Interestingly, just before this Substack was re-stacked to me by Matthew Ehret, I listened to a docu vid on Rumble about Switzerland being the headquarters of all these world dominance orgs, and where the Pharaoh's descendants, coming out of the Templars, have resided since 1191. Bern is absolutely loaded with obelisks and Pharaonic emblems on all the buildings, and on hundreds of graves in the cemetery, as well as the all-seeing eye, and many free masonry symbols at entrances to state buildings.
These elite families have kept themselves out of war and have sacrificed the children of other nations like America to die in wars that are contrived to consolidate their power and wealth.
Certainly, I have known for many years that the Vatican is a Luciferian org., and has absolutely zero to do with any true religion found in the ancient Biblical scriptures.
I did see evidence several years ago pointing to the Swiss and Mossad being used in the planting of the explosives in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11.
I have spent 20 years studying the occult to write a long book and in the process I have studied Christendom from the “Fall of the Roman Empire” up through the Renaissance. There is a huge prejudice against the “Latins” that comes from the years of the Enlightenment that hated the Crusades, hated the Catholic church, and it takes about two minutes of reading into your material to realize that you are among those “Latin” haters. What most people consider the occult, that is Hermeticism, came in the late 15th century after the medieval world was almost gone—that is, Constantinople had fallen, which marks the beginning of the modern era. In order to understand the occult, the hidden, which was really early science, you have to understand the threads of tradition that survived from the Roman world, written Latins. The Benedictines and other monastics saved the writings of the Latin West by copying all the writings that would have been lost. The Latins created Western civilization and so to hate the Latins means hating the West.
Ok Kapoore, it took you two minutes to come to this conclusion from my writing? Sounds like you just read the title and reacted emotionally. The fact that you defend the Crusades as a whole and the Benedictines is rather troubling since there is a great deal of evidence to show that these were not benevolent institutions. You appear to want to defend these institutions without knowing anything about what my presentation actually goes through but rather you accuse me of putting forward an anti-Christian view that dismisses the contributions of Charlemagne and the Renaissance. What gives you the right to make these accusations up from thin air? I am not anti-Christian, none of my writings take such a stance as to criticise all of Christendom, nor have I ever criticised the Renaissance or Charlemagne but have talked about these positively. And most Christians would agree that the Crusades should be criticised and this does not equate in anyone's mind but the pro-militant Christians that this is somehow attacking Christendom, which is a radical stance Kapoore, you are not representative of most Christians from this standpoint. Or do you think only militant Catholics count as Christians? In addition, Matthew Ehret who did the presentation previous to mine (and was part of the theme) went over the contributions of Charlemagne in a positive light and central to the positive developments in history. Either give some respect Kapoore and actually read this transcript and be more specific in your critique or if you continue to make your sweeping accusations of my work which are clearly ignorant of what I am in fact writing about, you will simply be blocked.
This is very superficial history. There are people that have an in-depth understanding of the middle ages, which you don’t have. It’s a shame to throw away the very roots of our civilization from Charlemagne to the Renaissance. This is so bad it makes me sick.
Kapoore instead of writing such a general critique to this presentation that goes through several sections of history how about you actually write something that specifies what exactly you take issue with. This is a transcript of a class and thus references are not included here, but it comes from papers I have written that are referenced throughout this transcript citing my previous posts on substack, these papers (which this class is based off of) are heavily referenced. I have no idea why you are making the accusation that I am "throwing away the very roots of our civilization from Charlemagne to the Renaissance." How did you come to such a conclusion that I reject the contributions of Charlemagne or the Renaissance? Because this presentation was critical of the Crusaders, the Benedictines and the Jesuits as well as the Vatican Bank? I think it is your understanding of history that needs to be a little more in-depth if that is the case.
Sorry dear Cyñthia that you habe swallowed the total black legeñd you are usiñg 3º iñfor*atioñ about Spaiñ. If you wañt to be true to history better co*e to Spaiñ-&-the-real-docu*eñts You will
fiñd the i**eñse-differeñce betweeñ real history añd black legeñd that begañ ñot iñ Eñglañd but with the Dutch of course Eñglañd iñstañtly adhered to it. I uñderstañd how Russiañs feel the scyop of the *aiñ-Ñews-*edia-about
The-worst-part-is-that-just-ñow people with Hispañic-A*ericañs are rediscoberiñg the true history.
Sue are you putting forward that the Spanish Inquisition was a good thing, or that the Crusades were a good thing? And anyone who criticises these is spreading the Black Legend which seems to be generally interpreted as anything critical of Catholic Spain or of the Vatican? Instead of accusing me of swallowing fallacies, you should write a more detailed response in terms of what you purport the truth to be and what you are specifically critical of in this rather long paper that discusses a wide range in historical content.
Wow, amazing work here. If this kind of truth in history was taught in our education system, we would not be in the mess we are in today.
I find this all so fascinating! Thank you
this was very well written
Thank you Ms. Chung for your peerless scholarship, research, and shining a light into the darkness.
