all the sons of men departed from the ways of Yahweh in those days as they multiplied upon the face of the earth with sons and daughters, and they taught one another their evil practices [war, hybridization, drug sorcery, cosmetics] and they continued sinning against Yahweh. And every man made unto himself a god [gibbor—the translated text should read ‘every man made himself into a god’ or ‘every man made himself like unto a god’] and they robbed and plundered every man his neighbor as well as his relative, and they corrupted the earth, and the earth was filled with violence. And their judges and rulers went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke Yahweh; and God saw the whole earth and it was corrupt [tainted by genetic alteration], for all flesh had corrupted its ways [all flesh had been corrupted in (or by) its ways (of corruption)] upon earth, all men and all animals. And Yahweh said, I will blot out man that I created from the face of the earth, yea from man to the birds of the air, together with cattle and beasts that are in the field for I repent that I made them. And all men who walked in the ways of Yahweh, died in those days, before Yahweh brought the evil upon man which he had declared, for this was from Yahweh, that they should not see the evil which Yahweh spoke of concerning the sons of men. And Noah found grace in the sight of Yahweh, and Yahweh chose him and his children to raise up seed [Hebrew: zera (offspring, children, descendants)] from them upon the face of the whole earth. Jasher 4:14-21

If sin is defined as a transgression of God’s will, and his will is most concretely expressed in the particular way that he designed his creations, then there can be no greater violation of his will than to directly tamper with his designs. This is why genetic modification is the “sin of sins.” That the Watchers were intent on committing it demonstrates that they had a vision for creation far different from God’s, and were dedicated enough to this vision to instigate the war that ultimately led to their own demise, as well as Man’s.

And what was the nature of this vision? Humans were created as vegans, and we were created in the image of the elohim, from which we necessarily infer that our creators are also vegans by nature. We might therefore expect to find evidence in Scripture that the Watchers were carnivores, as carnism is the opposite of veganism. Indeed, this is precisely what we find in Enoch, which testifies that the nephilim devoured both animals and humans (7:1-4).

We can also plainly see that other races of extraterrestrials are carnivorous, assuming there is any difference in kind between the Watchers and the beings responsible for the cattle mutilation phenomenon. Cattle mutilations demonstrate that extremely advanced technology has been applied to the extraction of blood from the body, leaving it otherwise unharmed, suggesting that the carnivorous nature of these beings is not just a coincidence or a “lifestyle preference,” but rather a central focus of their very existence.425 That being the case, recasting Earth in their image would have been no mere happenstance, nor even a means of expressing their defiance against God, as if any race of sentient creatures would ever make such huge decisions based on trivial issues, like spray-painting graffiti across the globe, rather than on matters pertaining to the necessity for their own survival or extraction and utilization of resources.426 That it was indeed a matter of necessity for them is evident in the shortening of their children’s lives, which we also find in Genesis 6:3 as the gods’ means of intervention to prevent mankind from possessing the gods’ technology, which would have otherwise largely negated the consequence of the Fall, and then again after the Flood, thereby negating its consequences, too.

And they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city, and a tower whose top is in the heavens, and make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered over all the face of the earth.” Then יהוה came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. And יהוה said, “Look, they are one people and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do! And now, they are not going to be withheld from doing whatever they plan to do. “Come, let Us go there and confuse their language, so that they do not understand one another’s speech.” And יהוה scattered them from there, over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Genesis 11:4-8

Then said the Most High, the Holy and Great One spake, and sent Uriel to the son of Lamech, and said to him: “Go to Noah and tell him in my name ‘Hide thyself!’ [i.e., ‘Hide, so you are not discovered and killed along with the rest of the undefiled Adamites!’] and reveal to him the end that is approaching: that the whole earth will be destroyed, and a deluge is about to come upon the whole earth, and will destroy all that is on it. And now instruct him that he may escape and his seed may be preserved for all the generations of the world.” And again Yahweh said to Raphael: “Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.” And to Gabriel said Yahweh: “Proceed against the biters [literally ‘devourers,’ i.e. flesh-eaters: cf. 86:5-6]427 and the reprobates, and against the children of fornication [actually ‘adultery,’ i.e. of the flesh-eaters]: and destroy [the children of fornication and] the children of the Watchers from amongst men [and cause them to go forth]: send them one against the other that they may destroy each other in battle: for length of days shall they not have. And no request that they (i.e. their fathers) make of thee shall be granted unto their fathers on their behalf; for they hope to live an eternal life, and that each one of them will live five hundred years.” And Yahweh said unto Michael: “Go, bind Semjaza and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire: and to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations. And destroy all the spirits of the reprobate and the children of the Watchers, because they have wronged mankind. Destroy all wrong from the face of the earth and let every evil work come to an end: and let the plant of righteousness and truth appear: and it shall prove a blessing; the works of righteousness and truth shall be planted in truth and joy for evermore.” 1 Enoch 10:1-16

Several things about this passage ought to be immediately apparent. First of all, the archangels Uriel, Raphael, Gabriel and Michael are the same as those affiliated with Yahweh in the Bible. Two are mentioned by name: Gabriel as the angel of the annunciation of Yahshuah’s birth, and of the proclamation in Daniel 9, and Michael as the prince of Israel, and the leader of the host of heaven in Revelation. Both are princes who strive against the enemies of Israel in its defense. Uriel (normally associated with Ariel) is the name of the angel credited with the destruction of the Assyrian forces which besieged Jerusalem during the reign of Sennacherib. Raphael is a favorite character of pseudopigraphic literature, such as the book of Tobit. The implication is that each of the princes of the angelic orders is ideologically affiliated with the views presented in the text, according to that text.

Even if this does not seem like a big deal, it really is, because the influence of Enoch on early Christianity was massive. For instance, Azazel’s punishment, “cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light,” is evident in John 1:5, which reads, “And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it,” and in Jude 6, which reads, “And the messengers who did not keep their own principality, but left their own dwelling, He has kept in everlasting shackles under darkness for the judgment of the great day.” Again, we see the impact of “the vine which they plant thereon shall yield wine in abundance … and each measure of olives shall yield ten presses of oil” in Revelation 6:6, which reads, “A quart of wheat for a day’s wage, and three quarts of barley for a day’s wage. And do not harm the oil and the wine.”

Scholars are divided on the exact influence of the Enochic literature, due mostly to the fact that Christians regard everything in the Bible as God’s infallible Word, and everything that is not as not that, so there is a lot of insincerity and incredulity in the academic circles from both sides. (The academic establishment thoroughly rejects the idea that the Bible has any credibility at all, due mostly to its own pompous ignorance and subjective bias.) Yet all can agree that Enoch is representative of what the early Christians believed. For example, Gabriele Boccaccini, director of the Enoch Seminar, argues that the Qumran tradition of the Essenes which produced the Dead Sea Scrolls may very well be distinct from the Enochic tradition as a whole, but that the latter came first, and that the roots of Christianity were planted in it.428 So whether or not we make the association between Essenes and Christians, both had the origins of their literature—and that means the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scrolls—in that of the Enochic tradition. Put this way, the very least we can say about it is that it is the elder cousin of Revelation.

Secondly, “all sin” is ascribed to the fallen angel Azazel, as the mythological personification of impurity or corruption. Azazel literally means ‘scapegoat’ in Hebrew, so the “sin of sins” is therefore literally associated with ritual sacrifice in the Old Testament, and consequently, the atonement doctrine of both Judaism and mainstream Christianity. This is extremely significant when we consider that Satan is given the name of Belial (‘worthless one’) in the New Testament (2 Corinthians 6:15) and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the “angel of hostility” in Enoch. By making Jesus their scapegoat, they have associated him with Belial, the one who is always contrasted with Yahweh as the chief enemy of righteousness, and the originator of darkness and sin.

But for corruption thou hast made Belial, an [translator’s bias: original intent was probably ‘the’] angel of hostility. All his dominions are in darkness, and his purpose is to bring about wickedness and guilt. All the spirits that are associated with him are but angels of destruction. War Scroll (1QM) 13:10-12

This is what it actually means to take on the sins of the world. Even under the Law of Moses, an animal to whom the sins of Azazel were ascribed was not supposed to be murdered, but actually released to venture off and return to Azazel, to whom it theoretically belonged. (Take note, Christians: the implication regarding the release of Barabbas and the execution of Yahshuah ought to be obvious.) This is self-evident in the only place that the word azazel actually appears in the Hebrew Bible:

“And Aharon shall cast lots for the two goats, one lot for יהוה and the other lot for Azazel. And Aharon shall bring the goat on which the lot for יהוה fell, and shall prepare it as a sin offering. But the goat on which the lot for Azazel fell is caused to stand alive before יהוה, to make atonement upon it, to send it into the wilderness to Azazel.” Leviticus 16:8-10

Azazel is credited with teaching men the scapegoating ritual in the Talmud (that is, sacrifice, by which atonement is not made, as opposed to the atonement/release ritual of Leviticus). He is equated with Satan in Islam (Azazel being the original name of Iblis)429 as well as by Origen of Alexandria (Contra Celsum vi.43).430 Can it really be a coincidence that the one who taught men the art of sacrifice is the one who has the original sin ascribed to him? This is obviously the main thrust of Yahshuah’s rant against the Pharisees in John 8, especially considering that it was directed at their practice of the scapegoating ritual which he so detested.

So we see that all sins are ascribed to Belial, called the Angel of Adversity, the Adversary, the Accuser (Satan), Belial, Azazel or Gadriel (the Serpent of Eden), and that the sins ascribed to men all the way from the Fall of Man through the Tower of Babel incident all come back to the conscious desire to repeat the mistake which Adam and Eve made in the beginning. This also makes it clear that the original sin was eating flesh, because of how the sin of the Fall and the Flood is treated throughout the Bible. This policy, carried on continuously over many generations, strongly implies outside intervention. That is, humans have been manipulated since the beginning by a malevolent nonhuman force or entity/entities to choose a diet which is counterproductive to their own well-being, but advantageous to those doing the manipulating. So whatever sins Azazel is said to have been guilty of amount to all sin, and whoever is not participating in this particular sin is not regarded by Scripture as sinful, but whoever does also makes his own offspring sinful—children of Belial, as they are called in Scripture—by default.

And יהוה passed before him and proclaimed, “יהוה, יהוה, an Ěl compassionate and showing favour, patient, and great in kindness and truth, watching over kindness for thousands, forgiving crookedness and transgression and sin, but by no means leaving unpunished, visiting the crookedness of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” Exodus 34:6-7

“‘יהוה is patient and of great kindness, forgiving crookedness and transgression, but by no means leaving unpunished; visiting the crookedness of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generation.’” Numbers 14:18

“You do not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, יהוה your Elohim am a jealous Ěl, visiting the crookedness of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me.” Exodus 20:5; Deuteronomy 5:9

It really should be no wonder that the origin of the “sin of sins” is in the forbidden food of the Garden of Eden or that it has a genetic cause passed down from one generation to the next, as Christian theologians all refer to it as the “original sin” and tell us that we cannot possibly not succumb to its genetic influence, while the Bible and the mainstream doctrines alike both ascribe the influence to a malicious nonhuman creature. That this is referring to knowledge of genetic information, such as is necessary for making modifications, and that this knowledge is beneficent (good) in the right hands, but disastrous (evil) in the wrong hands, could hardly be more obvious.

Now no shrub of the field was yet on the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for יהוה Elohim had not sent rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground, but a mist went up from the earth and watered the entire surface of the ground. And יהוה Elohim formed the man out of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils breath of life. And the man became a living being. And יהוה Elohim planted a garden in Ěḏen, to the east, and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground יהוה Elohim made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, with the tree of life in the midst of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 2:5-9

In Hebrew, האדם (ha’adam, H120), translated as “Adam” or “the man,” actually means ‘of man.’ That is to say that ha’adam connotes ‘pertaining to flesh.’ האדמה (ha’adamah, H127) means ‘of the ground’ or ‘of the earth,’ i.e. pertaining to the earth. עפר (aphar, 6083) means ‘dry earth’ or ‘dust,’ and is used poetically to indicate the origin of Man’s mortal body as “from the earth,” when the context indicates that he is from the earth and will return to it (e.g. Job 10:9, Ecclesiastes 3:20, Psalm 104:29). The meaning of Genesis 2:5-7 in the original language is therefore as follows:

And every plant of the field was not yet on the land and every plant of the field grew not yet for Yahweh (of) the gods had not caused (it) to rain on the land, and adam [a man] was not (there) to serve ha’adamah [‘the land,’ or ‘(the men, or the beasts) of the land’]. And a flood went up from the land and drank the whole surface ha’adamah [‘of the land’]. And Yahweh (of) the gods molded ha’adam [the man] aphar [literally ‘of the dust,’ or figuratively, ‘of the flesh (of the creatures)’] min-ha’adamah [from among the adamah (the men of the earth)] and imparted to his face [or ‘his countenance’] the spirit of life, and ha’adam [the man] became a living being.

Whether we suppose that the writer of Genesis means to speak of a certain group or tribe of men, or of a single man, what this means is that “Adam” was a lot smarter than other “men” (beasts, really, by the writer’s reckoning) because he had been given some measure of the gods’ knowledge. Consider, therefore, that Adam was already living when he was made from the genetic blueprint which Yahweh used to create him, before he “breathed” into his “face” the “spirit of life.” The Hebrew word for “face” literally reads “countenance” or “anger,” not “nostrils”—this is inferred by the translators, as if God was giving him CPR.

The implication here is that God took a certain savage and gave him the gift of human sentimentality, which the other savages still lacked. The Hebrew term for “living being” is נפש (nephesh, H5315) חי (khay, H2416), which has the connotation of ‘passionate soul,’ ‘man of emotion,’ ‘man of life,’ ‘spirited person,’ etc. Nephesh clearly implies some sort of knowledge which was “breathed” into him, which is a common way in Scripture of saying that he was instructed in matters of “spirit,” which is to say of righteousness. The word for ‘formed’ is יצר (yâtsar, H3335), which means ‘to mold.’ In other words, Yahweh recruited and “molded” him according to his own desire and likeness by instructing him.

The implication is that God personally set this one man apart from the other men of the land and educated him so that he would learn the “way of life” and serve the land (and the people of the land), presumably by instructing them, even as he had been instructed. Moreover, this is a clear indication that when Yahshuah said “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:3), he was speaking of the “lower animals,” even if we suppose that he meant the “beasts of the field” (i.e. the working classes, as opposed to the high and mighty educated elites), which hardly makes sense if we understand this “spirit of life” to mean ‘capacity to reason’ (which all men have), especially considering that the term is used throughout the Bible to describe nonhuman animals as well as proper men, and that other animals have the same capacity, but to a much lesser extent.

Furthermore, Yahshuah said that “God is the God of the living, not the dead” (Matthew 22:32), in explicit reference to dead people (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) who had chosen to serve God, and in deliberate contrast to living people (the Pharisees) who had chosen to contravene God’s commands and go their own way by eating flesh. Likewise, Adam named his wife Eve “because she was mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20), which necessarily means that the other men who were not Adam’s offspring were not “living.” So it is obvious that the term ‘living’ means ‘those who have chosen life’ or ‘those who have the spirit of life’ in Scripture. What could this possibly mean if not compassion and respect for all life, i.e. the spirit of ethical veganism? In other words, God is the God of strict vegetarians and no one else, because no one else obeys him, i.e. no one else accepts him as their master: “In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die (lose the spirit of life, become like the living dead).”

Adam’s charge, then, was with stewardship not just of the land, but also of its people and other living creatures, and should he fall into sin, then so, too, would the rest of the men. This, of course, is what happened, because he was not as smart as we all would have liked; the savagery had not been educated out of him (at least not entirely), and he forgot who was the master, who was the servant (the steward, as opposed to the master), who was the helper (his wife—he did what she told him, instead of vice-versa) and who was the slave (the worker, who became the master of both). We have all heard this story before, though few indeed have understood it.

And יהוה Elohim took the man and put him in the garden of Ěḏen to work it and to guard it. And יהוה Elohim commanded the man, saying, “Eat of every tree of the garden, but do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for in the day that you eat of it you shall certainly die.” And יהוה Elohim said, “It is not good for the man to be alone, I am going to make a helper for him, as his counterpart.” So יהוה Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. And the rib which יהוה Elohim had taken from the man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And the man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one is called ‘woman,’ because she was taken out of man.” Genesis 2:15-18,21-23

And the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which יהוה Elohim had made, and he said to the woman, “Is it true that Elohim has said, ‘Do not eat of every tree of the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We are to eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden, but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, Elohim has said, ‘Do not eat of it, nor touch it, lest you die.’” And the serpent said to the woman, “You shall certainly not die. For Elohim knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be like Elohim, knowing good and evil.” Genesis 3:1-5

נחש (nakhash, H5175), translated as “the serpent,” comes, according to Strong’s, from נחש (nakhash, H5172), ‘to practice divination.’ Take a look at each of these words. There is no difference between them apart from what has been inferred from a misunderstanding and misreading of the text. Thus ‘serpent’ is actually an obvious mistranslation, and means ‘diviner,’ as in ‘sorcerer.’ This is evident all throughout Scripture, where H5175 (a pure invention) seldom takes on the meaning of ‘snake’ and virtually always takes on the “figurative” meaning of ‘biter’ or ‘monster.’

The fact that nakhash actually means ‘biter,’ with the precise connotation of ‘flesh-eater’ or ‘devourer,’ should be evident from our citation of Enoch, where it is corroborated by the Ethiopic translation of the Fragment of Noah. We regard nakhash as coming from נחר (nakhar, H5170), meaning ‘to snort,’ as in, ‘to breathe in the spirit of death’ (in deliberate contrast to Adam’s ‘spirit of life’—nakhar is normally translated as “nostrils,” just as the word describing Adam’s “face” is), in relation to נחת (nakhath, H5181), which means ‘to go down (to death/hell),’ which is related to both rapha (‘to sink’) and nephil (‘to fall’). (See B.6 in the appendix.) If our proposed etymology of nakhash is correct, as the context of the narrative seems to clearly indicate (“to gehenna you go”—see below), then the best way to translate it in order to keep the implication intact would be ‘death-eater’ or ‘death-monger.’

