The fight against Newspeak

[Firestarter]

I have a hard time finding reliable information on the US/Israel war against Iran, as I don't think that Iranian propaganda is any better than Western.
Its obvious result is a huge increase in the price of energy, which will cause inflation and food shortages. Of course the Middle Eastern oil sheiks won't mind their countries being bombed as they don't care about their population, while an increase in oil prices is greatly appreciated. Similarly it could be argued that the bombing of Iran will actually make the ruthless regime of the new Ayatollah Khameini (the son of the previous that reportedly died in the bombings) more popular, while they will also benefit from the higher prices for oil on the world market.

So my first guess was that these were THE objectives of this war...
There is also a biblical aspect that could very well be an important motive for the zio-satanists in control. Although probably it's more the use of Jewish religious propaganda to motivate the Israeli masses for another (un)holy war.
.

According to a number of internet sites and books Jews are involved in bloody rituals in which white Christians are murdered by Satanic Jews. At Passover a boy of 7 years the most must be sacrificed and at Purim adults are sacrificed. The ritual at Passover has strict rules, but Purim is more a free form of genocide. George H.W. Bush ordered the mass murder of 150,000 Iraqi soldiers on February 28, 1991 (that fled from Kuwait) on Purim. Twelve years later Purim was celebrated on March 19, 2003, when George W. Bush ordered to invade Iraq.

https://lawfulpath.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3154#p3154

In 2026, Purim was from 2 to 4 March, 'coincidentally' when the bombs on Iran started...
So Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was eliminated on Purim!


The story of Purim in the Tanach (a.k.a. Old Testament) takes place in ancient Persia (where Iran is now located). The story centers around the evil official Haman, who plots to exterminate the Jews, but instead gets executed. Rabbinic tradition identifies Haman as a descendant of Amalek (or an Agagite).

Already in 2009, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu called Iran "Amalek", and predicted that Iran would swiftly make science fictional nuclear bombs: https://web.archive.org/web/20260323001 ... ble-enemy/


In March 2026, during a visit to a site hit by an Iranian missile, Netanyahu stated:

We read in this week's Torah portion, 'Remember what Amalek did to you.’ We remember—and we act.

.
In October 2023, Netanyahu had invoked "Amalek" in support of the brutal genocide of Gaza.
On 13 October 2023, Netanyahu stated:

Today, against the enemy, with the ancient command ‘Remember what Amalek did to you’ ringing in our ears, today we are uniting forces in order to ensure the eternity of Israel.

.
On 28 October 2023, Netanyahu told IDF soldiers:

You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible, And we do remember, and we are fighting. Our brave troops and combatants who are now in Gaza or around Gaza, and in all other regions in Israel, are joining this chain of Jewish heroes, a chain that has started 3,000 years ago from Joshua ben Nun, until the heroes of 1948, the Six-Day War, the ’73 October War and all other wars in this country.

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/ne ... oe/3848109


In Jewish tradition, Amalek represents the evil archetype that hates Israel, with Haman in the Book of Esther being described as an "Agagite" (descendant of the Amalekite king Agag).
Amalek was the son of Eliphaz and grandson of Esau (Isaac's and Abraham's brother), making the Amalekites relatives of the Israelites.

The Amalekites were a tribe of nomads living in the Negev desert, between Egypt and Canaan. The Babylonians called them the Sute, Egyptians the Sittiu, and the Amarna tablets refer to them as the Khabbati, or “plunderers”.


In the Tanach, it is written that the Amalekites frequently raided and fought Israel. According to the Tanach, God ordered the Israelites to wipe the Amalekites off the face of the earth (Exodus 17:8–13; 1 Samuel 15:2; Deuteronomy 25:17).
This means that Bibi calling Iranians (or Palestinians) "Amalek" is basically calling for genocide (sort of like the endlösung?!?).

The Amalekites’ brutality toward the Israelites began with an attack at Rephidim (Exodus 17:8–13).
This is recounted in Deuteronomy 25:17–19:

Remember what the Amalekites did to you along the way when you came out of Egypt. When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and attacked all who were lagging behind: they had no fear of God. When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the name of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!

.
See Nicolas Poussin’s painting “The Battle of Joshua with Amalekites".


In 1 Samuel 15:2–3, God tells King Saul:

I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them, put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

.
King Saul first warns the Kenites, friends of Israel, to leave the area. He then defeats the Amalekites but does not finish the task. He allows the Amalekite King Agag to live, plunders for himself and his army, and lies about the reason for doing so.
Saul’s rebellion against God is the reason he is rejected by God as king (1 Samuel 15:23).

