Monday, November 16, 2015


I was watching the latest France terrorist drama on the news with a homey yesterday and was telling him how, growing up in the ‘hood, gun-based murder and even the killing of innocent bystanders is kind of the norm when someone is irresponsibly targeting an enemy, but niggas don’t just run up and just start shooting in a room full of innocent people.  We were watching the news on DW-TV, and of course one of their main concerns was such terrorism spreading into Germany, but I don’t foresee that being the case as Germany has a different history from France, as in Germany tends to fuk more with Europeans and not with like Middle Easterners.

Of course I sympathize with all of the victims involved, in any way, shape or form, with the terrorist shooting that took place in Paris a couple of days ago that has claimed over 130 lives thus far, but I’m a strong believer in karma as in living by and gun and subsequently dying by the gun, and when I say believer I mean that at the end of the day an individual, group or even entire nation will reap what they sow.

Back in the day when I was formally studying Colonialism, it was easy to conclude that France (I would say along with Belgium) was the most fuked up out of a bunch of fuked up, murderous European colonial nations.  France had a policy (in nations like Algeria, if I remember correctly) where if you kill one Frenchman they’d kill like a thousand of you, you know with airplanes and ish like that, that you can't defend yourself from.  About 10 years ago when there was some beef with France in the Ivory Coast, I actually had a homey from Cote d’Ivoire living with me here in Ghana, and when he briefly went home and came back he gave me an underground website where I could get the ‘real’ news of what was going on there (but unfortunately the site was in French), and he told me that despite what was being portrayed via the mainstream international news, the French were ‘killing people plenty.’  So people who know the history of France know how they get down, even before they started bombing Syria.


I’ll reiterate the same sentiment I made when the US invasion of Iraq was in full swing a few years ago -  the citizens in the modern Western world have to show more of a concern for the people of poorer countries that their nations are bombing, and when I say concern I mean something practical like sponsoring NGOs who are already on the ground helping those people.  You know colonialism and wars and ish like that are done for reasons, the primary reason usually being something like to benefit the citizens of the metropole.  Otherwise while the national military that you support with your taxes or out killing civilians, of course their loved ones are going to be pissed if concurrently you're out enjoying a concert or a nightclub or a football game.  I mean that’s just like common sense.

Friday, July 17, 2015


Harley Quinn inquires of Amanda Waller, who is wearing a Baphomet-esque T-shirt, "Are you the devil?"

When I saw that the gang over at Infowars had hastily put together a critique of the recently-released Suicide Squad trailer, I was hoping for something a little more in-depth than them trying to convince the audience that the “secret plot” of the movie was to desensitize the public to the idea of the United States funding the Islamic State (ISIS).  However to my knowledge the general plot of the Suicide Squad was conceived in a comic book written about 30 years ago which was before ISIS existed, before most of us ever heard the term “false flag” and when the CIA were still seen as the good guys.  In other words if you say the timing of the release of this movie is meant to desensitize the public to the idea of the United States backing ISIS and other clandestine operations that have recently been unearthed that’s logical, but to say the plot itself, written over two decades ago, is based on present-day events then that of course is illogical.

That being said my real disappointment in Infowars’ analysis came from the fact that they didn’t even discuss the occult/religious symbolism that was blatantly displayed (though such is to be expected from them, to a degree, since they more politically then religious-focused).  In fact, in contrast to other popular Hollywood movies these images were so blatantly displayed that one has to wonder if they’re being used more for entertainment than cryptic purposes.


The way she's scarfing down the that food I'm surprised they didn't just give her a chicken and watermelon.

This doesn’t mean that common elements in Hollywood movies, like racism and exploitation of the female body, aren’t present.   For instance the first view we get of the character of Amanda Waller, who is supposed to personify the consummate African-American female professional, is a quick one-second glimpse where not only does she have a big Boondocks afro but is also stuffing her face with food (pictured above).  Whereas I don’t want to read too much into the hairstyle, the way she’s viciously chowing down that grub definitely seems to be a reference to old stereotypes of Black people ("coons") that once dominated the American mainstream media. 