ערם (âram, H6175), translated as “more crafty” or “more subtle,” has the short definition of ‘man,’ and originates, according to Strong’s, from ערם (âram, H6191). Once again, H6191 is clearly the same word in Hebrew; H6175 is likewise a pure invention based on a misreading of the text. The long definition for H6191 gives its primitive root as “properly, to be (or make) bare; but used only in the derivative sense (through the idea perhaps of smoothness) to be cunning (usually in a bad sense)—X very, beware, take crafty (counsel), be prudent, deal subtilly.” In other words, the “serpent” was “naked.” This, too, is grossly apparent throughout Scripture, but unlike “biters,” it is grossly apparent right in the context of Genesis 3. Now consider the significance of this in light of Yahshuah’s remark, “I was naked but you clothed me,” with the understanding that to “clothe” someone is to teach him not to sin. We will have much to say about both of these terms (‘naked’ and ‘clothed’ or ‘covered’) later.

חית (khayat, H2416), translated as “beast,” is actually the same as khay (חי, H2416—note the reference number is the same) and means ‘living’ and can apply to any living being (including God), so there is no point for us to offer a better translation, as its meaning is subjective and depends entirely upon the context. Therefore, in order to establish its meaning, we must establish the meaning of the context. It suffices, however, to point out that the common translation is wrong due to the failure of the common translation to properly interpret the context.

חשדה (hassadeh, H7704), translated as “of the field,” can mean numerous things, but in the context of the description of the Garden of Eden in ch. 2, the one most fitting is ‘[of/from the] city-land, adjacent to a city (town) and subject to its control.’ It is also clearly related to the name of Eden itself; the term gan be’eden actually means ‘garden of delight’ in Hebrew. This tells us that there was no intent to ascribe a proper name to any of the places or characters of the narrative apart from Yahweh—not even Eden itself—and that ‘of the field’ is meant to be read ‘of the land around the garden of delight,’ where Yahweh was. The animals that were kept there were off-limits, being tended to perhaps by the gods themselves, while Adam and the other men were put to work outside the middle of the garden in the capacity of agriculture. The boundary must have been set by a wooden enclosure—a pen, fence or paling, not a tree: the word rendered “tree” (עץ, H6086) actually means ‘firmness,’ and its origin (עצה, H6095) literally means ‘to shut’ (‘enclosure’).

This gives the passage a much different meaning than ‘the snake was the most clever of all the wild animals that God had made.’ It actually implies that the thing being spoken of as Yahweh’s creation in this context is not the earth itself, nor all of the creatures that dwell therein, but a single enclosure in Eden, specifically. This is why the name of Yahweh does not appear until after the initial creation account which describes the creation of the whole world, attributed to Elohim (i.e., ‘the gods’ in general, whereas Yahweh was personally responsible for Eden, though 2:4 does say explicitly that he created the heavens and the earth, i.e. that he was in charge of the whole process, being, in some sense, foremost among them, or else the personification of the very spirit of the universe, which animates both us and them).

With all this in mind, a literal interpretation of the first part of Genesis 3:1 would be: “Now ha’nakhash [‘the flesh-eater,’ or ‘one of the flesh-eaters’] was the most shameful [or ‘lowliest,’ ‘most naked,’ ‘most debased’] of all the khayyat [the ‘living creatures,’ i.e. the beasts, or men] of (the land which) Yahweh (of) the gods had made.” The phrase rendered “your eyes will be opened” in v. 5 means ‘your senses will be awakened (to know both good and evil),’ i.e. to “make bare” or make it possible to see what is hidden (clothed/veiled). The obvious implication is that whoever eats from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil will be “clever” (naked, shamed) like the “serpent” (biter, death-eater), and that the Christians are actually glorifying the Serpent by telling us he was brilliant when the Bible explicitly tells us he was the most shameful creature of the land. This is also why Yahweh immediately understood that Adam had eaten flesh as soon as he said he hid because he was naked, as he had stooped to the level of the basest beast when he had eaten of flesh, and was ashamed of it.

And He said, “Who made you know that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?” Genesis 3:11

So we see the origin of sorcery in the Bible, and how it relates to the original sin of eating flesh, and therefore also why it is associated with idolatry and adultery, because the word for tree (עץ, H6086) is actually used as ‘idol’ in the Old Testament. There is nothing mysterious about the metaphors in the Bible after all, apart from what undiscerning men have added to it in order to hide its meaning from the masses. It only seems mysterious to people who do not already have the right interpretations. Even the “metaphor” of Moses impaling the “serpent” on the “tree” demonstrates how the flesh-eater of Eden had to be “sacrificed” (put to death; impaled) if the Israelites were to be healed of their plagues, and this is the real origin of the motif which was used against Yahshuah when he was nailed to the “cross” as the “scapegoat” of the Jews.

“And as Mosheh lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so the Son of Aḏam has to be lifted up, so that whoever is believing in Him should not perish but possess everlasting life.” John 3:14-15

“Now is the judgment of this world, now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, shall draw all men unto Myself.” This He said, signifying by what death He was about to die. John 12:31-33

Or we can just blindly assume, as the Christians do, that God sends all human beings on Earth to Hell because Adam and Eve bit into the wrong apple, unless they believe that Jesus died in their place, so that they are free to repeat the same thing which made him so angry in the first place. Would it make any difference to the Christians that their idea comes from Greek mythology? Renaissance painters, at the behest of the Vatican, adopted the motif of the golden apple in the garden of the Hesperides from Greek mythology and applied it to the Bible, for some inexplicable reason.

There are a few other things about this narrative which are also intriguing, but which do not pertain to our main thesis. Of the rest, only the declaration in 3:14-15 is of particular interest to the rest of this treatise, as it essentially means the Serpent’s curse is a genetic modification which makes it a natural carnivore. Compare the meaning (our translation) of the Hebrew to the KJV rendering:

And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (KJV)

Said Yahweh (of) the gods to the biter: Because (you) have done likewise—you have cursed all the animals [of the land, i.e. land animals, livestock] and every beast [man] of the land: (therefore) to gehenna [to hell, or to the valley of wailing] (you will) go and flesh (you) will eat all the days (of the) animals [throughout the age of men]. Enmity (I) will put between (you) and (the) woman, between your seed and her seed; it shall strike (or ‘overwhelm’) (your) head (or ‘chief’) and you shall strike (at its) back.

Now consider that you are statistically more likely to get struck by lightning or kicked to death by a donkey than die from a snakebite. In fact, in South Africa, you are more likely to die from being bitten by a human than snake.431 So it hardly makes sense to suppose that snakes are the bane of men, and that there is some sort eternal feud between one particular snake and the offspring of Eve, or Jesus in particular, or whatever. Such an interpretation does not fit with the seriousness of the text, or with common sense.

What the prophecy of this text means to say is that Adam and his progeny would fight against the other men, who would continue to eat flesh until the final consummation. The Adamites are prophesied to be victorious in the struggle, defeating their leaders and putting the rest to the whip. Of course, we who live in the 21st century may not like the sound of this, but consider that this was some six millennia ago, that the language of Revelation and the Enochian literature is almost gruesome by comparison, and that whatever measures which Adam and his sons took against the flesh-eaters were not nearly enough to prevent the total apostasy which precipitated the Flood, and its necessity is obvious. This is grossly apparent in the Fragment of Noah, preserved in Enoch.

We may be mistaken about the word gehenna here, but it is not certain because the Hebrew word, which is normally translated as “on your belly,” is found nowhere else in the Bible. Certainly, the association with gehenna as found in the New Testament is more in keeping with the spirit of the text (the vast majority of what Yahshuah is recorded as having said in the Gospels is in direct reference to, a quotation of or a paraphrasing of things in the Old Testament, including his remarks about gehenna), as the Serpent was being cursed; otherwise it is a matter of genetic modification, the exact nature of which we can only speculate about. In any case, it is not relevant unless we suppose that God literally took a talking reptile and modified it so that it no longer walked on all fours like other creatures, but was made to slither, which does not even make sense. More plausible is the fact that nakhash was chosen to make the analogy due to the creatures’ characteristics, or that it has yet another esoteric meaning which is still unknown to us now, as many have supposed.

Genesis 3:14-15 is particularly revealing due to the fact that the word for ‘dust’ is the same as that used in 2:7 to describe the substance which Adam was made from, implying ‘flesh.’ The alternative is that snakes are literally said to eat dust where a much more accurate translation of the word for the word rendered “lick” is ‘lap up,’ and that Man is literally said to be dust. Even then, dust as we know it is generally just skin, so alternate renderings of the Hebrew term aside (snakes cannot subsist on soil!), it still amounts to the same thing: flesh.

In other words, the curse of the Serpent was that it was now a carnivore—not by some mysterious removal of its limbs so that it has to crawl on its abdomen, but by consequence of its own choice. This curse was evidently applied to all the non-Adamic humans, presumably owing in large part to the abandonment of the Eden settlement by Yahweh or the forced removal of the savages from it, while Adam and Eve each had a different curse, which amount to having to work harder to feed themselves by tilling soil without God’s help. That is to say that it was God himself who cursed the Serpent by making him (or simply declaring him to be) a carnivore, and that the descendants of the original “flesh-eater” are naturally inclined to eat flesh.432

The only possible objection to this interpretation, really, is that the serpent is described as eating dust in the kingdom of heaven in Isaiah 65:25, which we have already seen is plainly stating that lions and wolves are on an herbivorous diet, so the serpent must also be, unless his diet is contrasted against that of other carnivores. Notice that it is almost exactly the same speech as 11:6-9, with the addition of the snake’s diet of “dust.” This is clearly intended to convey a contrast in order to disparage the other option, rather than that snakes will be licking dust or eating flesh in the kingdom of heaven. (It is illogical to suppose that things have changed so that a lion would eat a vegetarian diet but a snake would not in the same context.)

“Wolf and lamb feed together, a lion eats straw as an ox, and dust is the snake’s food. They shall do no evil, nor destroy in all My set-apart mountain,” said יהוה. Isaiah 65:25

Once again this apparent contradiction is accounted for by the Jews’ malice. We find evidence of a deliberate change to the text if we cross-reference the Masoretic texts with the older and more reliable Septuagint, just as with the case of Isaiah 11. This time the word ‘bread’ is inserted to qualify the word for ‘dust’ (rendered ‘earth’ here, and ‘soil’ in other translations), either because it was in the original Hebrew manuscripts but was not carried over into the Masoretic texts, or else because the intent of the Jewish scholars was to preserve its meaning.

Then wolves and lambs shall feed together, and a lion shall eat straw like an ox, but a snake shall eat earth as bread! They shall not do wrong or destroy on my holy mountain, says the Lord. Isaiah 65:25 (LXX)

We might suppose that the Masoretes were true to the letter of the original, while the Septuagint scholars were true to its spirit. Either way, the implication is that snakes, which do eat flesh, and were presumably made to eat flesh (which is consistent with our rendering of Genesis 3:14), will not be eating it in the kingdom of heaven, regardless of whether they will be eating soil or bread (which is consistent with our rendering of Isaiah 11:6-9). If we suppose that a change was made to the original Hebrew manuscripts, then it is very probable that they had said that the snake will eat “bread of the earth,” or even (owing to the meaning of ha’adamah) the “bread of men.” What is not even remotely plausible is that Isaiah ever said that a snake will eat flesh in the kingdom of heaven, even if it means our rendering of Genesis 3:14 is mistaken. However, it cannot mean this, as the contexts of both passages from Isaiah are speaking of nonhuman animals, and the context of Genesis is not. Even if we do not take the whole story in Genesis literally as applying to a race-mixing episode pertaining to only a few individuals, it still really ought to inform us as to what the Parable of the Tares is all about, and why the prophets of the New Testament era were so decidedly opposed to the Pharisees in principle rather than merely in matters of doctrine.

Another parable He put before them, saying, “The reign of the heavens has become like a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed darnel among the wheat and went away. And when the blade sprouted and bore fruit, then the darnel also appeared. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? From where then does it have the darnel?’ And he said to them, ‘A man, an enemy did this.’ And the servants said to him, ‘Do you wish then, that we go and gather them up?’ But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the darnel you also uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I shall say to the reapers, “First gather the darnel and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my granary.”’” Matthew 13:24-30

Although its significance to our main thesis is enormous and by itself proves beyond any doubt that eating meat is emphatically and forever disallowed in Scripture, the episode in Eden is just the beginning of this drama. Even with the disastrous effects of the “original sin” plainly evident and accepted as pertaining to all humans, even as the reason we all inevitably die, most people still cannot possibly fathom just how incredible the implications are. Take, for instance, the KJV’s rendering of Genesis 4:1-12 compared to what the meaning in Hebrew is, and it is apparent that the curse of the Serpent was inherited by his son:

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. And she again bare his brother Abel. And Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. (KJV)

Now ha’adam [‘of the earth,’ or ‘the Adam’] had Eve. His wife conceived and brought forth Qayin [‘acquired’] and said, “I have gotten a man against Yahweh.” And again (she) brought forth his brother Hebel [‘vanity’]. Hebel became (a) tender (of) flocks [or sheep], but Qayin became a servant [or slave, laborer] ha’adamah [‘of men,’ or ‘the Adamites’]. And the end of (the) time came [And the time to make presentations came], and Qayin brought fruit ha’adamah [of men, the Adamites] (as his) offering (to) Yahweh. Hebel also brought his birthright, the best of his flock. Yahweh regarded [or looked upon]Hebel and his offering, and not Qayin and his offering. Qayin became very fallen in his face [or Qayin’s countenance fell]. Yahweh said to Qayin, “Why are you angry? Why has your face [or countenance] fallen? If (you) do not (do) well, (you) will not be swelled [or exalted], and if (you) do not (do) well, you lie in the doorway of sin and your master.” And Qayin told Hebel his brother to come to the field [i.e., away from the settlement]. And Qayin rose up to [against] Hebel his brother and killed him. And Yahweh said to Qayin, “Where is Hebel your brother?” And (he) said, “(I) know not. My brother’s keeper (am) I?” And (he, Yahweh) said, “What have (you) done(?) (The) sound of your brother’s blood is crying about ha’adamah [of men, the Adamites]. Now cursed [cut off] are you from ha’adamah [of men, the Adamites] who have opened (your) mouth to receive your brother’s blood (from) your hand. When (you) work ha’adamah [of men, the Adamites] will no longer give (you) fruit. (A) vagrant wanderer you have become in the land.”

When it comes to Scripture, you can always be certain that its language is so complex and written from such an intelligent and cryptic perspective as to be rich in layered meanings. Clearly the man’s name was not really Adam, but the writer of the narrative made a play on words specifically to make this association here and explain events which had happened thousands of years earlier and which he only knew about from his anecdotal sources. It makes sense that the layered meanings of a dead language like ancient Hebrew would be completely lost in translation. The word adamah is indeed not the same as adam, and has the meaning normally ascribed to it, but it is the feminine form and root of adam. So in order to get the right meaning, we have to consider the context.

The context is that of Genesis 1:22 and 27, where Adam and Eve are told to “be fruitful and increase” their numbers, which we know is not just a one-time use, as the exact same figure of speech is repeated to Noah and his family in 9:7, and actually means “bring forth fruit from the ground.” There is a double meaning here: If we do not suppose that the “offerings” were of food, then this necessarily means that the “fruit” which Cain presented to Yahweh (or to the gods) were his own children, and that Abel was doing exactly the same. ‘Offering’ is synonymous with ‘presentation,’ and only takes on its religious connotation when it is understood to have a religious context, which we are disputing as plainly absurd. The word for ‘shepherd’ here should be taken, as it is throughout Scripture, as ‘father’ (as in, ‘priest’) or ‘teacher’ (of righteousness). The ‘choice’ is also used throughout the prophetic books to describe people upon whom the religious leaders have preyed, and we also know that the Church has laid claim to “pastoral” duties over its “flock” since its very beginnings, right to the present. So considering that the same word is rendered ‘fat’ in the KJV, the carnivorous bias and outright stupidity and malice of the evil shepherds, among whom the KJV translators were happy to count themselves, ought to be self-evident.

We infer from this extremely significant event that Cain was being judged negatively for failing to raise his children well, which implies (among other things) that he was feeding them the wrong things. Perhaps they did not perform well when examined regarding what he had instructed them, whereas Abel’s children did. Otherwise we have to simply assume that the gods capriciously looked down on Cain for offering the fruits of the earth, which is so inconsistent with the rest of Scripture on so many levels that we have only even included a discussion of it here because of the depth and complexity of the text, rather than that it has any merit, and because the most superficial is also the common understanding of the allegory.

In light of the rest of Scripture, it would be utterly absurd to think, as the Christians do, that Cain’s punishment of exile for murdering his brother was more than he could bear, and that God agreed that it was indeed too harsh a sentence, so that he took enough pity on him to protect him, thereby damning all future generations of men, unless there was more to it than that. Cain was Adam’s (and consequently, his brother’s) servant. He depended on them for his food, so perhaps his offering was rejected because he brought what did not belong to him (assuming our explanation that they were his own children is not the right one), while Abel brought the best of his “flocks,” which was his birthright. (Abel and his offspring were given dominion, but Cain and his offspring were born into servitude, and failed to graduate to Abel’s status.)433

When Cain realized that he was cursed to be an omnivore because he could not feed himself, the way his father had been, because of his sin, he repented, and this is why God showed him mercy. So although he was cut off from his Adamic kin, and from Yahweh, he was still allowed to settle and build a city of his own, among strangers. (Imagine that; we are told not to be like Cain in 1 John 3:12, but the Christians cannot even bring themselves to repent and find life, as Cain did.) These strangers were known by the Adamites to be cannibals, from whom Cain knew he would need protection. This is attested in ancient documents attributed to Noah himself (more on that later), in language which highly suggests that they were among Moses’ sources.

My son, you should not travel alone eastwards. Instructions of Shuruppak 165-166

To get lost is bad for a dog; but terrible for a man. On the unfamiliar way at the edge of the mountains, the gods [mighty; rulers] of the mountains are man-eaters. They do not build houses there as men do; they do not build cities there as men do. Instructions of Shuruppak 266-271

When you bring a slave girl from the hills, she brings both good and evil with her. The good is in the hands; the evil is in the heart. The heart does not let go of the good; but the heart cannot let go of the evil either. As if it were a watery place, the heart does not abandon the good. Evil is a store-room … Instructions of Shuruppak 193-201

Should we suppose that God miraculously caused the ground to stop yielding its crops because Cain murdered his brother? Or is it more plausible to suppose that Abel’s relatives stopped feeding him because he murdered him and drank his blood? We have seen how intolerable this is in God’s mind, and we can all be appalled at the idea that Cain was a cannibal, if only for a moment, but why should we not suppose that his carnism was in fact the cause of his fratricide, if we have no trouble with the idea that he did in fact commit fratricide? It was Cain’s disposition which made him evil, being the genetic offspring of the cursed carnivore.