The last mention of the Amalekites is in the book of Esther where Haman the Agagite tries to exterminate the Jews in Persia through order of King Xerxes. God saved the Jews in Persia, and Haman, his sons, and (the rest of) Israel’s enemies were destroyed instead (Esther 9:5–10): https://www.gotquestions.org/Amalekites.html
(https://archive.is/IQW2P)

[Firestarter]

While we have been made to believe that ancient Greece is the birthplace of rational thinking, science, philosophy and democracy, the truth is of course more sinister.
.

The official story is that Emperor Constantine (Emperor 306-337 AD) converted from Mithraism to Christianity on the eve of a battle in 312 AD. Constantine made Christianity the state religion. All subsequent emperors were openly hostile towards Mithraism: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions ... ianity.htm
(archived here: http://archive.is/YnS6B)


After Emperor Constantine supposedly converted to Christianity in 312 AD, he maintained the title “Pontifex Maximus” - the high priest of paganism.

I searched the internet for a connection between Socrates, Plato and the Mithras cult, and found it, but NOT how I expected...

The symbolism and rituals of Roman Mithraism depended so much on Platonic philosophy that it can be seen as Neoplatonism.
The bull sacrifice in a cave, was similar to the cave in Plato’s Republic.
Mithra was called “demiurge and father of all things”, like the Platonic demiurge.
The Mithraic doctrine of the soul is linked with the myth of creation and (of course) Platonic philosophy. As in the Platonic Timaeus, the human soul came down from heaven, and was finally caught within the body after crossing the 7 spheres of the planets.
The task of life is to liberate one’s divine part (the soul) from the shackles of the body and to reascend through the 7 spheres to the eternal, unchanging realm of the fixed stars. This ascent to the sky was pictured as Mithra leaving earth in the chariot of the sun god.

.

The cave, both in Mithraic ritual and Platonic philosophy, served as the archetype of the cosmic microcosm, the place where the soul enters matter and from which it must ultimately ascend. Porphyry, the Neoplatonic philosopher who offers one of the most insightful ancient commentaries on Mithraic symbolism, explicitly identifies this connection.
...
Just as in Plato’s Republic (Book VII), the soul ascends from the darkness of the cave toward the light of the Good, so too does the Mithraic initiate move from ignorance toward gnosis, from material illusion toward cosmic order. Yet the Mithraic cave is not the prison of Plato’s allegory; it is the crucible of transformation. For Plato, the cave is an image of delusion; for the Mithraist, it is a sanctum of regeneration. Where the philosopher escapes the cave, the initiate masters it.
...
The cave’s darkness was not merely the absence of light; it was the primordial potential of creation. In Neoplatonic thought, the material world is not evil but the lowest manifestation of the divine, awaiting illumination by intellect, as Plotinus writes, “We must not despise the body, for even here the divine radiance shines; but we must ascend through its shadow to the source of light.”
...
Porphyry, following the Neoplatonic line of thought, identifies the bull as the symbol of the material world (Hyle). In De Abstinentia (2.56), he explains that the slaying of the bull by Mithras signifies “the subjection of matter to divine reason, the ordering of chaos by intellect.”
...
When all these elements are considered together; the animals, the torchbearers, Sol and Luna, the tauroctony reveals itself not as a narrative image but as a cosmic diagram, a visual mandala of Indo-European metaphysics. The figures form a sacred geometry: Mithras at the center as the mediating intellect; Sol and Luna above as the transcendent principles; the animals below as the material and psychic forces; and the torchbearers as the twin poles of cosmic rhythm. This structure corresponds to the Neoplatonic hierarchy: The One (Sol), Nous (Mithras), Psyche (Luna), and Hyle (the animals and bull). The initiate, standing before this image in the dim mithraeum, did not simply observe it entered it. His consciousness was aligned with its architecture, his soul rehearsed its ascent through ritual, and his inner world became the living reflection of the cosmos carved before him, as the Neoplatonist Iamblichus wrote, “Ritual images are not mere symbols but vehicles of divine presence; by contemplating them, the soul is raised to the reality they signify”[27] Thus, the tauroctony was not a teaching device but an instrument of transformation.

https://archive.is/d1oyQ


The truth about the trial and execution of Socrates in 399 BC for “corrupting the youth” has been deliberately obscured.
Socrates was not sentenced to death for asking philosophical questions, but sentenced for "his organisational role in a network that had attempted to destroy Athenian democracy".