The first full-body look we get of a woman is of the character Harley Quinn who, true to the article I wrote last week, has her legs wide open.  By now there should be no question in our minds as to how Hollywood wishes to have women portrayed.


Many a movie features references to the Baphomet these days, but most try to do it casually or even unnoticeably, but such does not seem to be the case with the Suicide Squad, as for instance pictured above where the inverted pentagram is loudly displayed.

Here we have an image of the goat's head / Baphomet catching wreck with a shotgun, which was actually one of the coolest-looking scenes in the trailer.  On the surface this would appear that, once again, the movie is capitalizing on what is now a popular image in America.  However if you want to take it to a deeper level, this can be deciphered as possibly a reference to "the war with God" that Hollywood sometimes, subliminally, makes mention of, as in the idea of Man having a physical confrontation with God (the War of Armageddon).

Take another look at Amanda Waller's T-shirt...

...and then compare it to the emblem on the tail of this NATO warplane that was featured today on Infowars.




Undercooked meat.

Japan in the lead.

"Let's go save the world."
I'd be lying if I said that after watching the Suicide Squad trailer I don't want to see the film.  This movie looks like it's going to take the superhero genre to a place it has never really been before.  The fact that it blatantly features occult and even Satanic imagery is of course alarming, but the way that it's outrightly displayed kind of gives the impression that it is being used more for artistic purposes or to capitalize on a popular trend then to actually push an idea, but I guess it won't be until the film is actually released that we will know the extent of it.  After all, although Scientology may loosely be defined as Luciferianism, as of right now Will Smith is still considered a Scientologist and not a Satanist.

Monday, July 06, 2015


I haven’t really read comic books in years and therefore am out of the loop a bit.  I did hear some time ago that Marvel was in the process of changing the depiction of some of its main characters via it’s “All New, All Different” campaign under which they’re apparently resetting every interrelated title under the company.  I wrote a brief article on Marvel Comics before, and whereas I do enjoy their movies I know that a lot of the media they produce has subliminal implications, or maybe subliminal isn’t the appropriate word since there’s no evidence they’re really trying to hide anything.  It’s like Marvel Comics - for the most part - is more pro-mainstream American ideology, while DC Comics tend to be more critical of the system, at least in terms of some of the propaganda, I mean comic books and cartoons, they put out.  Anyone who is familiar with this blog knows that I’m not afraid to jump off ledges when analyzing what certain symbols and trends mean in popular media, and here I go once again:


Out of all the recent changes in the Marvel Universe this is potentially the most-loaded.  On one hand it’s only natural that Steve Rogers' longtime sidekick, the Falcon (who happens to be Black) will eventually takeover the reigns of Captain America, or it would be logical if Marvel characters ever age, which apparently now a select handful do.  On the other hand with the face of America now being Black via President Obama, this progression takes on a different meaning.

What I believe is going on here is America may not necessarily be looking up to the Black man for leadership but is looking to him largely for protection, as in to serve in the military, because everybody knows that Black people are like the strongest people on Earth, and Black people have a long history of shedding blood in the name of the United States.  In fact America is pushing the Blackman to serve in a number of different roles, one of which we will get into briefly.


I read in an article a couple of months ago that Donald Blake was going to lose the power of Thor because ‘he is no longer worthy’, but apparently a female associate is.  I can’t help but to perceive this as another slap in the face of the White American male.  First we have Marvel’s symbol of (White) America himself losing his title to a Blackman, and now we have another very-popular White male character, not even willingly, losing his mantle to a female.  In fact looking at these two titles together I would say part of Marvel’s attempt to ‘modernize’ seems to be debunking the stereotype of the White male being the head honcho in America, even if such is still true, or at least depict him as being less potent and/or integral in the standing of the nation as he once was.  Way to go, new world order!