Not as Qayin who was of the wicked one and killed his brother. And why did he kill him? Because his works were wicked but those of his brother were righteous. 1 John 3:12

So we have seen from the testimony of Yahshuah, as recorded in the gospel of John, and also from John’s first epistle, that all sin comes back to that one original sin. The murder of each of the prophets, and consequently the murder of Yahshuah as well, is attributable to Cain’s murder of Abel, which set the precedent. We do not suppose that the biblical prophets were eaten by their persecutors, or even necessarily that Abel was eaten by his brother, but it is hard to see how the word for ‘blood’ even became associated with murder unless by Cain’s act, which Scripture tells us involved drinking his blood for whatever reason. There is no doubt that the reason given us is that he was angry and jealous, but if we take the text seriously, then we also must accept that in his rage, his appetite for blood took over, and even if he did not take the time to cut and cook his brother’s flesh, he at least put his bloody hand to his mouth.

It is probably no coincidence that the same things which Azazel and the Watchers taught to men were the same things that are attributed to Cain’s descendant Tubal-Cain in 4:22. Tubal-Cain’s half-brother Jabal (4:20) is regarded as the first rancher, and the ancestor of those who dwell in tents (cf. the hill-dwellers of the Instructions of Shuruppak), obviously preferring barbarism to the settled life which Cain’s work had afforded him. It was not long after this that men began to call upon the name of Yahweh (4:26), meaning the righteous offspring of Adam were beginning to be overpowered by the barbarians, no doubt owing to the events described both here and in Noah’s testament, and to the influence of the Watchers.

For the shepherd, he stopped searching, he stopped bringing back the sheep. For the farmer, he stopped ploughing the field. Instructions of Shuruppak 272-273

As for the Instructions of Shuruppak, there is plenty of evidence to establish its influence on the writer of Genesis. We have stated that Genesis 6:3 indicates that the natural human lifespan was reduced to 120 years. However, some influential Christian scholars regard this as meaning that the Flood took place 120 years after God’s declaration of intent.434 Assuming this, then Noah must have spent at least a century building the Ark, which is certainly reasonable, given its dimensions. The alternative is that he had more resources and manpower at his disposal, enough to complete the task in the two-year timeframe which seems to be indicated in the text.

Based on the WB-62 Sumerian king list, it seems Moses believed that Noah was the priest-king of Shuruppak, and that he lived or reigned 600 years, completing the project at the end of his reign. If this is true, then he certainly would have had the resources necessary to build it in a short amount of time. Either way, the fact that he built it at all means he had an awful lot of faith, in the sense that faith is obedience. Whether he spent 120 years building it himself, or 2 years organizing its construction, this was a truly monumental task for the time.

We believe Noah was indeed the “man of Shuruppak” called Ziusudra in the Sumerian (Utnapishtim or Utnapishtin in the Akkadian) Epic of Gilgamesh, which was certainly known to Moses. Shuruppak, which means ‘the Healing Place’ in Sumerian, was a grain storage and distribution city which had more silos than any other Sumerian city. It was dedicated to Ninlil (the ‘Lady of the Field’), a.k.a. Sud, the goddess of grain and of heaven. This means that according to the neo-Sumerian literature, Noah was a priest-king of agriculture itself. We can assume that he really was such, or else we can assume that the writer of the Sumerian legend simply invented him to relate the point he wanted to make, knowing Shuruppak’s importance or its relevance to agriculture. Either way, this association has found its way into the Bible, where the ideal man of the antediluvian world is the one touting veganism.

The Instructions of Shuruppak, among the oldest known literature in the world, are proverbs attributed to Ziusudra’s father (presumably Noah’s father Lamech, but anyone in his family line, such as Methuselah or Enoch), or perhaps Ziusudra himself—in any case, a “son of Ubaratutu,” the son of Enmendurana, who is associated with Enoch. We might just suppose that they were sayings attributed to Noah, considering that his ancestors all perished in the Flood, and he was the only one left to deliver them to posterity. Perhaps Ubaratutu is simply Ararat, which comes from urartu, probably a corruption of a longer Sumerian name (like ubaratutu). Whatever the case may be, these instructions were the very beginning of the legacy which has become the Bible, and attributed to someone very close to Noah, as perhaps instructions for him, the heir of Shuruppak if not for the fact that the Flood swept it away.

At harvest time, at the most priceless time, collect like a slave girl, eat like a queen; my son, to collect like a slave girl, to eat like a queen, this is how it should be. Instructions of Shuruppak 131-133

My son, a field situated at the bottom of the embankments, be it wet or dry, is nevertheless a source of income. Instructions of Shuruppak 262-263

You should not beat a farmer’s son: he has constructed your embankments and ditches. Instructions of Shuruppak 153

My son, you should not use violence. Instructions of Shuruppak 61

You should not abuse a ewe. Instructions of Shuruppak 246

You should not eat stolen food with anyone. You should not sink your hand into blood. After you have apportioned the bones, you will be made to restore the ox, you will be made to restore the sheep. Instructions of Shuruppak 39-41

Who works with leather will eventually work with his own leather. Instructions of Shuruppak 109

So there is the proof that Noah, the archetype and ideal figure of the Bible, was a vegan, even by today’s standards. Of course, it would be hard for us to demonstrate that he did not use animals for labor, or that he never drank a cow’s milk or ate cheese. However, the only real way to know one way or the other is to establish the ideological basis, as we just have. Further on we will see that what was really going on during his time, which we know he was not participating in, was the genetic manipulation of the human species by way of consumption of animal proteins—particularly the growth factors in milk. So it is abundantly evident that Noah’s diet was strictly plant-based, and that he had a genuine regard for the well-being of whatever animals (including humans) he had power over.

Nimrod, on the other hand—the antagonist of the Genesis narrative between the Flood and the Tower of Babel incident, was a “hunter.” It is apparent from all the available evidence (including the Instructions of Shuruppak) that Nimrod was not a hunter in the modern sense, but that he “hunted” humans. (This is how “hunters” is used, along with “fishers” or “fishermen,” in Jeremiah 16, for example, though not to convey ‘killers.’) In particular, the humans he hunted were righteous men. Nimrod sought to establish himself as a divine king over the whole world by hunting down and killing whoever resisted his rule—particularly whoever acknowledged the right of dominion which extended from Noah’s lineage. This birthright eventually fell to another hunter, Esau, who sold it for a bowl of porridge (at least he valued it), and made himself and his descendants the enemy of his brother Israel. So Nimrod is not in good company, and it is not as though the writer of Genesis extols his virtues when he calls him “mighty,” just because he acquired big muscles and pushed weaker people around.

With this in mind, let us return once again to the matter of dominion, which still needs to be settled. ‘Dominion’ is defined as “control or the exercise of control; sovereignty,” “a territory or sphere of influence or control; a realm,” and as “the land governed by one ruler or government.”435 To say that Man has dominion is to say that Man has a sovereign, or that Man is sovereign. Take note, Christians, for if you believe that the latter applies, rather than the former, then you are not a Christian: you are a Humanist who follows the way of Nimrod (which means ‘rebellion’). It is not Man, but a man that has sovereignty; it is God alone who is the “one ruler” or sovereign, and Yahshuah has been appointed the regent of his dominion here on Earth.

Moreover, this line of kingship was passed down to him, straight from Noah, in a line going all the way back to Adam. In contrast, Yahshuah told the Jews, who are supposed to be “God’s chosen people” and the ones who have inherited Abraham’s blessing (the inheritance was passed through him), that their house was left to them desolate (Matthew 23:38). What else could this mean but that the Abomination had ruined them and whatever inheritance they actually would have otherwise had?

From the Instructions of Shuruppak alone it is evident that the earth became corrupted because people stopped performing agriculture, because it was easier to kill animals and eat them. However, this is not a sustainable means of existence, and the more meat-eaters you have, the less sustainable it is. So by the time the nephilim showed up, people began to starve.

As the Bible records that Cain was the offspring of the Serpent (be it biological or ideological) through Eve, in both testaments, clearly the human race has a history of being tampered with going back to the very beginning. However, the origin of the nephilim indicates that the tampering got progressively more extensive. Enoch actually ascribes the seduction of Eve to the angel Gadriel (a.k.a. Azazel), whose major contribution to the Watchers’ cause was teaching men how to kill with weapons. The context indicates that all who perform the “blows of death” are offspring of the Devil, just like Cain. Christians whose stance is opposed to abortion ought to realize that the same precedent which they have for appealing to Scripture in support of their moral standard (there is no other one) only treats it as an afterthought to the murder of humans and nonhuman animals.

And the third was named Gâdreêl: he it is who showed the children of men all the blows of death, and he led astray Eve, and showed the weapons of death to the sons of men the shield and the coat of mail, and the sword for battle, and all the weapons of death to the children of men. And from his hand they have proceeded against those who dwell on the earth from that day and for evermore. For men were created exactly like the angels, to the intent that they should continue pure and righteous, and death, which destroys everything, could not have taken hold of them, but through this their knowledge they are perishing, and through this power it is consuming me. And the fifth was named Kâsdejâ: this is he who showed the children of men all the wicked smitings of spirits and demons, and the smitings of the embryo in the womb, that it may pass away, and the smitings of the soul the bites of the serpent, and the smitings which befall through the noontide heat, the son of the serpent named Tabââ‘ĕt. 1 Enoch 69:6-7,11-12

The offspring of Adam were, of course, the primary targets of this treachery, as God’s designated stewards, but the reason the Watchers’ sin is much greater than that of the Serpent is that no living creature of Earth lay outside their purview. Genesis 6 relates this, in somewhat cryptic fashion, by attesting that the Watchers “took wives” from among the Adamites and created offspring from them, which is confirmed by Enoch (6:1-8). Once again, even if we do not consider Enoch to be canon or even authoritative, when we reference it and hold it against the Bible, we must consider the fact that the early Christians who composed the New Testament did.

And Azazel taught men to make swords and knives and shields and breastplates; and made known to them the metals [of the earth] and the art of working them; and bracelets and ornaments; and the use of antimony and the beautifying of the eyelids; and all kinds of costly stones and all colouring tinctures. And there arose much godlessness, and they committed fornication, and they were led astray and became corrupt in all their ways. 1 Enoch 8:1-3a

The fact that Azazel is described as inciting humans to violence against each other is clear, but there can be no doubt that the same weapons which were used against humans were also used against animals to the same ends. The narrative (7:3b-6) describes the nephilim as not killing each other until they had depleted their other food sources, including men, and even then, there is an alternate explanation in the fact that Gabriel was told by Yahweh himself to incite the men to destroy each other. If we are to take that literally, then Azazel is responsible for the human violence against animals, while Yahweh is responsible for the human violence against humans to counteract it, but only after the nephilim had devoured humans and gotten away with it. In other words, the decision to destroy the transgenic nephilim was made to save the nonhuman animals rather than the humans, though ultimately all three races perished because it was too late to save them all from corruption, but all three also persisted to some extent after the Flood.

The translator’s choice of the word ‘antimony’ here is also of interest. The ancient Greek etymology of ‘antimony’ (στίμμι) actually suggests sodomy, and the word which we use is thought to derive from ἀντίμοναχός (antimonachos, or ‘monk-killer’), because antimony is poisonous, and most alchemists of the Middle Ages were monks, so it killed many monks. In any case, the fact that it is indeed poisonous suggests pharmakeia rather than a merely cosmetic use for the element. Furthermore, antimony has been used to fashion bullets of lead and tin alloys, which suggests this also may have been done in the ancient world, especially before the advent of bronze and iron metallurgy. Otherwise we are left to wonder why Azazel’s preoccupation was with two so remarkably distinct enterprises—the one of grave importance and the other virtually useless—or why, assuming a later writer inserted his character into the narrative, this writer attributed them to him, rather than making deliberate associations between related concepts. That they were seen by the writer as so related is evident enough in the fact that the “cosmetics” led to “fornication,” which we know is a euphemism for corruption of the flesh (more on this later), and that the consequence of the fornication is explicitly said to have been corruption in all their ways, which we have already identified as clearly indicating genetic modification in Jasher 4. With this in mind, we may as well just assume that “coloring tinctures” could just as easily apply to toxic food colorings, but there is no need to go that far, as even now, with many natural and synthetic alternatives to choose from, most modern cosmetics contain animal derivatives, such as gelatin, glycerin, keratin, collagen, carmine and stearic acid.436

Recall that the three things which brought about the Flood are Man’s violence against Man, his materialism and vanity, and his consumption of flesh. It is plainly evident, then, that those things attributed to Azazel were those which Yahweh took the most exception to, as evidenced by the fact that “all sin” was put on him. Thus whatever sins are attributed to scapegoats in future generations, such as we see under the Law of Moses, have their origins in these three things, but none so much as the “sin of sins,” which is to say the deliberate corruption of our DNA, and that of other species, which happens by way of the eating of flesh, but not the other two sins. Hence we also have the association between Azazel and the Serpent of Eden, as their goal was exactly the same. In all likelihood, the character of Azazel was just invented in order to personify the spirit of the Serpent, to make it easier to diffuse and divide the concepts of good and evil for the literary purposes of the Enochic tradition.

As the goal of the Watchers was to get us to eat meat, the most direct and evident result of the tampering is the genetic disposition to eat meat, which is far more common and pronounced in many other species than in humans, because humans are still natural vegans, despite the tampering, while many others are not. After all, Noah was perfect in his generations, and God made a concerted effort to save our species from further corruption, so it makes sense that the human genome is not as defiled as it could be. We have observed that God regarded his entire creation—not just part of it—as “good” (i.e., perfect, undefiled), so it should not be that difficult to conceive that there was a time when not just humans, but all animals on this planet were herbivores like we are. Recall from the previous chapter that Genesis 1:30 indicates exactly that.

Although we may regard it as the most authoritative, the Bible is not the only place where we can find evidence of this in Scripture. Some of the Qumran texts make it clear that the early Christians all believed that all of Earth’s creatures would one day return to their natural state of veganism, in accordance with the prophecy we have seen in Isaiah 11. This is important because without anything else to draw on, one could object that the creation account in Genesis is not meant to be taken so literally, and that anything which we can glean from it therefore lacks credibility or the force of authority selectively given to 9:3, for instance.

I g[ive thanks to You, O Lord, for] You set me by a fountain which flows in a dry land, a spring of water in a desolate land, a well watered garden [and a pool …] You [plan]ted a stand of juniper and pine together with cypress for Your glory; trees of life at the secret spring, hidden among all the trees by the water so that a shoot might grow up into an eternal planting. Taking root before they shoot up, they stretch out their roots to the water-course, that its trunk might be open to the living water and become an eternal fountain. On its leafy branches every wild animal of the forest shall graze, and its trunk shall become a gathering place to all who pass, and its branches roosts for all the birds. Thanksgiving Hymns (1QH), 16:5-10

From all this we can conclude that it is not so much that humans were tempted and succumbed to a diet which included meat, as that they were engineered (corrupted, even) to pursue such a thing once the sin had been committed, perhaps just by the natural consequence of eating and adapting to it, and later again when the Watchers deliberately intervened. This should not come as a surprise any more from a scientific standpoint than a scriptural one, as we know that humans are natural herbivores, but very few are strict vegetarians. Only on rare occasions will herbivores consume flesh, even when faced with starvation, so the fact that humans now have such a strong inclination to consume flesh, to the point that strong institutional, monetary and psychological safeguards protect against going the other way, suggests that this is not the result of all these bulwarks of sin, but that these bulwarks were only able to manifest in the first place because of modifications made to the human genome which are too slight to affect our physiology as much as they affect our psychology.

We are talking about people who lived for several centuries, so gradual changes to their genes by way of mutagens in their food would have been inevitable, even as the long-term effects would have been dramatic—certainly enough to notice a change—but the change begins and ends with the adverse consequences of consuming animal proteins where the brain, and therefore the mind and psychology, is concerned. To alter the brain, or even the endogenous hormonal balances, as proteins do, is to alter the mind, and the force of habit spread across tens of thousands of episodes of the same event will eventually become insurmountable in terms of its impact on future behavior. We can only speculate as to how the highly oxygenated atmospheric environment of the antediluvian world may have affected the physiology as a whole, but it certainly could have exacerbated the process of genetic mutations, enough that virtually all of the races of humans are descended from the same ancestor who lived c. 3000 BC.

Our purpose here is not to offer an exact account of how the Watchers succeeded in defiling all conscious life on this planet, especially mankind. This cannot be accomplished without, for starters, rigorous scientific testing, and that will not be happening anytime soon, given that scientists are largely employed toward the end not of exposing what happened 5000 years ago, but reprising it. Our purpose is merely to point out that Scripture claims that it has happened, and that it will happen again, so as to lay the groundwork for more productive scientific pursuits in the future, and to expose the precedent and the trend in order to show how it is already happening again, with no less impetus as then. After all, this is the sign which Yahshuah gave for identifying the run-up to the end of the world, so we really ought to be taking it very seriously.

That being said, considering the utility of the methods presently used to modify human genetics (e.g., vaccines, modification of foods, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, chemtrails, thermonuclear radiation and depleted uranium contamination, and water fluoridation), we can reasonably suspect that the Watchers used some of the very same methods back then. Such indirect or uncontrolled methods of genetic modification make a great deal of sense, as opposed to overt tactics that would provoke violent backlashes. They can be done to large populations without the consent and participation of the victims, require less effort overall, and may even be seen as accidental, as in the cases of the infamous disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yet there is one method of genetic modification that, more than any other, has been supremely successful, to the point that it has had a continuous history of use over the last several thousand years, and that is the consumption of animal flesh.

It is commonly thought that in its natural setting, free of interference from advanced technology, the human genome is set in stone. Even the scientific community has long considered our DNA to be largely immutable—subject to the occasional transcription error or mutation, of course, but otherwise, the DNA a person possesses at birth is exactly what will be present in his body when he dies. Never mind that scientists cannot account for the purpose of the vast majority of our DNA, and the enormous ramifications of that. It now seems that this conventional view of immutability is sorely mistaken. Even eye color is affected by differences between diets, and can change in adulthood based on whether or not someone is eating animal proteins.437 The implication is that what are commonly understood to be genetic causes for diseases which we supposedly inherit from our parents are actually determined, at least in part, if not primarily, by genetic mutations caused by metabolic factors.