Interestingly, just before this Substack was re-stacked to me by Matthew Ehret, I listened to a docu vid on Rumble about Switzerland being the headquarters of all these world dominance orgs, and where the Pharaoh's descendants, coming out of the Templars, have resided since 1191. Bern is absolutely loaded with obelisks and Pharaonic emblems on all the buildings, and on hundreds of graves in the cemetery, as well as the all-seeing eye, and many free masonry symbols at entrances to state buildings.
These elite families have kept themselves out of war and have sacrificed the children of other nations like America to die in wars that are contrived to consolidate their power and wealth.
Certainly, I have known for many years that the Vatican is a Luciferian org., and has absolutely zero to do with any true religion found in the ancient Biblical scriptures.
I did see evidence several years ago pointing to the Swiss and Mossad being used in the planting of the explosives in the World Trade Center buildings prior to 9/11.
I have spent 20 years studying the occult to write a long book and in the process I have studied Christendom from the “Fall of the Roman Empire” up through the Renaissance. There is a huge prejudice against the “Latins” that comes from the years of the Enlightenment that hated the Crusades, hated the Catholic church, and it takes about two minutes of reading into your material to realize that you are among those “Latin” haters. What most people consider the occult, that is Hermeticism, came in the late 15th century after the medieval world was almost gone—that is, Constantinople had fallen, which marks the beginning of the modern era. In order to understand the occult, the hidden, which was really early science, you have to understand the threads of tradition that survived from the Roman world, written Latins. The Benedictines and other monastics saved the writings of the Latin West by copying all the writings that would have been lost. The Latins created Western civilization and so to hate the Latins means hating the West.
Ok Kapoore, it took you two minutes to come to this conclusion from my writing? Sounds like you just read the title and reacted emotionally. The fact that you defend the Crusades as a whole and the Benedictines is rather troubling since there is a great deal of evidence to show that these were not benevolent institutions. You appear to want to defend these institutions without knowing anything about what my presentation actually goes through but rather you accuse me of putting forward an anti-Christian view that dismisses the contributions of Charlemagne and the Renaissance. What gives you the right to make these accusations up from thin air? I am not anti-Christian, none of my writings take such a stance as to criticise all of Christendom, nor have I ever criticised the Renaissance or Charlemagne but have talked about these positively. And most Christians would agree that the Crusades should be criticised and this does not equate in anyone's mind but the pro-militant Christians that this is somehow attacking Christendom, which is a radical stance Kapoore, you are not representative of most Christians from this standpoint. Or do you think only militant Catholics count as Christians? In addition, Matthew Ehret who did the presentation previous to mine (and was part of the theme) went over the contributions of Charlemagne in a positive light and central to the positive developments in history. Either give some respect Kapoore and actually read this transcript and be more specific in your critique or if you continue to make your sweeping accusations of my work which are clearly ignorant of what I am in fact writing about, you will simply be blocked.
This is very superficial history. There are people that have an in-depth understanding of the middle ages, which you don’t have. It’s a shame to throw away the very roots of our civilization from Charlemagne to the Renaissance. This is so bad it makes me sick.
Kapoore instead of writing such a general critique to this presentation that goes through several sections of history how about you actually write something that specifies what exactly you take issue with. This is a transcript of a class and thus references are not included here, but it comes from papers I have written that are referenced throughout this transcript citing my previous posts on substack, these papers (which this class is based off of) are heavily referenced. I have no idea why you are making the accusation that I am "throwing away the very roots of our civilization from Charlemagne to the Renaissance." How did you come to such a conclusion that I reject the contributions of Charlemagne or the Renaissance? Because this presentation was critical of the Crusaders, the Benedictines and the Jesuits as well as the Vatican Bank? I think it is your understanding of history that needs to be a little more in-depth if that is the case.
Whoa!😐 I knew bits and pieces from all different section but nice work on showing the connections in a linnearlistic fashion.😉
Sorry dear Cyñthia that you habe swallowed the total black legeñd you are usiñg 3º iñfor*atioñ about Spaiñ. If you wañt to be true to history better co*e to Spaiñ-&-the-real-docu*eñts You will
fiñd the i**eñse-differeñce betweeñ real history añd black legeñd that begañ ñot iñ Eñglañd but with the Dutch of course Eñglañd iñstañtly adhered to it. I uñderstañd how Russiañs feel the scyop of the *aiñ-Ñews-*edia-about
The-worst-part-is-that-just-ñow people with Hispañic-A*ericañs are rediscoberiñg the true history.
Sue are you putting forward that the Spanish Inquisition was a good thing, or that the Crusades were a good thing? And anyone who criticises these is spreading the Black Legend which seems to be generally interpreted as anything critical of Catholic Spain or of the Vatican? Instead of accusing me of swallowing fallacies, you should write a more detailed response in terms of what you purport the truth to be and what you are specifically critical of in this rather long paper that discusses a wide range in historical content.