Unlike changing the race of Captain America I really don’t see similarly being done to Spider-Man as having major race implications since, like a recent Blastr article pointed out, it’s only natural that an indigenous New York City superhero be like Black or Hispanic, or it's racist and outdated for like none of them to be.  So in other words this move actually makes more logical sense without necessarily conjuring up possibilities of a conspiracy.


Blastr also recently displayed 40+ of the “All New, All Different” covers, and as usual via the world of (Marvel) comics we are treated to women wearing the tightest and in some cases least amount of clothes possible.  Of course a unisexualist can argue that ‘all the men have on tight clothes also’, but notice when reviewing all of the covers that if any body part on the males are exaggerated it’s like the muscles, on the females it’s their hips.  Moreover a few of the newly-unveiled covers have woman standing straight up with their legs wide open, which is something I’ve never seen in my life unless a woman was pissing outside.


I don’t know if I’ve mentioned it previously in this blog, but Hollywood is really big on promoting the idea of Black men having relations with White women.  In other words checkout any contemporary movie with a Black male lead, and chances are his love interest (unless the movie is specifically Black) will be a White woman or at most a Latina.  This goes as far as some television shows (Arrow) and even cartoons (Justice League: Doom), and as for popular Black American music videos just forget about it.  In the old days I would have said that Hollywood was hating on Black women and trying to foolishly perpetuate the idea of them being less attractive, but now I think it’s intentionally trying to promote procreation specifically between Black men and White women, but for what ultimate purpose I can’t tell.

Now look at the cover of the All New, All Different Avengers above.  Notice how the White woman’s (Miss Marvel) head is artistically placed in the crotch of the Black man (Captain America).  In light of what’s mentioned above I don’t think this is mere coincidence.


 On one hand having a pregnant Miss Marvel is long overdue, as in pop culture is finally acknowledging the amazing strength of mothers.  On the other side of the coin though is the logic of if women can do anything a man can do and if a pregnant woman can anything an unpregnant woman can do, then logically a pregnant woman can do anything a man can do.  So in other words don’t be surprised if in the near future you see some kind of push to have pregnant women serve in military combat (as crazy as that may sound) or some other arena where they traditionally don’t.  And by the way of course, generally speaking, a pregnant woman can do anything else that another person can, but why on Earth would you want them to?


I’m not going to act like I wouldn’t watch a Marvel movie if I came across one.  In fact superhero movies, whether from Marvel or DC, are about the safest flicks Hollywood produces these days in terms of not trying to brainwash you.  Maybe the “All New, All Different” Marvel Universe is Marvel’s way of saying they unintentionally contributed to racist and sexist stereotypes throughout the years and are now trying to right a wrong, but knowing the influence of Marvel Comics of course this massive upheaval will be used to promote contemporary and perhaps even controversial American ideals in general.  However back in the 60s when Marvel released a bunch of revolutionary titles, an action they are now trying to emulate, it doesn’t seem that they were trying to promote particular ideas but just introduce original, exciting comics.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015


Even a modern nation that supposedly formally established itself based on Mosaic Law (Israel) only aspires to adhere to it to some degree.  Even the Ancient Israelites themselves, according to the Bible, were only able to abide by the Law as a collectively for relatively short periods of time.  So even though the United States was founded by what appears to be hardcore Christians (many of whom would be classified as extremists/terrorists by today’s definitions), I would venture to say that no one is realistically expecting America to abide by Mosaic Law but at least make a contentious effort to live Biblically to some degree.  After all every great political leader in the United States have and continue to be professed Christians, even the warmonger Former President Bushes and even the current Islamic sympathizer President Barack Obama.  In other words even though we are not looking for perfection we are at least expecting the powers that be (PTB) to strive towards what has been defined by the dominant/foundational religion as perfection and not rather espouse and legislate ideals that go to the contrary.