The term used to refer to the transfer of genes between organisms by any means other than reproduction is horizontal gene transfer (HGT). HGT was discovered in the mid-20th century, but for decades it has been thought to apply only to prokaryotes. (Most prokaryotes are single-cell organisms. HGT is ubiquitous in bacteria, so no one will deny that it happens in prokaryotes.) Only in the last decade has it been begrudgingly acknowledged to occur in eukaryotes as well.438 Even more controversial has been the question of whether genes can transfer between different species, much less different biological kingdoms. Yet in 2008 a group of genetic sequences known for their ability to move to different positions in a genome (transposons) was found in seven largely unrelated species, under such circumstances that suggest horizontal gene transfer.439

This field of research is so new and controversial that no one has a good grasp of what the actual mechanisms behind HGT are, much less how extensive it is. Nevertheless, this did not stop researchers on the Human Genome Project from observing that a set of 223 proteins are markedly similar to proteins in bacteria, but unlike any other eukaryotic proteins, thus concluding, “a more parsimonious explanation is that these genes entered the vertebrate (or prevertebrate) lineage by horizontal transfer from bacteria.”440 This finding is enormously significant in light of the fact that the human body is home for somewhere between 75 and 200 trillion bacteria, the majority of which reside in the digestive tract. In 2011 researchers discovered that our bodies constitute the perfect environment for the transfer of genes between bacteria.441 Meanwhile, the experiments of other researchers led them to conclude that viruses which infect bacteria (known as bacteriophages) also target the nuclei of the host, thus suggesting that bacteriophages “[facilitate] the horizontal transfer of genes between prokaryotes and eukaryotes.”442

What does all this mean? It means that it is now established beyond a reasonable doubt that the bacteria in our digestive tract can be (and are) genetically modified by new bacteria introduced from the environment, and that the same bacteria alter (or have the capacity to alter) our DNA, even though our body’s cells are quite different than those of bacteria. In fact, a 2001 experiment conducted on poultry farmers and slaughterers found that merely being in such close proximity with chickens (to say nothing of consuming their flesh or menstruations) resulted in the genetic modification of the gut flora of their human handlers.443 This should explain the high incidence of cancer rates among poultry workers that we discussed in Chapter 2. Based on this, it should go without saying that the deliberate, prolonged ingestion of animal flesh, with all its concomitant bacteria, represents a significant threat to the integrity of the human genome.

In order for this threat to be real, we would need to see evidence that genes from such bacteria can make the jump to an entirely different species (ours) and begin modifying the genome. This is precisely why the 223 proteins discovered by the Human Genome Project are so important, as are the transposons found in unrelated species. However, horizontal gene transfer in humans does not necessarily need to be instigated by bacteria. An experiment conducted on rats demonstrated that foreign genes in GMO feed were present in stomach cells and intestinal lymph nodes two hours after eating, in intestinal lymph nodes, kidney and liver cells six hours after eating, and in intestinal lymph nodes, spleen and liver cells three days after eating.444 Another experiment found that foreign DNA consumed by pregnant mice was present in the organs of fetuses and newborns.445

If the reader is unsure as to whether we are suggesting that DNA functions in a manner far different from what the scientific community currently understands, know that we are. It is no secret in esoteric circles, and in several schools of psychology, that even a person’s thoughts and memories are imprinted into his DNA, and that the personality and behavioral traits of any given species are inherited as genetic memory. Revelation 20:12 states not only that the dead shall be judged according to their works, but that their works are written in the “book of life.” Given that we have been told that even the very hairs on our head have been counted, we would be remiss to think that the thoughts we think and the acts we commit throughout our lives have not been dutifully recorded, yet somehow we are still going to be judged according to them. That does not even make sense, which is obviously why the Christians have invented a new standard (whether or not you believe in Jesus, whatever that means) in order to detract from the Bible’s explicit declarations. We would also be remiss to suppose that there is any sort of rational basis for anyone to know all about us if it is not because that information has been imprinted in our DNA, not just when we are conceived, but throughout our lives, and that it can be retrieved.

Simply put, our DNA is far more sensitive to the substances and experiences we subject it to than we can possibly imagine at present. As with the original sin and the increasing psychological and physiological desensitization to and tolerance of sin which come about through the practice of sin, it all comes back to what we consume. While almost everyone knows, in a vague sense, that “you are what you eat,” few have appreciated just how prescient this aphorism is. Does it not make sense to say that when we consume that which we were never meant to consume, we become that which we were never meant to become? Each bite of flesh transforms a human into a transhuman: from a being made in God’s image to a being made in the image of the Watchers, and of Satan. Demonic possession, the Watchers’ intended goal of introducing us to meat, is therefore merely an afterthought, as it is the natural and inevitable consequence of molding oneself into the “image” (the material form) of these demons.

Let us not pretend that ignorance with regards to these scientific findings is any excuse. It is not as though Christians and the public at large have not been emphatically warned. In fact, we are not even the first to say this, as there are a few mainstream Christians that are clued into most of this, if only in the way of general ideas that do not necessarily connect it to eating meat.

What clued me in to the primary goal of the pharmakeia strategy was the realization that most of the schemes serve Satan’s grand procreative scheme. When the Lord began to grant me surprising insight into the modern “graven images” as one of Satan’s schemes … it became apparent that this procreative scheme is and has ever been the underlying theme of graven images. It dawned on me (Thank you Lord!) that the procreative scheme was at the root of these other schemes, even pharmakeia! …

Drugs induce changes in our body chemistry. These effect our body's function, metabolic processes. They influence how we feel, think and act, our personality, responses and reactions. These changes may be temporary but may also last a very long time. Some cause our DNA to be rewritten, which changes us quite tangibly into a different “us.” Because the life of the flesh is in the blood (Leviticus 17:11) and our blood is subject to pharmakeia’s effects, there is a direct impact on our souls! The influence is also supernatural, with the very real effect of opening a door or gateway, a dimensional portal through which demons may pass. Our thoughts and actions are then given over to their control. These entities are referred to as familiar spirits. The supernatural activity of angels and demons is the effectual power, which do work through natural agencies. Pharmakeia can hinder people from receiving the holy spirit, or can isolate those who have it from the Lord and deny them what benefit would otherwise be enjoyed.

Technically, I believe effectual chemical agents configure biological structures so they resonate with certain vibrational frequencies. These tune us, literally, to match established frequencies or their harmonics. …

Pharmakeia prepares an individual for the mark of the beast on an emotional level, causing an affinity for the serpent and the serpent-kind and a desire for union with the serpent as an aphrodisiac. It facilitates the supernatural opening of what is referred to as the third eye or sixth chakra enlightenment channel. It prepares an individual physically by making them a fit container, a welcoming abode for the entities who were bound during the great flood and that still await their release. An individual so detuned is a willing and even eager receptacle, a canning jar ready to be filled, a receiver slave. Bob Schlenker446

What this mainstream Christian fails to recognize is that the “modern graven images” are not what he thinks they are, as they have not deviated in function from those of the ancient world, and that the ancient ones were nothing more or less than meat stands. That is, all the idols he speaks of were associated with sacrifices in the ancient world, and those sacrifices were essentially the ancients’ sources of meat. We will cover this issue later, but for now it suffices to say that pharmakeia and idolatry are all about turning humans into portals for demons by changing and manipulating our DNA via our blood. Even without understanding the meaning of the text describing Cain’s sin and how it was his bloodlust which caused him to shed his brother’s blood, Christians still have nothing to fall back on to justify their ignorance of the command which was penned thousands of years ago—a command which finishes the sentence they now routinely use to justify their lust for blood:

“But do not eat flesh with its life, its blood.” Genesis 9:4

Even without the explanation which we have provided in the previous chapter, anyone pointing to Genesis 9:3 in order to justify eating meat ought also to read the very next verse and then ask himself, “Does the meat that I consume contain blood?” If it does, then this is a clear transgression of the command, which is affirmed as an “everlasting ordinance” in Leviticus 3:17, where fat is also forbidden. It is simply impossible to rid muscle tissue of either all its blood or all its fat without completely destroying the flesh itself, and the fact is that most people prefer the fat over the lean tissue because it has more flavor, so they actually seek out fatty meats like pork and beef.

Regardless of the previous commands handed down to Adam and Noah, and regardless of how things stand now, flesh was not prohibited altogether under Moses. So one could object that the spirit of the Law does not prohibit flesh altogether, the way the Law itself prohibits certain types of flesh. However, blood was prohibited altogether, in terms of both the spirit and the letter of the Law. The following examples show how allowances were only begrudgingly made to eat unclean animals, while blood was still restricted in the same context:

“Only, whatever your being desires you shall slaughter and eat, according to the blessing of יהוה your Elohim which He has given you, within all your gates. The unclean and the clean do eat of it, of the gazelle and the deer alike. Only, the blood you do not eat, pour it on the earth like water.” Deuteronomy 12:15-16

“When יהוה your Elohim enlarges your border as He has promised you, and you say, ‘Let me eat meat,’ because you long to eat meat, you eat as much meat as your being desires. When the place where יהוה your Elohim chooses to put His Name is too far from you, then you shall slaughter from your herd and from your flock which יהוה has given you, as I have commanded you, and you shall eat within your gates as much as your being desires. Only, as the gazelle and the deer are eaten, so you are to eat of it. The unclean and the clean alike eat of it. Only, be firm not to eat the blood, for the blood is the life, do not eat the life with the meat. Do not eat it, you pour it on the earth like water. Do not eat it, that it might be well with you and your children after you, when you do what is right in the eyes of יהוה. Only, the set-apart gifts which you have, and your vowed offerings, you are to take up and go to the place which יהוה chooses. And you shall make your burnt offerings, the meat and the blood, on the altar of יהוה your Elohim. And the blood of your offerings is poured out on the altar of יהוה your Elohim, and you eat the meat.” Deuteronomy 12:20-27

These are just examples. The command itself was explicit, and its enforcement was strict. So grave was the sin of consuming blood that a single infraction warranted a man being cut off (cursed) from Israel, forever, just as Cain was cut off from Adam. The context of this proscription makes it clear that “blood” (which is eaten) actually means raw flesh.

“‘And any man of the house of Yisra’ĕl, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who eats any blood, I shall set My face against that being who eats blood, and shall cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your lives, for it is the blood that makes atonement for the life.’ Therefore I said to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘No being among you eats blood, nor does any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood.’ And any man from the children of Yisra’ĕl, or from the strangers who sojourn among you, who hunts and catches any beast or bird, which is eaten, shall pour out its blood and cover it with dust, for it is the life of all flesh. Its blood is for its life. And I said to the children of Yisra’ĕl, ‘Do not eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood. Anyone eating it is cut off.’ And any being who eats a carcass or what was torn by a beast, be he a native or a stranger, he shall wash his garments and bathe in water, and shall be unclean until evening. Then he shall be clean. And if he does not wash or bathe his body, then he shall bear his crookedness.” Leviticus 17:10-16

Now consider that ‘blood’ is synonymous with ‘murder.’ In other words, it is never acceptable to eat a living creature. This commandment was clearly given as much for its health implications as any others. (That which is “clean” is that which is less likely to contribute to disease pathogenesis.) Knowing this, the fact that any kind of meat, cooked or not, causes disease, means that it is unclean; red meat just happens to be a little more infectious than others—unless all of the blood is cooked out of it.

Jews go to extreme lengths to observe this command because Scripture is inflexible about it. The common practice of melihah involves soaking, salting and draining meat in order to remove as much of the blood as possible. Yet even the Talmud (Keritot 2a,20b; Hullin 111a,117a) opines that strict obedience to this command is impossible, and that the consumption of meat is therefore still acceptable even if some amount of blood remains, in blatant contravention and contempt of the command. This type of logical fallacy is common in the rabbinic interpretations, which seek only loopholes in the Law while rendering lip service to it, and this one in particular undoubtedly contributed to Yahshuah’s criticism of the hypocritical Pharisees when they complained that his disciples did not wash their hands before eating, even though there was no command insisting upon it, and though the food itself which they ate was unclean (Matthew 15:1-9).

The fact of the matter is that no amount of preparation will remove every last drop of blood from the capillaries in a piece of flesh, which means that it will have some measure of influence over you, and offend God to some extent, no matter what. This is not a minor, legalistic objection over what is a negligible issue compared to the more important things, like whether we believe in Jesus and whether we have been baptized. It is an undeniable, empirically attested observation about a fact which God has made a big deal about. So rather than making God either a hypocrite or an exceedingly incompetent lawgiver, what this points to is that Genesis 9:3 constitutes, at best, a one-time concession, rather than free license, and that eating meat is still so detestable that it ought to be avoided at all costs, short of extreme desperation.

Sin is sin, and all sin is intolerable to God, who demands perfection, to the point that he will cut you off from your inheritance if you do it, before he will ever allow you to defile it, whether that inheritance is to be a servant in the fields outside Eden, or the land promised to Abraham, or the kingdom of heaven itself. Even Moses was not allowed into the Promised Land on account of a single failure to obey God to the letter of a single command. So if we are just one sin away from redemption and perfection, then we humans who think the goal is unattainable are fooling ourselves, because in reality the bar is ridiculously low. Instead, we need to strive for it with all our heart and all our soul and all our mind. Yes, God demands perfection, but when perfection is equivalent to not committing murder on a daily basis, that is really not saying much. The only question, then, is to what extent, or how much you want to get away with before ceasing to provoke God.

Let us suppose that consuming meat is acceptable, even though consuming blood is not. One might then protest that cooking the meat is as good as removing the blood, but even with this, only the water is evaporated. The red and white blood cells will remain, even if in altered form. So the intent of the command (keeping your body free of corruption) is thwarted, and your intent does not even factor into it. The command is for your own good, and you are literally rejecting God’s precious gift of life if you intend to find a loophole and work around it.

So, far from adopting the rabbinical interpretation which seeks to justify sin, the true Christian ought not to take any chances by adopting a “when in doubt, anything goes” rule. He ought rather to seek out what corrections might be made to his behaviors, lest he offend God not just once with his sin, but twice, and more grievously, with his refusal to repent. When in doubt, the best policy is to abstain from the matter in question, especially if the doubt is over the fact that you cannot possibly remove all of the proscribed substance from the item in question. If you handed someone a dish which he refused to eat because the item was laced with cyanide before you cooked it, you would not say, “It’s okay, most of the cyanide cooked out.” So imagine what God thinks of this justification, as he has told us not to do it, and also not to justify our sins to him, because he is not having it.

It really is no wonder. We are told quite explicitly that we need to be perfect, daily, even as our heavenly Father is perfect (Matthew 5:48), and that it is better to lose one’s own body than to sin. Again, one sin is the difference between Hell and Heaven.

And He said to them all, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his stake daily, and follow Me. For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake shall save it. For what is a man profited if he gains all the world, and is himself destroyed or lost?” Luke 9:23-25

“And if your hand or foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or crippled, rather than having two hands or two feet, to be thrown into the everlasting fire. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be thrown into the fire of Gehenna.” Matthew 18:8-9

Think about this for a moment. To acknowledge that to eat meat is to ingest any blood is to acknowledge that eating meat is breaking the Law. Breaking the Law once where it concerns taking a life means death, and breaking the Law without repenting means everlasting damnation. Even Cain repented and was shown mercy, so why do Christians find it so hard? If it was not a matter of being told not to sin, but of something which they would actually take seriously, such as not ingesting human blood, or fecal matter, or mercury or some other dreaded poison (and meat is poison), then they would not even hesitate in their decision to abstain. Moreover, it has now been found that there actually is human blood in the meat sold in supermarkets.447 Furthermore, the difference between consuming blood and consuming flesh is merely a difference in degree, not kind.

What we are suggesting is that the consumption of blood (and of meat) was both advocated by the Watchers and proscribed by Yahweh precisely because it is a potent agent of gene therapy that is in abundant supply and requires no advanced technology, and amounts to the deliberate and permanent destruction of God’s otherwise perfect creation, the worst offense we can possibly commit against him. It is no coincidence, then, that the consumption of blood is, in modern times, almost exclusively associated with satanic rituals, as Satanists actively seek to offend God as much as possible. It must be understood that these rituals are not just grotesque offenses to human sensibilities; they are specifically designed to offend God and accomplish certain effects which can be, and often are, very real. If we dismiss the possibility that there is something more to it than superstitious ceremony, then we fail to heed the vehement warnings of the Bible, as well as common sense.

Satanism and Luciferianism and other similar cults are blood cults that require blood to be sacrificed to pull in certain demons. For instance, blood may be taken from both the tongue and the genital area and mixed in a certain ceremony to invoke a particular demon. Demons are not bought with gold or silver, they are bought with blood. Fritz Springmeier and Cisco Wheeler448

The power that lies in the consumption of blood has been understood for thousands of years, and has been used by men throughout the ages to accrue temporal power to themselves, in abject defiance of God’s will. One might wonder as to the specifics of how the transhumanist policies of Nimrod and the Watchers were enacted, but unfortunately we cannot know them at present, unless it is as simple as transfer (or loss) of consciousness through horizontal gene transfer. What we can say for sure is that we live in a world which was created in their image, so whatever is going on now is along the lines of what Satan and the Watchers intended. What they intended was to have control of us, so this amounts to possessing our minds, as they are no longer able to exert the kind of physical control which they wielded in their own time. That being said, even mainstream Christian theologians of all denominations agree that there are multiple types of possession, and that the less aggressive of the two main forms amounts to gradual inculcation of societal or environmental influences.