While Socrates never produced any book, his legendary status was promoted through his disciple Plato, an aristocrat whose family was involved in the "Thirty Tyrants" coup.
Socrates, with Plato, were part of a network of aristocrats (some sort of "deep state"?!?) that orchestrated terror against the "democratic order". For Socrates and Plato, democracy was tyranny of the majority (really: of the lower class) over wisdom and virtue (really: tyranny of the elite).

Socrates' most prominent associates — Alcibiades, Critias, Charmides — were members of an aristocratic network hostile to Athenian democracy.
Critias — one of Socrates’s closest associates — led the oligarchic coup of 404 BC, which led to the short regime of the “Thirty Tyrants”.

The Academy Plato founded was not a university, but a cult - a closed brotherhood with political ambitions, property holdings, and initiation rites: https://www.globalresearch.ca/socrates- ... yr/5928383


As for another interpretation of “corrupting the youth”...
One of Socrates' most infamous students was Alcibiades.
According to Plato, the much older Socrates, was in a gay, sexual relationship (not platonic!) with the Athenian general Alcibiades, who was famous for his physical attractiveness.

See the 1777 painting "Alcibiades Being Taught by Socrates" by François-André Vincent. It depicts the feminine Alcibiades with Socrates.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260602081 ... 26?lang=en

[veritas]

While we have been made to believe that ancient Greece is the birthplace of rational thinking, science, philosophy and democracy, the truth is of course more sinister.
.

The official story is that Emperor Constantine (Emperor 306-337 AD) converted from Mithraism to Christianity on the eve of a battle in 312 AD. Constantine made Christianity the state religion. All subsequent emperors were openly hostile towards Mithraism: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions ... ianity.htm
(archived here: http://archive.is/YnS6B)


After Emperor Constantine supposedly converted to Christianity in 312 AD, he maintained the title “Pontifex Maximus” - the high priest of paganism.

I searched the internet for a connection between Socrates, Plato and the Mithras cult, and found it, but NOT how I expected...

The symbolism and rituals of Roman Mithraism depended so much on Platonic philosophy that it can be seen as Neoplatonism.
The bull sacrifice in a cave, was similar to the cave in Plato’s Republic.
Mithra was called “demiurge and father of all things”, like the Platonic demiurge.
The Mithraic doctrine of the soul is linked with the myth of creation and (of course) Platonic philosophy. As in the Platonic Timaeus, the human soul came down from heaven, and was finally caught within the body after crossing the 7 spheres of the planets.
The task of life is to liberate one’s divine part (the soul) from the shackles of the body and to reascend through the 7 spheres to the eternal, unchanging realm of the fixed stars. This ascent to the sky was pictured as Mithra leaving earth in the chariot of the sun god.

.

The cave, both in Mithraic ritual and Platonic philosophy, served as the archetype of the cosmic microcosm, the place where the soul enters matter and from which it must ultimately ascend. Porphyry, the Neoplatonic philosopher who offers one of the most insightful ancient commentaries on Mithraic symbolism, explicitly identifies this connection.
...
Just as in Plato’s Republic (Book VII), the soul ascends from the darkness of the cave toward the light of the Good, so too does the Mithraic initiate move from ignorance toward gnosis, from material illusion toward cosmic order. Yet the Mithraic cave is not the prison of Plato’s allegory; it is the crucible of transformation. For Plato, the cave is an image of delusion; for the Mithraist, it is a sanctum of regeneration. Where the philosopher escapes the cave, the initiate masters it.
...
The cave’s darkness was not merely the absence of light; it was the primordial potential of creation. In Neoplatonic thought, the material world is not evil but the lowest manifestation of the divine, awaiting illumination by intellect, as Plotinus writes, “We must not despise the body, for even here the divine radiance shines; but we must ascend through its shadow to the source of light.”
...
Porphyry, following the Neoplatonic line of thought, identifies the bull as the symbol of the material world (Hyle). In De Abstinentia (2.56), he explains that the slaying of the bull by Mithras signifies “the subjection of matter to divine reason, the ordering of chaos by intellect.”
...
When all these elements are considered together; the animals, the torchbearers, Sol and Luna, the tauroctony reveals itself not as a narrative image but as a cosmic diagram, a visual mandala of Indo-European metaphysics. The figures form a sacred geometry: Mithras at the center as the mediating intellect; Sol and Luna above as the transcendent principles; the animals below as the material and psychic forces; and the torchbearers as the twin poles of cosmic rhythm. This structure corresponds to the Neoplatonic hierarchy: The One (Sol), Nous (Mithras), Psyche (Luna), and Hyle (the animals and bull). The initiate, standing before this image in the dim mithraeum, did not simply observe it entered it. His consciousness was aligned with its architecture, his soul rehearsed its ascent through ritual, and his inner world became the living reflection of the cosmos carved before him, as the Neoplatonist Iamblichus wrote, “Ritual images are not mere symbols but vehicles of divine presence; by contemplating them, the soul is raised to the reality they signify”[27] Thus, the tauroctony was not a teaching device but an instrument of transformation.