As such I am writing this article from a disposition that America is intentionally trying to establish a society / world order that is fundamentally against Mosaic Law.  I am not saying that such is actually true, but as with all things time will ultimately tell the goals/affects of some of the practices that have been recently introduced to us as acceptable and even marketable.


I know that someone like President Obama would say that one of the ways Christianity is manifest in American society is by how all different types of people (i.e. of different and even conflicting religions) can live together peacefully, and indeed I will attest to the fact that if you have some type of belief that is perhaps unacceptable in your homeland, America is the most popular place to go to avoid persecution.  However Biblical Christianity did not espouse religious tolerance.  In fact Paul, the father of Christianity, was one of the most religiously-intolerant people in the entire New Testament who taught the early Christians that they should avoid, as much as possible, contact with people of contrasting faiths.

Mosaic Law was also multicultural in that the Hebrews were legislated to accept visitors peacefully, but in terms of accepting outside religions it was perhaps one of the most intolerant in history.  In other words yes outsiders were allowed to live amongst the Hebrews but did so under the predisposition that they would observe Mosaic Law during that time.  However, whereas during the early days of America everyone had to be Christian (i.e. African slaves were forced converted to Christianity), I think in the long run establishing such an ideal in the United States would have been impossible due to factors such as despite the fact that evidently they were heavily inspired by ancient Biblical tales the Western Europeans never went as far as to profess themselves Hebrews, and trying to exclusively enforce a religion in a country that is not ancestrally yours and where you can’t (or don’t want to) control the border is of course going to let contrary religions in.

That being said, the reason I mentioned multiculturalism and religious tolerance isn’t to argue that America is practicing such in direct contrast to Mosaic Law.  Rather it is to point out that when such is practiced, whether intentionally or unintentionally. you are rather paving the way for their to be a unified religion, which by implication would be no religion.  Thus in America you have a situation where you can be a Christian, Muslim, Luciferian, New Ager or any religion you want - so long as your religion doesn't bother anyone else.  You can wear it on your clothes or maybe get a tattoo, but you aren’t expected to try to force it on anyone who may believe contrary, not even your own children.  However at the end of the day most people still believe in a higher power, and a large populace having no religion at all is unrealistic, so when you combine all religions into one what you basically have is humanism, which translates into secular humanism when the god everyone is serving is money, which is the main reason, not religious tolerance or multiculturalism, that the United States has such a high rate of immigration.


Of course the most popular anti-Mosaic American law is legalization of homosexuality.  In fact it’s the way America treats homosexuality that inspired me to write this article in the first place.

Whereas homosexuality (men sleeping with other men specifically) was punishable by death under Mosaic Law, ironically ideals like being tolerant of homosexuals and even outside religions can also be traced back to the Bible, specifically Jesus Christ.  For instance we all know the story of Jesus saving the woman who was caught sleeping with a man who wasn’t her husband from death.  In other words it was Jesus who established the ideal that even though the Law empowers an individual to exact judgment in certain situations, that individual should rather practice forgiveness so that when said individual stands before God he can also receive forgiveness.  Again there is a significant gap between not judging a person and tolerating him, but such teachings at least laid the foundation that even if you’re someone who believes in Mosaic Law you don’t have to go around stoning people.

As such in the modern, post-Christ (A.D.) world we’re expected to live with all men peacefully regardless of their lifestyle, so long as, I would presume, they don’t go around hurting other people.  Thus America passing laws making it illegal to harm homosexuals is logical, and I would even say the right thing to do.  However the PTB have taken it to a whole ‘nother level which now has me questioning what is it that they ultimately want to accomplish?

In other words it’s one thing when you live in a society where homosexuality is legal, but this takes on a whole new dimension when the government is actively encouraging people to become homosexuals and transsexuals are able to change their sex on their birth certificates.  In other words let’s break this down into two basic questions - (1) why would you actively encourage people, including children, to become homosexuals?  And (2) what on Earth is the rationale behind empowering someone to legally change their sex from birth?  It’s one thing to tolerate homosexuality but another to actually promote it and make is seem normal.  You would think rather as a Christian-based nation America would be doing more to minimize homosexuality, whether it’s legal or not.