The devil, however, always tempts in order to hurt by urging man into sin. In this
sense it is said to be his proper office to tempt … The flesh and the world are said to tempt as the instruments or matter of temptations; inasmuch as one can know what sort of man someone is, according as he follows or resists the desires of the flesh, and according as he despises worldly advantages and adversity: of which things the devil also makes use in tempting.
Thomas Aquinas449

What spirit can that be, which by a hidden inspiration stirs men’s corruption, and goads them to adultery, and feeds on the full-fledged iniquity, unless it be the same that finds pleasure in such religious ceremonies, sets in the temples images of devils, and loves to see in play the images of vices; that whispers in secret some righteous sayings to deceive the few who are good, and scatters in public invitations to profligacy, to gain possession of the millions who are wicked? Augustine450

With respect, then, to moral evils, evils of life and conduct,—evils which are so mighty, that, according to the wisest pagans, by them states are ruined while their cities stand uninjured,—their gods made not the smallest provision for preserving their worshippers from these evils, but, on the contrary, took special pains to increase them, as we have previously endeavored to prove. Augustine451

As the Church is guided “into all truth” by the “Spirit of truth” (John 16:13), the foundation head of all true inspiration, so He is opposed in His beneficent ministrations, by Satan, “the spirit of error” (1 John 4:6), the arch-enemy of truth and the great deceiver, who, with his demon-helpers, is the source of all false inspiration. But since Satan is a mere creature, and, unlike the Holy Spirit, neither infinite nor omnipresent, he requires the aid of an innumerable host of wicked, deluding spirits to carry on effectively his vast program of doctrinal corruption and deception. As the “Spirit of truth” inspires the genuine prophets and teachers of God (1 Cor. 12:3), so the “spirit of error,” and his spirit-satellites, energize the “many false prophets” who “are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1). Hence the Apostle John, like the Apostle Paul, traces error to its real source in satanic and demonic activity, rather than in the human agent. Merrill F. Unger452

So many people are concerned about the influence of film and television on young/impressionable minds, especially when it comes to desensitizing them to violence, but then overlook the fact that they are serving their own children the carcasses of violently murdered animals every day. And this is a reality, not mere fiction for entertainment purposes. The fact that they do not even see it constitutes positive proof that they themselves are victims of demon possession. Put simply, the more they eat, the more they lose the innocence of their youth, the further they are from repenting, and the more their minds are enslaved, not just by demons, but by demonically-inspired control mechanisms, which is to say, the religions of Satanism, or Judaism, and Luciferianism, or Christianity.

There has always been argument and controversy over whether it is right to kill an animal to eat its meat, and I have studied this issue for many years, but please understand that where blood is spilt, the lower spirits will gather. T. Stokes453

In view of the ceaseless industry of Satan and his vast cohorts of demon-helpers, zealously bent upon instigating error, and perverting and distorting the truth of God as the chief barrier to the progress and success of their nefarious program for the world, the oft-perplexing problem of the prevalence of so many conflicting sects and isms in professing Christianity, with such contrariety of doctrinal opinion, even among those of the same denominational affiliation, becomes less and less difficult of explanation. The recognition of demonism as the source of doctrinal deception is the only adequate basis upon which to account for the modern religious Babel, and the present-day confusion of tongues. Merrill F. Unger454

Knowing that the entire world is under Satan’s control, should it surprise anyone to discover that the reason meat consumption is purposefully pushed upon the masses with an a priori agenda is to subject them to demon possession? It is not as though the average person would actually choose to be the subject of transhumanist experiments to make him suitable for possession. Nor would most people ever consider drinking blood, so the eating of flesh serves the purpose of acclimating them to its taste and achieving the same end, albeit more gradually, and more safely, as ingesting too much of any toxin before your body has developed an immunity to it could make it fatally poisonous. (The only differences between a toxin and a poison are dosage and degree of immunity.)

The drinking of blood, either human or animal is consistently part of the ritual abuse survivors disclosures. According to the victims, Satanists believe that the life force of the sacrificial victim is in the blood. Partaking of the blood is believed to empower and add longevity of life. … The very young children are sometimes introduced to the taste of blood gradually by mixing it with milk, formula, punch, and other beverages. Eventually, with increases in blood content in these drinks, the child victim will be able to drink the blood without dilution. David L. and Donna M. Carrico455

So there are two types of victims: those forced to drink the blood of sacrifices, and the sacrificial victims themselves. The survivors attest that blood is imbibed specifically to bring about a change in consciousness. This obviously applies more in cases of animal sacrifice, because the drinkers would not consider themselves victims in cases of human sacrifice, and the real victims would not live to tell about it. It is not without reason, then, that we strenuously assert that meat-eaters experience a renewing of their minds which brings about a transformation very different than that advocated by Paul in Romans 12.

August 24, 1995, EDWARD BENNETT v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA, 901 P.2d 676; 787 P.2d 797 (1990), Denial of Post Conviction Petition Affirmed.

Overview: Appellate documents state Edward Bennett was sentenced to death for killing a girl. Writings were seized as evidence. Some of the statements included: ... “I need to kill somebody or tear someone apart. I got to satisfy my need, cure this thirst for blood. So as I make the sacrifice by doing it just for you and kill this child, for it is a first born, I’m giving you my soul, Satan. Where is my reward? My thirst for blood is now calm, but it shall rise again. My power is so strong I need to cause some death. For Lucifer’s inside of me, and I don’t want to let him out. I look in the mirror, I see him in my eyes. I feel his heart beating in my chest, and I know it is not mine. For I feel so privileged for I’m with number one. I’m so f_____powerful and my reign has just begun as I kill and kill again. I feel my rewards come on. My power’s growing even greater. I’m so f___ strong for I am the devil’s right-hand man. I carry out his every chore. I make this sacrifice in his name, Lucifer the Great, blood splattered on my face from the kill I’ve just done.” Charles McCorkle456

It is well known among exorcists that it is not possible to permanently remove a demon without the permission of the subject of the possession. Many exorcists (the experienced ones) will not even attempt it. Consider, then, that if demons are attached according to what you consume, then it is literally impossible to rid yourself of their influence if you refuse to cut off their supply by changing your diet. The Bible itself hints that due to the severity of the possession from a lifetime of consuming agony and death, or in participating in the killing mechanisms, some demons cannot be removed without detoxification of the physical body as well as of the spirit. The implications of this in light of everything we have covered so far are clearly enormous.

And coming to the taught ones, He saw a large crowd around them, and scribes disputing with them. And immediately, when all the crowd saw Him, they were greatly astonished, and running near, greeted Him. And He asked the scribes, “What are you disputing with them?” And one of the crowd answering, said, “Teacher, I brought You my son, who has a dumb spirit. And wherever he seizes him, he throws him down, and he foams at the mouth, and gnashes his teeth, and he wastes away. And I spoke to Your taught ones, that they should cast him out, but they were not able.” And He answered him and said, “O unbelieving generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him to Me.” So they brought him to Him. And when he saw Him, immediately the spirit threw him into convulsions. And falling on the ground, he rolled about, foaming at the mouth. And He asked his father, “How long has he been like this?” And he said, “From childhood, and often he has thrown him both into the fire and into the water to destroy him. But if it is at all possible for You, have compassion on us and help us.” And יהושע said to him, “If you are able to believe, all is possible to him who believes.” And immediately the father of the child cried out and said with tears, “I believe Master, help my unbelief!” And when יהושע saw that a crowd came running together, He rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to him, “You deaf and dumb spirit, I order you, come out of him, and never again enter into him!” And crying out, and convulsing him much, it came out of him. And he became as one dead, so that many said that he was dead. But יהושע, taking him by the hand, lifted him up, and he arose. And when He came into a house, His taught ones asked Him separately, “Why were we unable to cast him out?” And He said to them, “It is impossible for this kind to come out except through prayer and fasting.” Mark 9:14-29

Christians who would comfort themselves with the thought that God would never allow such a terrible fate as outright demon possession to befall them should consider that by their fanciful logic, God never would have allowed Eve to be tempted in the Garden, never would have punished her transgression, never would have sent the Flood, and a long list of other ‘never would have’ items that are all attested to in the Bible. It is exceedingly foolish to suppose that it is fine for tragedies to befall other people from long, long ago, but that the last thing God would ever do is punish your sins or allow you to suffer their consequences without intervening, after he has sent so many prophets to warn against both the influences and the punishments he has in store for succumbing to them. We fully realize that the Christians’ casual dismissal of the words of the prophets do not amount to any kind of rational argument, but rather to the willful ignorance and apostasy which lead to destruction, and which are so thoroughly and vehemently condemned throughout Scripture. What the Christian must do, if he ever hopes to mature and avoid his own destruction, is to cease lying to himself and realize that God would indeed allow the consequences of his actions to recoil back on him in full force and effect, and that he certainly will make sure that it does, because he himself has ordained it. God is just, and this is the very essence of justice.

Howl, for the day of יהוה is near! It comes as a destruction from the Almighty. Therefore all hands go limp, every man’s heart melts, and they shall be afraid. Pangs and sorrows take hold of them, they are in pain as a woman in labour; they are amazed at one another, their faces aflame! See, the day of יהוה is coming, fierce, with wrath and heat of displeasure, to lay the earth waste, and destroy its sinners from it. For the stars of the heavens and their constellations do not give off their light. The sun shall be dark at its rising, and the moon not send out its light. “And I shall punish the world for its evil, and the wrong for their crookedness, and shall put an end to the arrogance of the proud, and lay low the pride of the ruthless. I shall make mortal man scarcer than fine gold, and mankind scarcer than the gold of Ophir. So I shall make the heavens tremble, and the earth shall shake from her place, in the wrath of יהוה of hosts and in the day of the heat of His displeasure.” Isaiah 13:6-13

Up to this point we have demonstrated that the consumption of flesh and blood constitutes gene therapy and leads to demon possession. We have learned that modern humans are a hybrid species which still contains the ancient genetic corruptions attributable to the Serpent and the Watchers. We have touched on the fact that like our bodies and the human species in general, our planet’s entire ecosystem is also a hybrid ecosystem which still carries the mark of the Watchers, including countless species which have been modified to instinctively eat flesh. Yet the question still remains as to why the Watchers, as carnivores or omnivores, found it necessary to remake the planet in their image in the first place. If what they needed was food, the planet was already teeming with it; they certainly could have gone about eating humans and animals without making modifications to either, unless there was something specific they wanted to achieve, the way humans have bred chickens to reach maturity after 6 weeks so they can be butchered sooner than is natural.

Perhaps the answer lies in our own habits as a species. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from a single 24-hour dietary recall indicates that around 58% of the meat consumed in the US was red meat, 32% was poultry, and 10% was fish.457 This goes to show that humans prefer red meat to (and consume more of it than) other kinds, which is to say that we have a taste for blood. Supposing our tastes can be likened to the Watchers’ tastes, or that they may even be derived from them, then the Watchers would have gone right for eating the animals which the Law of Moses has identified as unclean precisely because they wanted to consume animals that consume blood, just as they clearly were directly consuming blood themselves. This suggests that consuming carnivores instead of herbivores has the effect of amplifying occult powers.

Hence we see that while the consumption of flesh and blood has severe deleterious effects on the physical health of humans and other natural herbivores, this does not even scratch the surface of the mental, psychological and spiritual dangers involved. Nor does it begin to encompass all the reasons why God and his prophets have continually warned against such practices. Christians typically allow the Devil some sort of mischievous, undefined power, but do not allow any speculation as to what it may actually consist of or how it might work, and content themselves with the superstition that they are immune to it if they simply say a little prayer. Moreover, any Christian who does so speculate is admonished and told to focus on Jesus instead. Historically, demonology was the interest of Kabbalists. Now, it is still a taboo subject even among mainstream theologians, and the line which they are forced to tow never steps outside the bounds of established dogma or noncanonical sources.

In contrast, New Agers have tried to be a little more realistic with their speculations about what they have called ‘loosh,’ a spiritual (yet palpable) energy that some beings are supposed to consume as food, which is most potent when it derives from the pain and suffering of others. The idea of loosh factors heavily into occult rituals, especially those that emphasize eating flesh and drinking blood—most notably the Roman Catholic Mass and the Satanic Black Mass. Even if we do not presently have the capacity to explain how this happens in a scientific way, it is clearly manifest in the behavior of those in power to this day. Many have attributed the Grey aliens’ empirically attested vampirism to this idea of feeding off our spiritual essence, and that would explain why the blood is always drained from mutilated cattle and other beasts while the carcasses are left intact. Many more have blindly associated the Greys with “demons” (though they do not understand the meaning of the latter term, which means ‘disembodied spirits’), presumably because they want to confine the universe to biblical terminology in support of their geocentrism. Whether or not we make the Grey/demon association, as many Christians do, it at least ought to be understood that the Greys which we have been in contact with are little more than intelligent cybernetic organisms (synthetic life forms, i.e., not part of God’s creation, just as the Serpent is said to not have been created by Yahweh in Genesis 3:1) which exist to give bodies to demons, and that they much prefer ours.

Demons feed on spiritual essence, what many call life force, and also on procreative energies. The life force comes packaged in blood and in the sexual energies in semen. (The significance of these obviously pertains to the DNA.) Both are believed by Satanists to facilitate demon possession; virtually all satanic rituals aimed at bringing about such possession are based on some form of bloodletting or imbibing of blood, on sex rites, or on a combination of the two. They are most effective when they are joined together and when the victims are especially undefiled, such as when a young virgin (preferably a male child) is raped and murdered. (This ought to inform the reader as to why ritual sex abuse is such a pervasive problem within the Roman Catholic Church, and why there are so many missing children in industrialized nations.)

The real reason animal farming is so widespread in today’s world is not because there is a market for meat, but because every animal on every animal farm endures a life of torture. The pain of the torture victim is imprinted in its DNA and transmitted to the consumer, making its way to the consumer’s DNA. The more flesh that is consumed, and the more the animals consumed are tortured, the more effective the possession in the consumer, and the harder it is for him to mitigate the effects or break free of it. Dairy products are especially effective at accomplishing the desired result, as the milk of a dairy cow is the blood-infected lactation of a rape victim whose child has been tortured and hauled off to slaughter right in front of her eyes, usually the day after it is born (she, too, will be slaughtered as soon as she stops producing milk—the duration of her life is determined by how long she can be tortured), and the eggs of a farm chicken are the ovulations of a hen that will never produce life. (Eating an unfertilized egg is equivalent to destroying the potential life and consuming the potential energy of a whole chicken. This is basically the same principle behind the Catholic Church’s prohibition of birth control. The Church forbids birth control because it wants a larger tax base; less Catholics in the world means less revenue.)

I am always amazed at the intensity of some knee-jerk reactions. You know there’s something seriously wrong in society when people act like heroin addicts in withdrawal at the mere suggestion of a meat-free diet. I can’t help but imagine that all that rage is tortured animal energy manifested. A lot of people really are vessels of that suffering, I can see it and it’s painful. That’s what affects me—when someone is so obviously affected but so far removed from caring. I feel a physical urgency to tell them everything I know to save them and animals, but I’ve learned to choose battles. … They’re totally cooked and lost—and there’s a lot of them. Ruby Roth458

Give them, O יהוה—give what? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. Hosea 9:14

Demon possession is basically the subversion of an individual’s ego consciousness by a nonlocal or subconscious will. Black magick, on the other hand, entails imposing one’s own will onto someone else, which is essentially the opposite of becoming possessed. This means that animal farming amounts to black magick performed on sacrificial victims, to the end of forcing demonic possession onto the unsuspecting masses. And this is hardly any different from how it would have been seen in the ancient world, such as in the Roman Empire, where religious rites were completely based on the assumption that the magick was powerful enough to effect a change in the will of the gods themselves, and each type of sacrifice to each particular god was intended to have a specific effect, just like modern sacrificial rites.

Simply put, blood is a conduit for demons. This is why splicing DNA and hybridization are the “sin of sins.” It does not just destroy the physical body of the victim; it corrupts the soul for every generation of its descendants forever after, after the first instance. We cannot possibly fathom just how much of a problem this poses for each and every creature on Earth, but nevertheless, we must suppose that if it grieved God to the point that he unleashed the Flood to wipe out all the abominations when the process was still new, it must be of paramount significance.

The rampant, systematic destruction of the ecosystem we are experiencing now, and have been experiencing for 5000 years, is retribution for the Flood. We are caught up in a race war between different extraterrestrial species, one of which is our creator and benefactor. The other, which virtually all of mankind has insanely decided to support, is unable to attack its opponent directly, so it attacks us instead, out of sheer spite, because we are beloved by the opposing species, and because we are that species (at least, we were created in their image, and are becoming part of that species’ universal empire, the “reign of the heavens”). So they hit us where they can (which is only where we allow them to, by giving our consent and making free choices), as often as they can, and by getting us to turn against our benefactors. It obviously works, for the Bible itself declares that God regretted (or was grieved for) having made us and put us on the earth.

The Flood, which was intended to mitigate the effects of the genetic tampering, reset our course and delayed our early demise, but it was inevitable that the same practices which brought it on would resume. There is sufficient evidence of this in Genesis 6:4, which states that the nephilim were on the earth after the Flood as well as before, and in the fact that there were still giants in the earth a good two millennia afterward. So obviously God had to do what he could to curb these practices and their effects, lest the new world pick up right where the old had left off. But it is now 5000 years since, and all the safeguards that God has put in place in order to patiently wait for all men to be saved have been methodically disassembled.

This is no coincidence. The world’s ruling class (the “Illuminati”) hold themselves to be relatively purebred physical and ideological descendants of Nimrod and the gibborim, and of the ruling class of malevolent psychopaths which bred them (the nephilim and their ET ancestors, the zophim or Watchers). In fact, the patriarchs of Masonry are Nimrod, Tubal-Cain, Solomon, and Solomon’s co-conspirator Hiram Abiff. (Nimrod is credited with building the Tower of Babel, and Hiram Abiff is credited with building the Temple of Solomon.) So we can surely understand how they would be driven to mold the earth in the fashion of the Watchers, in order to bring more suffering and violence into it, though most people could not comprehend why they would, and have even come to see these things as normal and natural. We have been purposely desensitized to it, with the intent of making the brainwashed masses mimic the violent and destructive behaviors so that they become second nature to us, rather than repulsive.

Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron. 1 Timothy 4:1-2 (KJV)

Enoch explicitly refers to the nephilim as “evil spirits” which proceed from men, whose “beginning and primal origin” is the Watchers (15:8-10). Historians and serious Bible scholars alike typically disregard Enoch as pseudepigrapha without accounting for the fact that it is not meant to be taken literally as an autobiographical account of the historical Enoch. On the contrary, the fact that it references the “fragment of Noah” in chapter 6 proves that it was understood to have been citing the same source as was cited in Genesis 6, rather than antedating Genesis. ‘Enoch’ (hanok in Hebrew), in fact, simply means ‘initiated (one),’ and it says that his “eyes were opened by God” right at the beginning.