https://archive.is/d1oyQ


The truth about the trial and execution of Socrates in 399 BC for “corrupting the youth” has been deliberately obscured.
Socrates was not sentenced to death for asking philosophical questions, but sentenced for "his organisational role in a network that had attempted to destroy Athenian democracy".

While Socrates never produced any book, his legendary status was promoted through his disciple Plato, an aristocrat whose family was involved in the "Thirty Tyrants" coup.
Socrates, with Plato, were part of a network of aristocrats (some sort of "deep state"?!?) that orchestrated terror against the "democratic order". For Socrates and Plato, democracy was tyranny of the majority (really: of the lower class) over wisdom and virtue (really: tyranny of the elite).

Socrates' most prominent associates — Alcibiades, Critias, Charmides — were members of an aristocratic network hostile to Athenian democracy.
Critias — one of Socrates’s closest associates — led the oligarchic coup of 404 BC, which led to the short regime of the “Thirty Tyrants”.

The Academy Plato founded was not a university, but a cult - a closed brotherhood with political ambitions, property holdings, and initiation rites: https://www.globalresearch.ca/socrates- ... yr/5928383


As for another interpretation of “corrupting the youth”...
One of Socrates' most infamous students was Alcibiades.
According to Plato, the much older Socrates, was in a gay, sexual relationship (not platonic!) with the Athenian general Alcibiades, who was famous for his physical attractiveness.

See the 1777 painting "Alcibiades Being Taught by Socrates" by François-André Vincent. It depicts the feminine Alcibiades with Socrates.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260602081 ... 26?lang=en

Sorry, I've never read anything more stupid from you. Where did you get all this?

[Firestarter]

The Academy Plato founded was not a university, but a cult - a closed brotherhood with political ambitions, property holdings, and initiation rites

So the philosophy / academy of Plato and Socrates was always an elite secret society, with initiation levels.
.

The symbolism and rituals of Roman Mithraism depended so much on Platonic philosophy that it can be seen as Neoplatonism.

It is widely known that Plato and Socrates had a huge influence over Western philosophy, but not that these Greek philosophers were occultists, deep into esoteric mysticism.
.

Socrates, with Plato, were part of a network of aristocrats (some sort of "deep state"?!?) that orchestrated terror against the "democratic order". For Socrates and Plato, democracy was tyranny of the majority (really: of the lower class) over wisdom and virtue (really: tyranny of the elite).

Plato described the ideal state in “The Republic”, in which there were 3 classes: guardians (philosopher kings), auxiliaries (police, soldiers and lawyers) and producers (as the lowest class).
Apparently the Neoplatonists wanted to control the masses through "wisdom and virtue". Which meant that they obscured the truth from the lower classes.

Plato argued that citizens must believe in myths so they will accept their class. Plato called such myths “Noble Lies”: Plato explicitly recommended lying to the masses (but not to the elite, guardians).
.

We must surely prize truth most highly. For if we were right in what we were just saying and falsehood is useless to gods, but to men useful as a remedy or form of medicine, it is obvious that such a thing must be granted to physicians and laymen should have nothing to do with it.

Obviously, he replied.

The rulers then of the city may, if anybody, rightly lie to and about enemies or citizens for the benefit of the state; no others may have anything to do with it, but for a layman to lie to rulers we shall affirm to be as great a sin, even greater than it is for a patient not to tell physician or an athlete his trainer the truth about his bodily condition, or for a man to deceive the captain about the ship and the sailors as to the real condition of himself or a fellow-sailor, and how they fare.

https://philolibrary.crc.nd.edu/article/the-noble-lie/


It's obvious that this idea of misleading the masses through myths wasn’t only through political propaganda but also through religiosity.
That Neoplatonists influence (and even founded) Christianity and Islam suggests that these organisations were founded to keep the lower classes under the tyranny of the elite through “noble lies”.
With only the initiated Neoplatonists understanding what was really behind the doctrines of these religious organisations (like the degrees in freemasonry).
.