Americans now are living in their third or fourth generation of mainstream, legal pornography.  Yes, an argument can be made that porn has been around since time immemorial, and I was stunned but not overly surprised when I found out that even the first motion picture ever marketed like back in the 1800s was of a woman stripping, but we’re dealing with something different here.  After all what we and our children are now being fed is no longer “photos of naked women out on a country field.”

In other words each generation of  pornography is looking for something new to add to the game since popular pornography is just as much based on shock value as eroticism, and after all at the end of the day there’s only so many logical, safe ways a person can have sex.  Thus in hindsight it’s not surprising that pornography has progressed from nudism to intercourse to oral sex to lesbianism to anal sex to homosexuality to incest to now people sticking their tongues in other people’s butts to I fear to even conceptualize what will come after this, the fear factor due to the established fact that people imitate what they see in porno films. 

Popular pornography has fukedup modern society in so many ways that trying to compile them all would take a new article and I would say at least a few more years of observation, and the most disturbing thing about it is that none of the country’s leaders (except for some of the religious ones) seem to have picked up on it or if they have don’t dare mentioning it, probably in fear of turning a large part of the populace off.  What I will say in conclusion though is that if the powers that be in America really wanted to solve the problem of deteriorating families the first thing they would do is curb porn, and the fact that they aren’t doing so implies that either they are ignorant of its influences, the situation is too out of control and/or they don’t want families to stay intact.


There are some statutes in Mosaic Law that would be impossible for most people to keep in the modern world.  For instance do you know there’s a law that prohibited the Hebrews from getting a haircut or shaving their faces?  The purpose of this law was to set them apart from other people, to make them more identifiable as “holy” before God.  However if you’ve noticed even the present-day leaders of Israel have clean shaven faces, and the only religious groups I know who strive to keep this ideal are Rastafarians, some sects of Muslim Arabs and those Jews like the ones I used to see in NYC, but I’m sure there are others out there.

One of the reason Israeli leaders prefer to have their faces shaven is because the leader of the world, America (Rome), possesses such an ideology.  In other words the leaders of America aren’t men you see with beards or even mustaches.  In fact if you look at popular American movies generally the good guy has a clean-shaven face and the bad guy or lesser characters some facial hair.  I already delved into this subject previously in this blog and don’t care to do so much again but will conclude that, like homosexuality, it’s one thing to tolerate a man shaving all of the hair off of his face and another thing to actually encourage such behavior.


These days I would say that at least a third of the American movies I come across has the main character(s) with tattoos.  I mean it isn’t like there is (or least I’ve never heard of) a tattoo industry that is lobbying Hollywood or the government for more exposure.  So why are these markings, which sometimes lead to future regret or even health issues, being made to appear cool in America? 

It would seem that this current phenomenon began in the general society where tattooing seems to have gained popularity around the late 1990s not necessarily due to a push by Hollywood but just the masses emulating extremely popular individuals (i.e. Allen Iverson and Tupac Shakur).  Many people attribute tattooing to some form of individual or societal decadence, and whereas I won't make the same argument I will say that some of them are really grotesque but again still perceived as a way to appear cool and/or different.  Perhaps the perceived connection between tattoos and corruption has something to do with the fact that tattoos are outlawed under Mosaic Law (or vice versa).  That being said now that even the US President has one, even if it’s not Biblical tattooing definitely won’t be losing popularity anytime soon.


Despite its strong Christian foundation, I believe that America is transitioning from a country that generally doesn’t care about the Bible to one that is now by and large actively going against the Bible.  So now if such is true the big question is why would they do such a thing?