Enoch was clearly written by a 1st century Christian convert, as evident by the detailed prophecies concerning Yahshuah. The context of the citing of the Fragment of Noah makes it clear that there is actually a historical account of the events concerning the Flood written from the first person, so the argument that it is pseudepigrapha is not without reason, but rejecting it for this reason without considering that it is a parable is unreasonable. For all we know, the author was Yahshuah himself. The point of citing the Fragment of Noah is to proclaim that the wicked will be judged and the righteous will be saved in the End Times; that it is indeed a parable and a prophecy for the End Times is plainly evident in the opening statements.

The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked and godless are to be removed. And he took up his parable and said—Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, which the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come. 1 Enoch 1:1-3

Following this, chapters 2 to 5 appeal to recognition of God’s ordinances from the natural environment, which we are obligated to recognize as being highly indicative of the of world view of the early Christians. Chapter 5 says the world failed to heed the call, but that the Elect would, and would not sin, and that they would live out their full number of days, as their ancestors did before the days of Noah. This all takes place before the citation of the Fragment of Noah, which includes the descent of the Watchers and God’s response.

The prophecy attributed to God at the end of his monologue against the Watchers makes the vegetarian ethic of Christianity abundantly clear. This also shows the meaning of God’s command not to harm the “wine and oil” in Revelation 6:6, from which we draw the conclusion that organic farming does not produce the plagues described in that book. Notice the heavy use of agricultural terms to reinforce that this is not just a meaningless parable, but that it has certain real-life applications which literally define some as righteous and others as wicked.

“And then shall the whole earth be tilled in righteousness, and shall all be planted with trees and be full of blessing. And all desirable trees shall be planted on it, and they shall plant vines on it: and the vine which they plant thereon shall yield wine in abundance, and as for all the seed which is sown thereon each measure (of it) shall bear a thousand, and each measure of olives shall yield ten presses of oil. And cleanse thou the earth from all oppression, and from all unrighteousness, and from all sin, and from all godlessness: and all the uncleanness that is wrought upon the earth destroy from off the earth. And all the children of men shall become righteous, and all nations shall offer adoration and shall praise Me, and all shall worship Me. And the earth shall be cleansed from all defilement, and from all sin, and from all punishment, and from all torment, and I will never again send (them) upon it from generation to generation and for ever. And in those days I will open the store chambers of blessing which are in the heaven, so as to send them down upon the earth over the work and labour of the children of men. And truth and peace shall be associated together throughout all the days of the world and throughout all the generations of men.” 1 Enoch 10:18-11:2

Other parallels with Revelation are immediately apparent. While Enoch makes a greater effort to hide it, the essential reason behind the plagues and the judgment of sinners similarly depicted in Revelation is also apparent.

And in those days shall the earth also give back that which has been entrusted to it, and Sheol also shall give back that which it has received, and hell shall give back that which it owes. And he shall choose the righteous and holy from among them, for the day has drawn nigh that they should be saved. And the Elect One shall in those days sit on My throne, and his mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and counsel, for the Lord of Spirits has given (them) to him and has glorified him. 1 Enoch 51:1-3

And I saw a great white throne and Him who was sitting on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before the throne, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged from what was written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, and death and the grave gave up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Revelation 20:11-13

And a command has gone forth from the presence of the Lord concerning those who dwell on the earth that their ruin is accomplished because they have learnt all the secrets of the angels, and all the violence of the Satans, and all their powers—the most secret ones—and all the power of those who practice sorcery, and the power of witchcraft, and the power of those who make molten images for the whole earth. 1 Enoch 65:6

Scholars think they are clever enough to discern the meaning of these prophecies without the spirit of prophecy. They suppose that there is a retroactively applied historical presentation, which is utterly useless to any student of history, without recognizing the fact that the whole book is deliberately intended to mislead whoever does not have the “eyes” to see its meaning, as it is to be analogous with the End Times. Nor does this apply to Enoch only, but to all of the Enochian literature which permeates the base of 1st century Christian Scripture, including the Bible.

At the same time as there has been a widespread falling away from what has become the unworkable and dogmatic teachings of varying established religions and political orders, there would appear to be a corresponding and gradual dawning within the minds of men and women across the world that some glimmer in the nature of essential truth still shines from the core teachings of these ancient systems. Many rightly feel they want to know more of what may lie hidden behind the veil of confusion and misdirection that obviously and undeniably bears such a high degree of influence upon not only their lives, but also on the directions taken by their societies as a whole down through the ages. Many genuinely express concern as to where these inherited systems of belief are leading both individuals and societies as a whole and, more importantly, where they will take us in the future, should we have one. …

The prophetic and parabolic works of Enoch are not to be interpreted according to what you might subjectively wish to consider them to be and, as indicated at the outset, you will most likely not fully understand them in their entirety, as they contain a mixture of both prophecy and parable. Both these facets will speak to your mind in accordance with your ability to reason, and also to the willingness of your mind to rise up to understanding the teachings of The Way.

If you the reader are able to learn anything from these texts that are set before you, it is imperative that you realise that belief systems are taught modes of thought and behaviour, and they are therefore designed so that the populace at large will blindly and unwittingly accept a false image of what is deemed desirable by the powers that be. Many such ideas and concepts have been taught as fact, yet such things are promoted in the absence of truth, fact, or transparent explanation. Therefore, these taught beliefs are contrary to actual facts and truths, which are obvious, and therefore require no false interpretation. It is essential, therefore, that an open mind be kept; and that what Enoch has to say does not become clouded by blindness of mind and faulted leanings. Robert George Crosbie459

This is how one scholar describes the Enochian literature in particular, of which Enoch (or 1 Enoch) is a major part. As it is highly symbolic, the evidence of misinterpretation by the unwitting fools with letters after their names is even more abundant in this tradition than it is in the Bible. The prophecy concerning the rebuilding of Solomon’s Temple in chapter 89, for example, is interpreted as a post hoc reference to the construction of Zerubabbel’s Temple, yet it is clearly no less a prophecy against “Christians” who do not have the sense to see that animal flesh is not food for humans, and that sacrifices consisting of the same are not at all acceptable to God.

And they began again to build as before, and they reared up that tower, and it was named the high tower; and they began again to place a table before the tower, but all the bread on it was polluted and not pure. And as touching all this the eyes of those sheep were blinded so that they saw not, and (the eyes of) their shepherds likewise; and they delivered them in large numbers to their shepherds for destruction, and they trampled the sheep with their feet and devoured them. 1 Enoch 89:73-74

The fact that Enoch regards the offspring of the Watchers as being possessed by evil spirits is also clear from the text. Not only that, but it demonstrates that the early Christians regarded sacrifices as being made to demons, which Paul affirms in one of his epistles. (We will discuss this later.) As for the “demons” themselves, one curious passage shows that it is not meant for anyone reading the text to understand what is happening if they do not understand the meaning of the parable, a fact which applies to everyone who summarily dismisses Enoch as non-canonical.

Then I said: “For what sin are they bound, and on what account have they been cast in hither?” Then said Uriel, one of the holy angels, who was with me, and was chief over them, and said: “Enoch, why dost thou ask, and why art thou eager for the truth?” 1 Enoch 21:4-5

As stated above, Enoch prophesies that the nephilim will be raised during the End Times. Several Bible passages (e.g., Joel 2, Isaiah 13) indicate the same, and even make a link to Babel/Babylon as some sort of stargate or inter-dimensional portal, though with less exact descriptions than the ones given in Enoch. We already know that this process is well under way, and meeting no real opposition. The implication is clear: the end is upon us, and the Illuminati have been laying the groundwork for the nephilim to have as much of the human race as possible in their possession.

We know that the pathological effects of IGF-1 are Nature’s response to sin; what is not so plainly evident is that they are the specific response to the Sin of Sins, or the genetic manipulation of the Watchers upon Earth’s myriad species. In other words, insulin-like growth factors are God’s mechanism for killing off those who are disobedient to his rule for our dietary standards (or rather, for murdering multitudes of innocents). The fact that growth hormones are even responsible for all disease (and especially tumor growths) was apparently not even known until Monsanto began its quest to complete the work of the Watchers, but by now it ought to be common knowledge, as Monsanto’s treachery has made it a household name, and it was the Monsanto-engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH, also called recombinant bovine somatotropin, or rBST) which led to the genetic engineering of all the plant foods which has transpired since the early 1990s.

Monsanto’s rBST drug is so controversial that it is banned (and therefore milk produced by cows treated with it is banned) in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel and all 27 European Union nations.460 Yet most people have no idea why that even is, apart from a vague notion that genetically engineered foods are unsafe and that the American government is in bed with Monsanto, which is an evil corporation that takes no thought in what is in mankind’s best interest. The blind hatred of Monsanto which has become typical is by no means unwarranted, but few people really know what is going on behind the scenes of government in America, because the mainstream media have been instructed to impose a blackout on reporting on it. For example, Fox fired a team of TV reporters just for breaking the silence about rBST’s well-documented cancer associations.461 Many underground/alternative news reporters have a good idea that Monsanto deserves their attention, but they only seem to interpret everything as a financially-motivated collusion or even conflict of interests, without seeing the big picture. The Liberty Beacon, for example, in reporting the latest scandal (the US Department of Justice’s silent closing of its three-year “investigation” into Monsanto’s anti-trust law violations), incredibly contends that Monsanto “outfoxed the Obama Administration,”462 as though such collusion does not even exist.

For the sake of brevity, we will not get into the details of the conspiracy which has put Monsanto in control of the federal government of the United States, because ultimately the only reason this was even allowed to happen is that both corporations were controlled by the same men since their respective beginnings, and Monsanto’s role has simply been as a change agent. Had it not been Monsanto, it would have been some other organization. We will say this, however: Monsanto is the bridge between the executive branch of the American government, the major financial powers behind it, and the civilian contractors originally charged with developing the world’s first nuclear weapons and then reassigned to reverse engineer previously unknown technologies from the crashed UFO so famously recovered near Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. The implications of this ought to be sufficient to dispel any belief that Monsanto is just a corporation competing with others in the free market, and that the trend of developing new ways to destroy the earth is of a strictly terrestrial and anthropogenic design and origin.

The man who blew the lid off the rBGH conspiracy is Robert Cohen, author of the book we borrowed from in Chapter 2. Cohen’s main concerns are essentially twofold: that milk is poisonous, and that rBGH never should have passed FDA approval. We have covered the main thrust of the argument to establish the first concern; the second is more specific to genetically modified milk, and by default, all genetically modified foods, due to the implications of the FDA’s scandalous role in forcing known carcinogens into the world’s food supply, when it is actually tasked with preventing the very same thing.

In our rush and excitement to get rbST to market, sloppy research was tolerated. When laboratory animals became sick, the incriminating data were hidden. When people like myself requested specific data proving laboratory animals get cancer from rbST, the government, in its great display of bureaucratic strength, did not allow such data to be released. Robert Cohen463

Monsanto’s recombinant BST has a freak amino acid which was created during its production and then hidden from the public by Monsanto’s decision to refer to it as the amino acid lysine. A single amino acid difference like this can result in hundreds of known diseases, including sickle cell anemia and certain forms of dementia.464 During the application process, FDA buried the evidence that inadvertently proved beyond a reasonable doubt that (untreated) BST itself causes tumors to develop. Every animal treated with rBGH got cancer in one study, which the FDA later refused to release in spite of publishing its conclusion that rBGH is safe based solely on these data in a prestigious peer-review journal, and in spite of Freedom of Information Act requests.465

One major concern over rBGH is that it causes mastitis, a condition of ulcerations and sores on cows’ udders, resulting in pus in the milk, which increases the already dangerous bacteria cell count.466 This requires enormous doses of antibiotics, for which reason 95% of dairy farmers in America (who, as we have seen, do not even care about the cows’ health, and were motivated only by economic incentives) initially refused to inject their cows with rBGH.467 Cohen seems to suggest that, at the time of his writing, there were 9 antibiotics not approved by FDA for use on lactating cows that were being regularly administered. Elaborating on this point, he says that authorities only test 4 of the 82 drugs approved for use as antibiotics on lactating dairy cows, and that more than 50% of the samples tested by FDA were positive on (illicit) drug traces.468

Raw milk advocates invariably cite Monsanto’s recombinant BST as the chief reason for the use of antibiotics on dairy cows in their attempts to establish the presumed safety of raw milk in its stead. This is indeed the main cause of antibiotic use on treated cows, because it makes them sick (to say nothing of the humans who drink the contaminated milk), but it ignores that the reason for the need of the antibiotics is that the cows are sick, not that they are treated with rBGH, and that cow milk by itself causes humans to be sick, apart from rBGH treatment. These cows are already sick: the large majority have the bovine leukemia virus, which is killed by pasteurization, so the pasteurized, rBGH-treated milk is much safer than organic, raw milk. The point here is that neither is safe, obviously, and that the raw milk advocates are using a valid argument to establish a false premise and ignore the more important factors contributing to the adverse health effects of drinking cow milk.

We know that the key factors in cancer growth and proliferation are IGF-1 and certain proteins, especially caseins and the essential amino acid methionine. rBGH increases levels of IGF-1,469 and this is exactly the reason for its administration, but it only increases the amount of IGF-1 that cows produce in milk, and only by about 20 to 25% of the normal rate. It is the milk itself, rather than any drugs that are added to it, that causes cancer, and the growth factors which cause it to grow and spread—a fact which is only slightly truer of processed milk, and that also assumes that the homogenization and pasteurization processes do not offset this factor by breaking down a significant enough percentage of the growth factor molecules.

So anyone who wishes to argue that rBGH-treated milk is unsafe for human consumption first needs to recognize that the reason it is unsafe is that it is milk, and that milk is unsafe, otherwise his argument will fall apart, or it will only pertain to the presence of antibiotics, which actually make treated milk relatively safer than it would be otherwise (except that long-term exposure to antibiotics also makes one immune to their effects, so greater doses are necessary to produce the same results). Also, anyone who thinks that “organic” milk is free of contaminants is fooling himself, and trusts the USDA, the FDA and the farmers who are producing it far too much. Even the idea of organic produce is basically wishful thinking, unless you are growing it yourself in an indoor, tightly-controlled environment. Still, to say nothing of vegans, vegetarians have only half the levels of breast milk contamination from pesticides as omnivores,470 so cutting meat out of one’s diet is as essential to eliminating pesticides as cutting out dairy is.

All that said, rBGH is what brought genetically modified foods into the public consciousness and made possible the trend to artificially turn wholesome foods into aberrations which cause long-term disease and premature death. Monsanto submitted its first rBGH application to the FDA in 1988. Before then, there were no genetically modified foods in the global food market; now, most of the foods available in Western supermarkets have been genetically modified. So the story of how this came to be is a good indicator of what the agenda behind all the Monsanto hype is really all about.

Veterinary scientist Richard Burroughs was one of the FDA employees tasked with the rBGH review. He was fired for rocking the boat and later went on record saying “FDA has become an extension of the drug industry.”471 Monsanto was not about to let its product die; rBGH was a $500 million investment.472 Burroughs was assaulted by a security guard on his last day at FDA and had to be taken to the hospital due to ripped tendons, under arrest. He was charged with animal cruelty—an obvious attempt to destroy his reputation as a veterinarian, and an obvious lie, considering that the conflict had stemmed from his attempts to impose animal safety standards on Monsanto/FDA tests.473

Meanwhile, Monsanto’s attorney Michael Taylor sorely lacked any sort of scientific credentials whatsoever, but was nevertheless hired on at FDA to do little more than promote rBGH. He then went on to become the acting undersecretary of food safety at USDA and then executive assistant to the FDA commissioner.474 As further evidence of the existing corruption prior to these appointments, Taylor replaced Michael Espy at USDA because the latter had resigned in disgrace after it came to light that he had taken bribes from meat producers.475

The reason for the move was quite simple: Monsanto sent Taylor to FDA to oversee the rBGH approval process.476 This approval was a tricky matter, because the US Congress had added a revision to its Pure Food and Drug Act in 1958, called the Food Additives Amendment (a.k.a. the Delaney Clause), which required that food additives be approved by FDA before being added to foods. The clause stipulated that no additive was to be deemed safe (i.e. approved for use) by FDA if it had been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals, such as Burroughs had observed and tried to warn the public about. Monsanto already knew for certain that rBGH was causing cancer at least as far back as 1988, and was trying to repeal this amendment through subversive influence and political bribes.

While he was still Monsanto’s lawyer, and just before moving over to FDA, Taylor wrote against the Delaney Clause and was published in the Journal of the American College of Toxicology even though he was a lawyer writing up his opinion on the legalization of cancer-causing drugs, not a scientist writing up a report of any scientific findings. His argument against the Delaney Clause essentially amounts to his opinion that cancer—yes, cancer—is a “truly trivial matter,” and therefore should not be a factor in government regulatory practices.477 Of course, the American people were never consulted as to whether they regard cancer as a “truly trivial matter” before any kind of decision was reached, because we all know what kind of feedback would have been given to such an inquiry.

Taylor effectively did away with the Delaney Clause at FDA, and his policy was formalized by HR1627, the Food Policy Protection Act, in August 1996.478 After rBGH’s approval (after he went to FDA), his firm King & Spalding represented Monsanto in suits against companies that labeled their milk “rBGH free” in an attempt to put a legal ban on implicitly advising consumers to stay away from genetically modified foods. King & Spalding sent Taylor’s own guidelines to those companies when threatening suits while he was at FDA.479

The grassroots initiative to force rBGH-treated milk to be labeled thus shot down, Monsanto was free to release its other abominations onto the public with the goal of creating a global food monopoly by forcing farmers to buy its own nonrenewable seeds, just like John D. Rockefeller bullied his competitors in the oil industry to gain a monopoly and become the world’s first billionaire. Right after rBGH was approved, Monsanto purchased Calgene, a biotech company that owned the patents to the new genetically modified tomato gene, the world’s first officially GM food that hit stores in 1994. In late 1996/early 1997 Monsanto’s GM soybeans, corn and wheat began to find their way into America’s foods.