Worshippers of Mithras prayed:

Abide with me in my soul. Leave me not [so] that I may be initiated and that the Holy Spirit may breathe within me.

I've never quite been able to understand what the Christian "Holy Spirit" is supposed to mean.
This looks to come from the Neoplatonist "World Soul" (a.k.a. psyche kosmou or anima mundi).

The influence of Neoplatonism extended beyond the classical period, significantly impacting early Christian, Islamic, and Renaissance thought. The integration of Platonic and Neoplatonic ideas into Christian theology, particularly through the works of Augustine and Pseudo-Dionysius, demonstrates the enduring legacy of the concept of the World Soul.

.
See Robert Fludd's illustration of all parts of the created cosmos, with its soul depicted as a woman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anima_mundi


Besides Christianity and Islam, Neoplatonism (and other ancient Greek philosophy) also played a pivotal role in shaping the mystic Jewish Kabbalah.

See the Knesset Menorah that merges Kabbalah symbolism with echoes of Greek philosophy.


Neoplatonism proposed that reality emanated from a single, transcendent source, which the 3rd century CE Neoplatonist Plotinus called “The One”. This source was beyond all comprehension and could only be described in negative terms.

This concept is similar to the Kabbalistic notion of “Ein Sof”, the infinite, unknowable God. From this divine source, the universe emanates in a series of progressively more complex layers, represented by the Ten Sefirot, or divine emanations. These Sefirot form the structure of the Kabbalistic Tree of Life, an intricate map of the divine order: https://greekreporter.com/2026/04/08/in ... -kabbalah/


The following gives an idea of “Neoplatonic principles”...

It might be worth concluding with an attempt to explain why Neoplatonism, in spite of its difficulty, is worth understanding. Neoplatonism is worth understanding for its own sake, but it is separately worth the attention of anyone who wants to understand how philosophy developed through the period in which Christianity and Islam became world-historical forces and came to dominate the intellectual currents of their respective societies. Understanding Neoplatonism is also critical for attempting to make sense of medieval philosophy (again, in both the Christian and Islamic world), and, therefore, the environment in which philosophy as we know it today emerged.
...

The two most characteristically Neoplatonic principles are not distinctly Platonic. The first is held by Plato, but also by Aristotle and many other Greek philosophers of that period. The principle can be summarised simply as: “mind precedes matter,” or “mind over matter” as it is sometimes rendered. For the term “mind” we could well substitute “mindful intelligence,” “consciousness,” “intellect,” or “thought.” The Greek term, nous, bears connotations of all these English terms.
...

The second principle is perhaps the most distinctive Neoplatonic principle — it is the idea that reality wholly depends on a highest principle. This principle is one of unity. It is commonly considered divine, and indeed sometimes referred to simply as “God,” although the Neoplatonists were pagans. It goes by other names: “the One,” “the Good,” “the First,” and others. Evidently, these principles are related. If mind precedes matter, then the first principle of creation must be a conscious principle. Neoplatonism must, therefore, attempt to explain how all of reality proceeds from consciousness.

https://www.thecollector.com/what-is-neoplatonism/

[veritas]

Due to their desire to remain in complete control over Athens, the Thirty sought to exile or kill anyone who outwardly opposed their regime. Socrates remained in the city through this period, which caused the public to associate him with the Thirty and may have contributed to his eventual death sentence, especially since Critias had been his student.[35]



In Plato's Apology, Socrates recounts an incident in which the Thirty once ordered him (and four other men) to bring before them Leon of Salamis, a man known for his justice and upright character, for execution. While the other four men obeyed, Socrates refused, not wanting to partake in the guilt of the executioners. However, he did not attempt to warn or save Leon of Salamis. By disobeying, Socrates may have been placing his own life in jeopardy, and he claimed it was only the disbanding of the oligarchy soon afterward that saved his life.

When the oligarchy came into power, the Thirty Commissioners, in their turn, summoned me and four others to the Round Chamber and instructed us to go and fetch Leon of Salamis from his home for execution. This was, of course, only one of many instances in which they issued such instructions, their object being to implicate as many people as possible in their crimes. On this occasion, however, I again made it clear, not by my words but by my actions, that the attention I paid to death was zero (if that is not too unrefined a claim); but that I gave all my attention to avoiding doing anything unjust or unholy. As powerful as it was, the government did not terrify me into doing a wrong action. When we came out of the rotunda, the other four went to Salamis and arrested Leon, but I simply went home.[36]

Later on, in his Seventh Letter, Plato describes the interaction between the Thirty and Socrates from his own point of view:

They tried to send a friend of mine, the aged Socrates, whom I should scarcely scruple to describe as the most upright man of that day, with some other persons to carry off one of the citizens by force to execution, in order that, whether he wished it, or not, he might share the guilt of their conduct; but he would not obey them, risking all consequences in preference to becoming a partner in their iniquitous deeds.[32]

The Italian historian Luciano Canfora has inferred that another of Socrates' students, Xenophon, might have played an important part in the rule of the Thirty, as one of the two commanders of the cavalry, which were the Thirty's militia. Indeed, in his book Hipparchos (Commander of the cavalry), Xenophon mentions just one of the commanders (there were always two), only to revile him, while never mentioning the other.[37]

In his Memorabilia (Bk 1, Ch 2), Xenophon reports a contentious confrontation between Socrates and the Thirty, Critias included. Socrates is summoned before the group and ordered not to instruct or speak to anyone, whereupon Socrates mocks the order by asking sarcastically whether he will be allowed to ask to buy food in the marketplace. Xenophon uses the episode to illustrate both Socrates' own critique of the slaughtering of Athenian citizens by the Thirty, as well as make the case that the relationship between Critias and Socrates had significantly deteriorated by the time Critias obtained power.[38]

[Firestarter]

Plato described the ideal state in “The Republic”, in which there were 3 classes: guardians (philosopher kings), auxiliaries (police, soldiers and lawyers) and producers (as the lowest class).
Apparently the Neoplatonists wanted to control the masses through "wisdom and virtue". Which meant that they obscured the truth from the lower classes.

While the influence of Mithraism on the founding of the Catholic Church is interesting, it never quite explained to me what was behind founding the Church and proclaiming the Tanach (a.k.a. Old Testament) and New Testament as the "Word of God" through a political vote by the Council of Nicaea. And to me it never explained this "Holy Spirit".
Christianity is as much two-tier as just about any large organisation in our brave new world.
.

Plato argued that citizens must believe in myths so they will accept their class. Plato called such myths “Noble Lies”: Plato explicitly recommended lying to the masses (but not to the elite, guardians).

To me Neoplatonism explains all of this much much better. Neoplatonists started Christianity to control the masses through 'noble lies'. In short the message the lower classes get brainwashed with is that we must be good and obedient to the Church 'fathers', and ultimately ALL authorities, to get rewarded in the afterlife by the almighty God.
The elites get another message, one of spiritual awaking, through oneness, union with the divine, or union with the "World Soul" or Holy Spirit. And by becoming one with the Holy Spirit, they automatically 'transcend' into becoming part of the Holy Trinity. Which then makes it morally just for them to enslave and exploit the inferior lower classes.

Of course the idea of ‘enlightenment’ is just as much a “noble lie” as the idea that you get rewarded in the afterlife for bowing down to the rich and corrupt that exploit the masses...
I cannot really say that I found good information about how this works. I haven’t found a single conspiracy story on how Christianity is a two-tier organisation, even though there are a lot of conspiracies on the Catholic Church. And through the Neoplatonist connection this isn’t difficult to deduce.


This finally explains to me what the role is of this “Holy Spirit” that I was never able to understand (although maybe I still don’t)...

Worshippers of Mithras prayed:

Abide with me in my soul. Leave me not [so] that I may be initiated and that the Holy Spirit may breathe within me.

I've never quite been able to understand what the Christian "Holy Spirit" is supposed to mean.
This looks to come from the Neoplatonist "World Soul" (a.k.a. psyche kosmou or anima mundi).

.
The following describes the 3 Stages of “spiritual awakening” (enlightenment) in Christian mysticism:
Purgative: Cleansing the mind and ego of attachments, sin, and distractions.
Illuminative: A state of spiritual awakening. The Holy Spirit floods the mind with spiritual wisdom, profound clarity, and an experiential understanding of God's love.
Unitive: Complete union with the divine, characterised by a continuous state of love, self-surrender, and peace.

Throughout these stages, ”the mystic remains distinct from God”, but "united in love and purpose" (whatever that means?!?): https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/christian-mysticism


While the Protestant Reformation downplayed mysticism, Martin Luther was influenced by the German mystical tradition of Eckhart, but also other sources.