Monday, June 08, 2015


Who the hell cast this dude in a movie about an entrepreneurial chef?
Every once in awhile I'm treated to an American movie.  What makes the best of these experiences successful is that the movie will totally catch me by surprise in a positive way, like when I never even heard of Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters until actually seeing it.  One thing I have come to understand about big-budget American films, and expectedly so, is that they are intentionally laced with what can be interpreted as particular ideas, and every once in awhile a production will disturb me so much that I can actually write an entire article about it, such as the case in point, Jon Favreau’s the Chef.

The Chef’s most overt subliminal message is pro-Cuban immigration, with such an idea being pushed across a major American motion picture being logical with all of the U.S.nicing up to Cuba as of late.  However there were other themes, as in images that were repeatedly  present throughout the movie, and now I will interpret them the best that I know how with my limited understanding and conspiracies.


I recently came across an article about how much even a single really-popular movie can influence generations, and increasingly American movies seem to feature scenes where the hero(es) smoke marijuana, and just like the abovementioned pro-Cuban immigration, this idea also seems to be favored by and large by the US Government.  That being said having someone as beautiful and popular as Scarlett Johansson smoking a spliff on the big screen is definitely going to desensitive some poeple to marijuana usage. 

 Despite the fact that many people would probably cringe eating from a chef with arm-length tattoos, the Chef still made this part of the central character.
At first I wanted to make a case of how tattoos, whose popularity are at an all-time high, are against Mosaic Law but while researching realized that so many things we do are against the Law that I probably shouldn't go there.  However I would like to bring up the point that in the fundamental sense tattoos are a mark, and what is it that the powers that be (PTB) want people to be marked for?  Some theorize that this is socialization to desensitive peope to the idea of receiving some type of permanent ID stamp (i.e. Mark of the Beast), but I postulate that people are being marked for termination, somewhat similar to Nazi Germany.  Please don't ask me to expound more than that as I really don't understand this concept myself.

There are some symbols that we're so used to seeing throughout our lives that we don't even think much of them or bother to find out what they mean, and the image that perhaps falls into this category more than any other is the five-pointed star/pentagram.  For instance without doing any actual research I would estimate that at least a third of the world's national flags feature at least one star, and logically this is more than just a coincidence.

The star symbol was featured throughout the Chef, including being tattooed on the lead character's arm as well as on the front and back of the shoulders of Scarlett Johansson.

The main way the Chef 'disturbed' me is in its treatment of food.  For instance I know some people have a thing for undercooked food, and boy was there a whole lot of undercooking going on in the Chef, especially of the one thing that's more dangerous to not cook well than anything else - meat.
The only theory I can come up with for this consistent portrayal is that the PTB wants the masses to get used to the idea of base/unappealing meats in anticipation of future food or heating (fire) shortages.
Is niggas so hungry that now even insects are becoming a delicacy?


Being that I never heard of a "Cubano" sandwich before watching the Chef, I googled it to get more depictions of this genre of food, and sure enough the color of the meat tends to be a little pinkish, which I guess is the color of pork (I'm not a pork eater myself).  However, despite the fact that pictures you find of sandwiches on the net tend to be more glorified than what we eat on a day-to-day basis, you can google it yourself and see that the meat in a Cubano, even after the bread is pressed and toasted, is still very much visible.  In contrast, during certain parts of the Chef it appeared like they were serving niggas deadass bread sandwiches or as they're more euphemistically called here in Ghana "meat pies".  This of course keeps inline with the notion that the film is pushing the idea of food scarcity.

When you watch this scene at regular speed it looks like the homey is enjoying his bread-and-undercooked-meat sandwich, but watching it frame by frame tells a different story.
Of course what food scarcity (as well as probably eating undercooked meat) ultimately lead to is death, and of course the best way to symbolize death is with the image of a dead human being, i.e. skulls and skeletons.

Robert Downey Jr. wearing a goat head / Baphomet necklace.
Whether due to age, education or both, these days it's hard for me to watch a major motion picture without noticing what can be interpreted as subliminal messages, and true to that theme Jon Favreau's the Chef seems to be full of such.