According to FDA, the decision to not require product labeling of genetically modified foods was made because it would hurt Monsanto financially. In reality, FDA did not want to allow anyone to prove that the data disproving rBGH’s carcinogenic effects had been created out of thin air and then deliberately manipulated in the Monsanto/FDA report, as it would have come to light that milk itself, especially rBGH-treated milk, and that GM foods in general are extremely detrimental to human health. What this means is that the FDA had deliberately betrayed the American people and the world in general for a bribe and was not going to allow Monsanto or itself to be held accountable for its crime against humanity.480

Despite numerous grassroots attempts and even a (failed) referendum in California, no government consideration has been given to mandatory labeling of GM foods since rBGH’s approval. Simply releasing the data which proves that the government is formally charged with banning these foods as illicit substances would “hurt the company financially.” Meanwhile, Monsanto has thrived so much, financially, due to this betrayal, that it has been charged by concerned congressmen with violations of anti-trust legislation, and wields enough power in the executive branch to have Congressional investigations stopped. For example, during the approval process, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) investigation of rBGH was thwarted by Monsanto’s refusal to make their data available to GAO well before FDA approved it,481 and several Congressmen were bribed to ensure the approval.482 Since the formal approval, FDA has cited the GAO’s failure to produce charges against itself (on account of its failure to release the data) in order to deny all attempts to have the data released either to GAO (representing Congress) or to the public (under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act) and told investigative journalists that it would never be released.

However, we do not need the data to know what is going on and lay charges against these wicked men, because God’s law is higher than Man’s law, and based on truth and revelation rather than conspiracy and malfeasance. In truth, the initiative to push rBGH on the public came right from the top of the hierarchy of world governance, and the facts indicting the FDA and Monsanto in colluding in this conspiracy cannot be hidden. The fact that the FDA-submitted report which was used to justify the decision to push it through used data from Searle and other Monsanto-funded research is all a reasonable person should need to know that the American government is entirely corrupt and complicit in the intentional, belligerent destruction of the earth and its myriad species.

Searle had been run by Donald Rumsfeld, the perennial government magnate in charge of overseeing the development and application of experimental vaccines, illegal biological weapons, and financial kickbacks of political arbitrage in general, especially where it has concerned fabricating health scares in order to award multi-billion dollar no-bid government contracts to the vaccine companies he has been affiliated with. Rumsfeld was in charge of Searle from 1977 to 1985, as CEO and then President. During this time, Robert Shapiro was brought in as a general counsel (1979) for Searle, and then became CEO and Chairman (1982) of Searle’s NutraSweet (a.k.a. aspartame) subsidiary, which served the purpose of getting NutraSweet’s FDA approval in 1983. Monsanto then acquired Searle in 1985, making Rumsfeld about $12 million richer, effectively establishing both its control of the neo-conservative faction of the American government, and its monopoly over the death-inducing chemical additives in the American food supply.

Robert Shapiro is the son of Moses Shapiro, President (1960), Vice-Chairman (1968) and Chairman (1969-1975) of General Instrument, the company tasked with developing the “Mark of the Beast” RFID chips under his direction. Robert ran his father’s company from 1972 to 1979 as Vice-President before coming over to Searle to work on NutraSweet’s approval with Rumsfeld. He went on to become Vice-President (1990), President (1993) and CEO (1995-2000) of Monsanto during the most critical phases of the conspiracy. Rumsfeld became Chairman of General Instrument in 1990 and served in that capacity until 1993 before moving back into vaccine and biological weapons development, and then back into government as Secretary of Defense.

Based just on this, the early influence of Monsanto on the executive branch of the government’s approval of genetically modified foods, and the conflict of interest in FDA’s decision to publish no other sources than vague references to data acquired by Searle should both be self-evident. Moreover, the data were never even released to the public, or for peer review, though they were published in a peer review journal. The data in question are just numbers in a chart showing the organ sizes of rats in a study. These numbers remain a “trade secret” according to FDA, though they have no significance pertaining to the chemical composition of the product which could lead to development of similar products by competitors, and although they were used to justify approval for the drug (meaning it is a matter of public record, without which there is no justification), and could only possibly harm the company financially by demonstrating that the drug causes cancer, which means the FDA was obligated by its own charter not to approve it.483

The study in question demonstrated that growth hormones in general are responsible for cancer growth and that milk can cause tumors to develop and even kill rats very rapidly (under 6 months). Alanyn porcine GH-treated rats showed increase in heart and liver weights, decrease in brain weight, increase in adrenal and kidney weights and decrease in testicular weights in males and increase in spleen weight and decrease in ovary weight in females. Rats in the high dose group showed increase in kidney weight, decrease in brain weight, decrease in testicular weight (males) and spleen weight (females). (Basically, it destroys your brain first, then your reproductive organs, then your kidneys and spleen—necessary for fighting off the disease—and then your heart and liver, in that order.) Oral ingestion of IGF-1 has noticeable effects on rats’ blood filtration organs within one week of administration—never mind that the effects are more pronounced in humans, whose bodies are already adapted to BGH because it is the exact same chain of amino acids as the growth hormone in humans.

In reality, FDA simply lied about the data, and that is why it will not be released. FDA said it was a 90-day study, but it was actually a 180-day study.484 (Think about this. Even supposing you did not develop cancerous tumors in the first three months of drinking milk, would you drink it knowing that you would within the first six months? That is the difference between the results of the 90-day study and those of the 90-day reverse study.) The most prestigious American medical journal, JAMA, endorsed the FDA article 2 days before it was published, as did Science News the day after it was published, a fact which clearly demonstrates the political bias of a calculated release intended to curb any kind of oppositional response. (No scientist in his right mind will argue with a JAMA endorsement, as it will likely be the last act of his career.) The writers of JAMA’s endorsing article had already worked for Monsanto dozens of times, and had even previously collaborated on an article on the influence of rBGH on general milk composition; Monsanto paid a “consulting fee” (a bribe).485

Cohen’s investigation into the particulars of the FDA report revealed that Monsanto scientists tried to destroy BST by pasteurization, and scandalously fixed the controls of the experiment to suit their agenda, but when the data proved to work against their agenda anyway, they simply lied about it. The FDA, knowing full well that it was committing fraud, buried the evidence and reported, “It has also been determined that at least 90% of bGH activity is destroyed upon pasteurization of milk. Therefore, bGH residues do not present a human food safety concern.” This lie was obviously motivated by the conclusion, for if the data were to speak for themselves, then the conclusion would be that bGH residues are very much a food safety concern, meaning the FDA was obligated by federal law and its own charter not to approve rBGH, and, in fact, to also remove milk in general (even pasteurized milk) from store shelves.

Consequently, Monsanto’s top scientists (especially Margaret Miller) were hired by FDA to review their own report—a serious felony, as well as a matter of blatant scientific fraud and conflict of interests—and to prevent anyone else from exposing the fraud.486 While at FDA, Margaret Miller arbitrarily changed the government’s tolerance of antibiotics in milk from 1 part per 100 million to 1 part per 1 million (a 10,000% increase, with no stated reason whatsoever), obviously in order to quell concerns about the health effects of treated milk. This was after she had witnessed rBGH-treated cows develop mastitis while at Monsanto. Meanwhile, the Centers for Disease Control have issued memorandums alerting Americans that antibiotics no longer seem to work.487

That rBGH only brought the carcinogenic effect of the public milk supply to light, rather than creating it, is perfectly evidenced by the laboratory studies. FDA and Monsanto say that bST-treated cows contain immunoreactive bST at a level that is not different from that found in control cows. The “sustainable” animal farming crowd says that the difference between treated cows and “organic grass-fed” cows is all that matters. In fact, both views are entirely fraudulent: the difference is perhaps 26% more from treated cows,488 which is significant, but certainly not even close to enough to argue that “organic” milk is safe for human consumption if treated milk is not, apart from the matter of added pus and antibiotics. At most, the difference is consuming five parts of a known carcinogen instead of four, when the legal precedent necessarily requires a ban on the substance altogether.

Miller’s own study showed an increase of IGF-1 from rBGH-treated cows at 71% (primiparous) and 47% (multiparous).489 (The discrepancy between this high number and lower-end results from other studies may be accounted for in the fact that Monsanto needed to convince farmers that rBGH actually works in order to sell it. Either way, the highest observed range limit at the time of rBGH’s approval was 78%, and the average is about 25%.) Even the abstract of the report says rBGH-treated milk contains higher concentrations of IGF-1. In spite of this, Monsanto/FDA still found reason to claim that “rBGH treatment appears to have no significant impact on the nutritional quality of milk.”490

The report refutes all contradictory evidence by declaring that “These findings in the oral groups are considered contradictory in terms of effects of IGFs on growth indices [those that were obliquely referenced but hidden from the public as “trade secrets”] and are therefore considered to be sporadic results.”491 In one place, the very next line after the statement that oral rBST administration has “no effect” says, “Body weights of male rats given the high dose of rIGF-1 by oral gavage showed a statistically significant increase. However, this increase was considered incidental.”492 In other words, there was an observed effect, but it was considered to contradict their pre-established conclusion, therefore they threw out the data.

The conclusion of this grossly unscientific procedure is to declare that the bovine growth hormone (the actual cancer agent—remember, rBGH treatment only increases the amount of it) is biologically inactive in humans,493 meaning that it does not have the same effect on growth as the human growth hormone does. However, the hormone is exactly the same between the two species, which necessarily means that the human growth hormone is also biologically inactive in humans if the bovine growth hormone is. We might infer from this reasoning that BGH is also inactive in cows, and that, by implication, all growth hormones are biologically inactive in the species which produce them to make their offspring grow quickly. As absurd as that is, it is the inevitable conclusion of this reasoning, and it is the position which the FDA has formally espoused in order to provide its only pseudo-scientific basis for the presumed safety of milk (not treated milk—milk). The basis for the presumption of safety for rBGH-treated milk in particular is the false notion that growth hormones are destroyed by stomach acids.494 (This is false because of the change in stomach pH by the milk from highly acidic to almost neutral. Milk is 87% water, which means the stomach acids are neutralized at the same time as the acids in the milk are imbibed. This is also one of the main reasons you should not eat and drink at the same time—it is bad for digestion. However, the protection of the milkfat molecules is also facilitated by homogenization, as we have discussed in Chapter 2.)

Based on these horrendously unscrupulous findings, the World Health Organization (WHO) determined in June 1992 that, “after somidobove (rbST) injection, mean IGF-1 levels in the treated animals are always higher than those found in the controls.” Yet just eight pages later, in order to establish the already presumed safety of this drug, the same WHO report goes on to say, “The most definitive and comprehensive studies demonstrate that IGF-1 concentrations are not altered after rbST treatment.”495 This demonstrates how easily the world’s population has been hoodwinked into accepting GM foods, based on nothing more than “science” that is so bad that a layman can point out the flaws and self-contradictions, which reek of conspiracy as much as they do of lies.

To put it simply, if cancer kills, then so does milk, and so does meat. The agricultural-political establishment knows this all too well, but had already decided to kill us all before it came to their attention. This is the reason for the ongoing cover-up.

In their summary, FDA made eight major errors:

1) Bovine GH is biologically inactive in humans.

Actions of bovine GH are mediated by IGF-1 and the IGF-1 receptor. IGF-1 is identical in humans and cows. FDA could also conclude that bovine GH is inactive in cows because there are no such receptors in the mammary tissues of cows.

2) It is unlikely that fragments of bGH could reach the gastrointestinal tract.

Milk acts as an enzyme inhibitor. Milk buffers gastric pH from a normal 1.8 to a 6.0. At 6, growth hormones are not broken down.

3) No oral activity was found when bGH was administered orally to rats.

Here’s What FDA Calls Evidence Contrary to Their Opinions:

A) INCIDENTAL FINDINGS
B) NO SIGNIFICANT INCREASE
C) BIOLOGICALLY INSIGNIFICANT
D) SPORADIC RESULTS
E) NOT TREATMENT RELATED

4) No significant increase in milk concentrations of bGH occur after cows are treated with rbGH.

A 26 percent increase was reported!

5) 90% of bGH in milk is destroyed after milk is pasteurized.

Milk was heated for 30 minutes at a temperature reserved for a 15-second treatment and 82 percent of the bGH survived! Only 18 percent of the bGH was destroyed, yet this lie became the foundation of bGH approval.

6) rbGH treatment appears to have no significant impact on the nutritional quality of milk.

The most powerful growth hormone in the human body, IGF-1, is the same as bovine IGF-1. Milk drinkers ingest enormous amounts of this hormone. Milk treated with the new genetically engineered hormone always contains increased levels of IGF-1.

7) An increase in growth factors in rbGH-treated milk was unlikely to present any human food safety concerns.

These growth factors survive digestion.

8) IGF-1 is not orally active in rats.

Research indicates otherwise. Laboratory rats were fed IGF-1 which was naturally destroyed by digestive processes. In milk, protected by casein and the buffering effect which milk has upon stomach acid, IGF-1 survived and has been shown to be active.
Robert Cohen496

 

All this goes to show why it is not enough to be a vegetarian, and how aberrant every non-vegan diet is from God’s law. At this point it hardly even matters whether people are eating swarming creatures and cultured recombinant fecal bacteria which the Law has declared unclean (Leviticus 11:41-43), because they have their hearts set on sin and put more trust in the openly corrupt governments of the world than they do in God. Just look at how widespread the ideology of political Zionism (i.e. the Abomination of Desolation) is among Christians. One article497 from Chabad demonstrates just how obstinate and far-removed from God’s intent the Jews who authorized Zionism really are, even beyond the articles we examined in Chapter 1, if that is even possible. This time we have added our own comments in brackets.

Question: Are you really planning to re-initiate animal sacrifices in the Temple?

Answer: In our prayers, for the past 2,000 years, we’ve been asking for G d to let us rebuild that Temple so that we can start doing those sacrifices, just like He asked us to. So there’s got to be something deep going on here, more than meets the eye.

Q: Charity, prayer, study … all those I can understand. But why on earth would G d want us to burn animals on an altar?

A: Now, don’t get the idea that you’re the first one to have difficulty with this. It’s one of those things that if it doesn’t puzzle you, you just haven’t gotten the facts straight. I think we need to look at this from a very different perspective to make sense of it.

Q: If the whole point was to wean the people off sacrificial cultism, then it was good for then. But why should we be praying for it to return? Sure, it’s cool to have a central place for prayer and meditation … but why the butcher shop?

A: The main act of a sacrifice was not the physical act of slaughtering an animal. You understand that the sacrificial service was principally a spiritual one.

Q: In what way?

A: Well, for one thing, when a person brought a sacrifice, his mental focus was crucial. If his mind was not focused on the correct meaning and intent of the sacrifice, the whole thing could be deemed useless, or worse.

Q: What sort of meanings?

A: Well, if it was being brought to atone for some inadvertent sin, he had to have in mind some remorse over what had happened. But it went far beyond that: The priests would focus their minds on the higher spiritual spheres, according to esoteric traditions. That explains why they had the Levites singing and the musicians playing. After all, if it was all just a grand barbecue, what need was there for inspirational music? [The music was to drown out the screams of the dying victims, as we have discussed in Chapter 8.] Rather, it was a deep spiritual experience for all involved. You went away truly elevated.

Q: Okay, I can see the experiential quality of it all … but I think we could get the elevation without the blood and guts.

A: Well, in fact, today our prayers are in place of the sacrifices. [Indeed, prayers are better because they circumvent the otherwise pointless ritual. Needless to say, the ritual can only get in the way of anything that God would want and detract from it, especially considering that he does not listen to the prayers of sinners, and killing and eating meat are clearly sins that aggravate him more than others. See Isaiah 1:15-16.] So the principal aspect of the sacrifices was never terminated. Just the outer aspects that the Torah [i.e., polishing the outside of the cup while ignoring the whole point of what polishing is for] also demands, those are temporarily suspended. [Who said it was temporarily suspended? This assumption certainly has no basis in Scripture. In fact, in the New Testament, Yahshuah is depicted as having come to abolish it altogether, forever.]

Q: So, if we can have the spiritual experience without dicing meat on the altar, why go back to it?

A: So we need to come to a deeper understanding of what the sacrifices and the Temple are all about. … We have to realize there’s a whole other dimension here that we don’t see. From that dimension, everything makes sense.

Q: Whose dimension is that?

A: Well, there are higher planes of reality than our own. Spiritual realms. And beyond. There’s a whole chain of worlds working down from the plane of the infinite light until arriving at us and our little physical cosmos down here.

Q: Kabbalah stuff.

A: It’s in the Talmud, too—lots of details in tractate Chagigah about the seven heavens, etc.

Q: So, with sacrifices . . .

A: Rabbi Isaac Luria, the Arizal, explains that the sacrifices were a way of elevating the matter and vitality of this world up to a higher plane.

Q: You know, I read a story about some tzaddik who would meditate and carry his consciousness up to higher places.

A: Actually, anytime someone meditates and prays with focus, he or she is doing that, to some small degree.

Q: So we’re back to square one: Who needs the barbecue?

A: Because that elevates only the human soul. The human soul has many layers. The G dly. The rational. The animal within. The sacrifices in the Temple elevated those, plus a whole real animal. It touched not just the spirit, but the body as well. [So, basically, according to this logic, the whole point of the Law is mindless repetition of animalistic rituals.]

Q: Let me get this straight: you’re saying that what prayer accomplishes on a spiritual level, the sacrifices accomplished with the physical world? You’re saying that the Temple was a sort of transformer, to beam up physical stuff into the spiritual realms?

A: You’re getting it. That’s why the space of the Temple was so important. You know that there is a tradition that the place where the altar of the Temple stood, that was the place from which Adam was formed. Cain and Abel made their sacrifices there. Noah made his sacrifices there after the flood. The binding of Isaac took place there …

Q: So, why did they all have to use that spot? What’s so special about it?

A: It’s the spot where Jacob had his dream about the ladder and the angels going up and down. He said, “This is the gateway to heaven!” [This rabbi clearly has no idea what he is talking about. Jacob called the place where this happened beth el, which means ‘House of God.’ By this logic, it was the fact that Jacob had a miraculous vision which involved angels ascending and descending for which the place was called “gate of heaven”—not the fact that he had built an altar there. Either way, the location of Jacob’s Ladder was Bethel, not Jerusalem, so the rabbi invalidates his own argument by mentioning it here. See Genesis 28:10-19.]

Q: Hmmm. You mean like what we call in ’Net jargon a portal.

A: Right. Or a transformer. The interface between the physical and the spiritual. That’s what the rabbis [i.e. God doesn’t say, some spiteful Jews said] mean when they say that when G d went about creating this world, the place he started from was the place of the Temple Mount. So, you’ll say, there was no space when G d started creating the world. But what they mean is that this is the first link from the higher worlds to this world. That’s where “above” stops and “below” begins. Heaven to Earth. And so, that’s where the transmission line between the two is situated. The portal.