Eckhart is widely recognised as one of the most famous Christian mystics, and less well-known as a Neoplatonist: https://www.scilit.com/publications/dcf ... 0d49ba5270


And of course the Satanist that founded Theosophy (which started the ‘mystic’ New Age religiosity), Helena Blavatsky, was born to a noble Russian family.
Blavatsky's promoted the idea that all religions stem from a single "Ancient Wisdom", which she connected to the Western esotericism of ancient Hermeticism and Neoplatonism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_Blavatsky

[Firestarter]

It's obvious that this idea of misleading the masses through myths wasn’t only through political propaganda but also through religiosity.
That Neoplatonists influence (and even founded) Christianity and Islam suggests that these organisations were founded to keep the lower classes under the tyranny of the elite through “noble lies”.
With only the initiated Neoplatonists understanding what was really behind the doctrines of these religious organisations (like the degrees in freemasonry).

Freemasons have actually boasted about the influence of neoplatonism on “the craft”, calling Neoplatonism “one of the foundations of Masonic philosophy”.
Albert Pike, who was sometimes called the “Plato of Freemasonry”, held the teachings of Plato in high esteem. Pike in Morals and Dogma (1956) calls Plato among the “greatest revellers of truth and light”, and that Plato expressed the noble doctrine of nature “in the most beautiful and luminous manner”.
.

The ‘Third Way’ was a modified re-hashing of Strauss’ interpretation of Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, which posited that societal equilibrium should be maintained like a population in a cave believing that their perception of shadows cast by a managerial elite was the only reality that existed: https://archive.is/Zcqur

https://lawfulpath.com/forum/viewtopic. ... 401#p88401

Freemasonry also love the allegory of the cave; according to Mackey (1927) the cave is “a symbol of the darkness of ignorance and crime impenetrable to the light of truth”, in contrast to the illumination that freemasonry will NOT bring…

The neophyte, who has petitioned Freemasonry, is “held in the bondage of ignorance” with the masses, while as a result of the “true teachings of the Craft”, “disinterestedness vanishes, every one howls, searches, gropes, and gnaws for himself. Ideas are ignored, and of progress there is no thought” (Pike, 1956).

In the Ninth degree of the Scottish Rite, “the cave is a symbol of the imprisonment of the human soul and intellect by ignorance, superstition, deceit, and fraud” (Hutchens, 2000): https://web.archive.org/web/20260208165 ... 20Cave.pdf


The second significant figure in Neoplatonism is Iamblichus from Syria, who further developed Plotinus' ideas. lamblichus acknowledged a primordial deity that divided into a Trinity and then multiplied into numerous gods, reaching 360 gods. lamblichus also highlights fate, as “a force that rules over man and from which one can only be freed thanks to the intervention of the gods”.

With the Arab and Ottoman conquests and the fall of Byzantium, the Islamic world adopted Greek texts. In the 14th and 15th centuries, most Byzantines fled Ottoman conquests, emigrating to Italy. One of the most influential Byzantine thinkers was Georgius Gemistus Pletho, who arrived in Florence in the first half of the 15th century, and helped reconcile differences between Catholic and Orthodox clergy. Pletho actively promoted Plato and Neoplatonic philosophers, noting the kinship between Christian theology and the Platonic school, and criticising medieval scholasticism and Aristotle: https://web.archive.org/web/20260415105 ... sonry.html

[veritas]

I’m working on an English translation—as it happens, I just posted a conversation of mine on my social media page today. I’ll translate the whole thing into English and post it here.

[veritas]

Neoplatonists, "New Christians" (Marranos), Young Turks—this raises the question: what does the prefix "neo-" actually signify? If you do not intend to change anything in a doctrine, then you are simply a Platonist, a Christian, or a Turk; if, however, you do change something, then you are no longer a Platonist, a Christian, or a Turk.

In these terms, the prefix "neo-" does not denote a mere distortion or corruption of the original teaching; rather, it points to a historical adaptation, a revival, or a cultural shift occurring within new historical circumstances. Your question touches upon a classic philosophical and linguistic puzzle (akin to the paradox of the "Ship of Theseus"): how many characteristics can an object’s nature undergo before it ceases to be itself?
In reality, the use of the prefix "neo-" in the three cases you mentioned carries different depths and meanings:

1. Neoplatonists: Philosophical Evolution

Neoplatonists (such as Plotinus or Proclus) did not consider themselves "new" Platonists—they believed they were faithful interpreters of Plato.
• Why "neo-"? This term was applied to them later, by historians (in the 19th century), to distinguish Plato’s classical Academy from a later school that incorporated elements of Aristotelian philosophy, Stoicism, and Eastern mysticism.
• The resolution to the dilemma: they did not "betray" Plato; instead, they took the core of his ideas and developed it into a new, more systematized metaphysical framework that addressed the intellectual demands of their own era. 2. "New Christians" (Marranos): Cultural Survival