Q: What happens when all this meat and wine gets up there?

A: Obviously, it’s no longer a chewy steak when it’s in a spiritual domain. But we are physical beings, so we can’t really imagine what spiritual roast beef looks like. [how about spiritual bread?, you know like the word which you have forsaken?] But there are conscious beings that have no physical bodies, and they are on the receiving end of all this.

Q: You mean angels?

A: That’s what they’re called in English. … Ramban (Nachmanides) says that our souls are more closely related to the angels than to the animals. After all, human beings live principally in a world of ideas and abstractions, more so than in the visceral, tangible world. [This rabbi needs to get out more, especially considering that his abstract thinking has evidently done him no good.] … At any rate, there is no reason not to believe that there is consciousness that is not associated with a physical body. And if we would ask one of those conscious beings whether the Temple sacrifices make sense to him/her/it, it/she/he would likely exclaim that it is one of the few things human beings do that make any sense at all! [This position is diametrically opposed to Scripture, as we will see in the story of Manoah and the angel recorded in Judges 13.] And I bet they’re real peeved that it’s been stopped all these years. [Except that they were the ones who stopped it, for the express reason that it peeved them a great deal.]

Q: What do they get out of it?

A: According to the Kabbalah, returning energy. [So it’s true: demons feed on spiritual energy of death and suffering, which is the whole point of the ritual—at least according to the Kabbalah.]

Q: You mean, like energy bouncing back? What do they need that for? Don’t they get enough when it’s on its way down?

A: Because the energy they get is only direct energy, filtered down through many steps. We get the final, most condensed creative energy to sustain our existence in this world. [It’s called adrenaline, or “fear” if you want to put it that way—it also causes stress and degenerative disease leading to premature death. How this rabbi has managed to infer that it sustains our existence in this world is beyond our reckoning.] But, since we are the final stop, we also have the essence of that energy. That’s something they can get only when we elevate matters of our world up to theirs. [Why can’t they just do it themselves? Why do they need to profane holy ground by murdering an innocent victim and then relishing in the taste of its corpse, calling it a “spiritual” affair? Perhaps these people don’t understand anything about things of a spiritual nature.]

Q: You’re telling me those angels have a real interest in our sacrifices?

A: They have a real interest in anything good we do. [Sacrifice is not good; it is definitively evil. However, they also have an interest in the evils we do, too, which ought to be a cause for concern to this rabbi. Seeing how it isn’t, his logic is hypocritical.] Any mitzvah we do elevates some aspect of the material world—perhaps not to such an extent as the sacrifices. But the sacrifices provide a paradigm to understand what all mitzvahs are really about. … The Talmud says that whenever a person does a mitzvah, it is only after the Holy One sends His angels to set everything up for him to do it. [So they set it up for us, doing all the work, but they still need us to do it … ok.] And they complete the job, as well. Often, our entire input is no more than making the conscious decision that yes, I want to do this mitzvah.

Q: So really, all of our mitzvahs happen within this larger, multidimensional context.

A: Which is why so many of them are so hard to understand. [i.e. why it makes absolutely no sense] … Because we see only the material plane. [Thus he admits that he is without “eyes to see,” and the case against his position is closed.]

 

It should be pretty clear by now that the sin of abomination is the same as the original sin, and that anyone who gives his support to this debauchery is altogether defiant of every aspect of God’s Law. Yet we have barely even begun to cover the Bible’s position on (against) the eating of flesh, and there is still much more to be said. All of this has merely served to show why it takes this position, and how dire the need for a reform of the mainstream Judeo-Christian paradigm is. Given how controversial what we have covered so far is already, all this was necessary.

Christians typically celebrate Jesus’ atoning death as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, but this fails to consider that every single killing of every single animal whose flesh is consumed by humans is a sacrifice to demons. In truth, the real accomplishment of “Christianity” has been to decouple the butchering of animals and feasting on their flesh from any air of religious ritual, thereby allowing it to grow at an unprecedented rate. The unbridled suffering and death which the Watchers never could have accomplished on their own has only been made possible by Christianity. More to the point, the sin of sins would not even be possible without the Christians’ support, just as the Antichrist could not sit on his throne without it, and there would be no Abomination of Desolation without it, either. One needs only make a cursory examination of Western history, or pay minimal attention to their views on political Zionism, to realize that it is the Jews and Christians—and only the Jews and Christians—who are responsible for the existence of the very things which Yahshuah willingly surrendered his life to warn us about.

[Armageddon] can happen at any time … Pieces of flesh began to fall from their bones. Their eyeballs began to rot in their sockets. Their internal organs slowly began to turn to mush, and they fell, gushing blood, one after another. Bodies of the dead and dying were piled all over the hills and valleys surrounding Jerusalem. Pat Robertson498

Armageddon is a reality, a terrible reality [but] it sets the stage for the introduction of the king, the Lord Jesus, in power and in great glory. … You know why I’m not worried? I ain’t gonna be here. Jerry Falwell499

Armageddon is coming. They can sign all the peace treaties they want [in the Middle East]. They don’t do any good. There are dark days coming. My Lord, I’m happy about it. [Jesus] is coming again … I don’t care who it troubles. It thrills my soul. Jimmy Swaggart500

 

 

 

 


 

423 This is a more accurate description for several reasons. First and foremost, it must be understood that the gods look just like us, to the point that they can pass imperceptibly among us (Genesis 19:1-11; Judges 6:20-22). This should come as no surprise, seeing as how it was in their image that we were made. Secondly, the common term ‘angel’ is more accurately translated as ‘messenger.’ The term ‘messenger’ describes the role that a particular god is playing at a particular time, but it fails to describe what they are. That is to say, it is absurd to suppose that just because they are called upon to perform this function from time to time, these beings were created to be nothing more than messengers to humans, especially considering how big the universe is and that our interactions with them are scant. So the terms ‘angel’ and ‘messenger’ describe a role they perform, while the term ‘god’ is superior because it better encompasses the totality of their existence.

424 It has been observed that hyperdontia and polydactyly are nephilim traits, based on evidence such as 2 Samuel 21:20 and 1 Chronicles 20:6, which describe the gibbor of Gath as having had 6 fingers on each hand and 6 toes on each foot. Whether or not we ascribe any otherworldly origins to this man, so as to use it to establish that polycactyly is evidence of deliberate tampering to the human genome, it is clear that from the scriptural evidence that Scripture’s own perspective on the existence of the nephilim necessarily entails some sort of genetic mutation of humans or transgenic hybridization between human and non-human species.

425 “Cattle mutilation,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_mutilation.

426 The tendency for conspiracy theorists regarding the position of the ancient texts on extraterrestrials is to following the line of reasoning created by Zechariah Sitchin, which claims that they came here in search of gold to put into the atmosphere of their home world. We can hardly divorce ourselves from this view enough or state emphatically enough that Sitchin was shill and a charlatan, and that his views need to be systematically extracted from the presentations of the Sumerian texts before these presentations will have any credibility whatsoever. Fortunately, his methodology and conclusions have been adequately debunked, but this does not change the fact that they are so pervasive within the Ancient Aliens genre of ufology, to the point that we can confidently say that Sitchin’s disinformation, along with Erich von Däniken’s Chariot of the Gods?, is the basis of the controlled opposition within ufology. We have put this note here specifically to distance ourselves from it, and to steer our readers away from thinking that there is any merit to Sitchin’s ideas about the supposed ET gold-mining operations. For more information, see http://www.sitchiniswrong.com/.

427 The most popular English translation of Enoch is that of R.H. Charles. He was of the opinion that the word for ‘biters’ should be rendered ‘bastards’ instead because it is such an unusual term, and because ‘bastards’ seems to fit the context, more or less. Most other translations have followed Charles’ lead. However, ‘biters’ is the literal term, and it fits better with ‘reprobates’ than ‘bastards’ does, so we consider this change to be illegitimate and based solely on the lack of understanding of why the term shows up at all. In other words, the bias of the translators who render it ‘bastards’ is immediately evident in that they cannot even comprehend why the word ‘biters’ would be used, even though it was their ‘biting’ which brought about the events depicted in Enoch, according to the book itself. A more appropriate rendering for the student of esoteric religion would be ‘serpents,’ unless “the Serpent” in Scripture is itself changed to ‘the Biter.’

428 Gabriele Boccaccini, Beyond the Essene Hypothesis: The Parting of the Ways between Qumran and Enochic Judaism, W.B. Eerdmans, 1998.

429-430 “Azazel,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azazel#Azazel_in_Islam.

431 “Snake Information,” Cape Union Mart Hiking Club, http://www.cumhike.co.za/snakeInformation.asp.

432 ‘Serpent’ is an obvious euphemism for the craftiest of the “beasts of the field,” a term used several times in the Old Testament, and in particular by Moses, to describe people of different races, who were often employed in manual labor. However, the Serpent is said to have been “craftier” than the beasts of the field which Yahweh had made in 3:1, implying possible extraterrestrial origins, as supposed by the Theistic Satanists who worship Lucifer. We simply do not know, as the text offers no clues or certainty, though images of Grey “aliens” from Earth do come to mind from the description of the Serpent’s curse. It is more likely that they were indeed human, for several reasons, perhaps the most pertinent of which is the attribution of Cain’s parentage to the Serpent, though this could just be taken figuratively. However, no one that we know of except the Christians takes it this way; serious students of religious history (e.g. Theosophists, Rosicrucians, and the ancient Gnostics and Christians themselves) have regarded Cain as the literal son of Satan, which implies that he was fully human.

433 That the curse of the Serpent was inherited by Cain is evident in the fact that Cain is called a slave of the Adamites, but it is also evident in the curse of Canaan who bears his name and lineage, as recorded in Genesis 9:25-27: “Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves he shall be to his brothers. Blessed be Yahweh the God of Shem; may Canaan be his slave. May God enlarge Japheth; he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his slave.” It is significant that according to tradition, the entire book of Genesis was written by Moses. Moses was born into a dynasty which began when Egyptian nationalists rose up and threw off their foreign oppression, and ended when they attempted to finish the job. There were many decades of racially motivated conflicts already before he was born, so it was only a matter of time before the Israelites themselves were put into bondage or killed or driven from the land altogether, as the nationalists had already recently done to the Blacks (Ethiopians) and the Asiatics (Hyksos) in their historic homeland. The bondage of the Israelites was deemed unjust, and was the major cause for Moses’ flight from Egypt, as well as his return to set his people free, though he wanted little to do with them. Knowing all this, it would be utterly absurd to suppose that he did not perceive that there was a racially segregated hierarchy in the beginning, when we see the evidence in the fact that Cain killed his brother over his brother’s birthright, just as Esau attempted to do, and the curse of Ham (a name which means ‘black man’ in Hebrew) was simply a reiteration of the descendants of Cain being at the bottom of this natural hierarchy. If nothing else, the actions of each of these men demonstrate that they were unfit for dominion, while the actions of their counterparts demonstrate that they were fit, except perhaps in the case of Adam, but even then, Adam is said to have named the animals in 2:19-20. So even if we suppose that the Genesis narrative is an accurate depiction of real historical events, and not colored by Moses’ own racially bigoted world view, then this world view would have at least made him more aware of the matter of racial segregation and apartheid being the consequence of the curse of the Serpent and of the separate curses of his descendants. The fact that he records a genealogy of the descendants of Adam’s son Seth proves that he regarded the line of sovereignty as having passed to Abraham. Yahshuah’s genealogy is also recorded in Matthew and Luke through the ancient kings of Israel, and through David in particular, whose dominion Yahweh said he would establish over the whole earth, forever. So this ought to inform us as to why all authority in heaven and earth was given to him (Matthew 28:18), and why dominion is not a matter of natural right passed down to each and every descendant of a ruler, but of birthright exclusive of all but the next ruler. That is, Man never had dominion over Nature; only Adam and the individual patriarchs listed in the Bible up to Yahshuah (and perhaps James) did.

434 Bodie Hodge, “How Long Did It Take for Noah to Build the Ark?” Answers in Genesis, 1 Jun 2010, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/06/01/long-to-build-the-ark#fnList_1_1.

435 “Dominion,” The Free Dictionary, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dominion.

436 For a full list of animal byproducts commonly used in things you probably absorb through your hair and skin, see www.peta.org/living/vegetarian-living/animal-ingredients-list.aspx.

437 Eye color is determined by several complex factors, but none so much as toxicity in the blood stream which creates a dark red pigment, thus turning naturally blue or green eyes to brown. This is, of course, scientific heresy, as eye color is supposed to be determined by genetic factors only, yet it has been observed among brown-eyed people who have cleaned their blood streams by switching to raw vegan diets. A notable case of this phenomenon, and the one which we learned this from, prior to investigating it further, is that of Kristina Carrillo-Bucaram, who is probably the most well-known advocate of the raw vegan diet in North America. See her testimony regarding this curious matter here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSPU4fCfyzc.

438 Fernando de la Cruz & Julian Davies, “Horizontal gene transfer and the origin of species: lessons from bacteria,” Trends in Microbiology, Mar 2000, 8(3), pp. 128-133, http://www.zmbh.de/Clayton/gatekeeper/teaching_materials/Patho/E.coli%2520/de_la_Cruz_evol_genomics.pdf.

439 Ed Yong, “Space Invader DNA jumped across mammalian genomes,” National Geographic: Phenomena, 3 Nov 2008, http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2008/11/03/space-invader-dna-jumped-across-mammalian-genomes/.

440 Mark Blaxter, “Molecular Phylogenetic Analysis: Horizontal Gene Transfer, or Are there bugs in our genome?” University of Edinburgh School of Biological Sciences, http://xyala.cap.ed.ac.uk/teaching/gg3/Tech6_Mol_Phyl/tech7_2.shtml.

441 Kara Rogers, “The Human Body as a Network of Bacterial Gene Transfer (Scient Up Front),” Encyclopedia Britannica, 5 Dec 2011, http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2011/12/human-body-network-bacterial-gene-transfer-science-front/.

442 M. Redrejo-Rodriguez et al., “Functional eukaryotic nuclear localization signals are widespread in terminal proteins of bacteriophages,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 25 Sep 2012, http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/10/17/1216635109.abstract.

443 A.E. van den Bogaard et al., “Antibiotic resistance of faecal enterococci in poultry, poultry farmers and poultry slaughterers,” Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, 30 Nov 2001, 49(3), pp. 497-505, http://jac.oxfordjournals.org/content/49/3/497.long.

444 “GM Food Promoter Transfers to Rat Cells,” Seeds of Deception, http://web.archive.org/web/20090515185600/http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods/GMFoodPromoterTransferstoRatCells/index.cfm.

445 R. Schubbert et al., “On the fate of orally ingested foreign DNA in mice: chromosomal association and placental transmission to the fetus,” Molecular & General Genetics, Oct 1998, 259(6), pp. 569-76, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9819049.

446 “Pharmaceuticals – The Sorceries of Babylon,” The Open Scroll, http://www.theopenscroll.com/pharmakeia.htm.

447 Monica Davis, “Underground Market For Human Flesh? Human DNA Traces Found In Burger Meat,” Before It’s News, 30 Mar 2013, http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2013/03/underground-market-for-human-flesh-human-dna-traces-found-in-burger-meat-2608048.html.

448 Fritz Springmeier & Cisco Wheeler, The Illuminati Formula, ch. 10, http://www.whale.to/b/sp/f10.html.

449 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, i.114.2

450 Augustine, City of God, ii.26.

451 Ibid., ii.16.

452 Merrill F. Unger, Biblical Demonology: A Study of Spiritual Forces at Work Today, Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1994, p. 166.

453 T. Stokes, “A Child and Spirit,” 5 Mar 2009, http://www.whale.to/c/a_child_and_spirit.html.

454 Unger, pp. 169-170.

455 David L. Carrico & Donna M. Carrico, The Egyptian – Masonic – Satanic Connection, Followers of Jesus Christ Ministries, 1994, p. 11, http://ritualabusefree.org/emsc%20CHAP%207%20W%20INTRO.pdf.

456 Alex Constantine, “Satanism and Ritual Abuse: Case-by-Case Documentation,” 14 Feb 2009, http://www.whale.to/b/satanism2.html.

457 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3045642/.

458 Gary Smith, “R is for Ruby Roth: New book ‘V is for Vegan’ introduces veganism to youngest kids ever,” The Thinking Vegan, 26 Jul 2013, http://thethinkingvegan.com/tag/vegan/.

459 Robert George Crosbie, Enoch: A Nazarite, Four Elements, 2008, pp. 23-24 retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=vY5FEuVFzogC.

460 “Bovine somatotropin,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin.

461 “The BGH Scandals—The Incredible Story of Jane Akre & Steve Wilson (Part 1),” PR Watch, 7(4), 2000, http://www.purefood.org/rbgh/akrepart1.cfm.

462 “How Monsanto Outfoxed the Obama Administration,” Liberty Beacon, 21 Sep 2013, http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/09/21/how-monsanto-outfoxed-the-obama-administration-12410/.

463 Cohen, p. 107.

464 Ibid., p. 33.

465 Ibid., p. 40.

466 Ibid., p. 105.

467 Ibid., p. vii.

468 Ibid., p. 182.

469 Ibid., p. vii.

470 Ibid., p. 216.

471 Ibid., p. 142.

472 Ibid., p. vii.

473 Ibid., p. 143.

474 Ibid., p. 17.

475 Ibid., p. 103.

476 Ibid., pp. 46-47.

477 Ibid., pp. 136-138.

478 Ibid., pp. 150-151.

479 Ibid., p. 140.

480 Ibid., p. 145.

481 Ibid., p. 140.

482 Ibid., pp. 138-140.

483 Ibid., p. 70.

484 Ibid., pp. 73-74.

485 Ibid., pp. 98-99.

486 Ibid., pp. 48-51.

487 Ibid., p. 147.

488 Ibid., p. 51.

489 Ibid., p. 63.

490 Ibid., p. 52.

491 Ibid., p. 59.

492 Ibid., p. 60.

493 Ibid., p. 65.

494 Ibid., p. 35.

495 Ibid., p. 117.

496 Ibid., p. 65.

497 Tzvi Freeman, “Are You Really Planning to Bring Back those Animal Sacrifices?” Chabad, http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2942/jewish/Animal-Sacrifices.htm.

498-500 “Animal Sacrifice,” Humane Religion, Jul/Aug 1998; retrieved from http://www.all-creatures.org/hr/hrasacrific.htm.