"Marranos" (or *Cristianos Nuevos*—"New Christians") on the Iberian Peninsula in the 15th century were Jews (or Muslims) who, under the threat of the Inquisition, were forced to undergo Christian baptism.
• Why "new"? In this instance, the term "new" refers not to doctrine, but to social status and the timing of one's conversion. It served to distinguish between "Old Christians" (individuals of "pure" lineage) and those who had adopted Christianity more recently.
• Resolution of the dilemma: Many of these individuals secretly remained faithful to Judaism (crypto-Jews); thus, from a doctrinal perspective, they were not Christians at all. The prefix "neo-" (meaning "new") functioned here as an externally imposed administrative and social label, rather than as an indication of a reform in the religious doctrine itself.

3. The Young Turks: Political Reform

The Young Turks (*Jöntürkler*) were a political movement in the early 20th century that sought to replace the absolute monarchy of the Ottoman Empire with a constitutional system of government.
• Why "neo-"? In this context, the word "Turk" is not used in the modern national sense, but rather in opposition to the traditional Ottoman identity. The prefix "neo-" here denotes "progressiveness," "modernization," or a "Western orientation."
• Resolution of the dilemma: They did not alter the definition of what it meant to be an ethnic Turk; instead, they radically transformed the political structure of their state, converting a theocratic empire into a modern nation-state. Conclusion

The prefix "neo-" does not necessarily imply a "change in doctrine." It can signify:
1. In philosophy: a reinterpretation and expansion (retaining the original foundation while employing new tools).
2. In religion/society: a recent incorporation into a group or an imposition from the outside (maintaining the original doctrine, but with a different origin).
3. In politics: modernization and reform (preserving the original identity, yet within the framework of a new system). Thus, one can be "neo-" while remaining faithful to the essence of one's roots, all the while adapting their form to the demands of changing times.
If you wish, we can examine any of these categories in greater detail. Would you like to delve into how Neoplatonists influenced Christian theology, or are you perhaps interested in the political underpinnings of the Young Turk movement?

[veritas]

Are you suggesting that the Neoplatonists did not alter Plato’s teachings in any way, even by introducing a belief in miracles and magic?

Quite the contrary. In fact, the shift toward the "miraculous"—toward theurgy and metaphysical rituals—is clear evidence that the Neoplatonists radically altered and transformed classical Platonic thought.
If one traces the evolution from Plato (4th century BCE) to Iamblichus and Proclus (4th–5th centuries CE), one can observe significant structural changes:

1. From rational discourse (*logos*) to ritual (theurgy)

• Plato: The soul’s ascent to the realm of Forms (Ideas) is achieved through dialectic, reason, mathematics, and philosophical self-inquiry.
• Later Neoplatonists: Philosophers such as Iamblichus argued that the human intellect had become so deeply "immersed" in the material world that human reason alone was no longer sufficient for union with the Divine. The assistance of the gods themselves is required—a goal attained through theurgy (literally "divine action"—a specific form of sacred, philosophical magic). 2. The integration of magic and symbols

The later Neoplatonists were not concerned with "cheap" tricks (sorcery); rather, they developed a coherent system based on the principle of cosmic sympathy (*sympathia*).
• They posited that, because the entire universe is interconnected, certain material objects—such as herbs, stones, symbols, and sounds—bear the "imprint" of the gods. • It was believed that by using these objects in rituals, one could animate statues, summon *daimones* (divine or semi-divine beings), or purify the soul. This is worlds apart from the rationalism of the early Academy.

3. How did they justify this shift themselves?

The Neoplatonists did not acknowledge that they were "altering" Plato; on the contrary, they claimed to be deciphering the mysteries hidden within his teachings. • They drew upon specific Platonic texts—such as the *Timaeus* (regarding cosmology) or the *Phaedrus* (regarding divine madness)—and interpreted them allegorically, thereby laying the foundation for their own mysticism. • Moreover, the founder of this school, Plotinus, remained quite close to rationalism and contemplative inner work, rejecting external magical rituals. It was only his successors who transformed this philosophy into a kind of "pagan theology," intended to compete with the rising influence of Christianity.

A concluding note on the prefix "neo-"

This confirms precisely what you asked about at the beginning: did the doctrine change? Undoubtedly.
Historians added the prefix "neo-" precisely because the system developed by Iamblichus or Proclus no longer represented the "pure" philosophy of Plato. It was a religious-mystical mutation that, while retaining Platonic terminology and structural framework, radically altered the method itself—making the miraculous and the supernatural its primary tools.