portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

environment | human & civil rights | labor

The Worldwide Ruling Class - Worker Bee Model, Still Going Strong In The 21st Century

Old Testament religions are setup to preserve the Ruling Class - Worker Bee model, which began about 8,500 years ago. Old Testament religions are about legitimizing land ownership, taxes, the exploitation of natural resources, social stratification, and wealth generation; not about spirituality. Civilization is the domestication of humans by other humans.
An excerpt from the book, The Gospel Writers, at www.thegospelwriters.com

Civilization is the domestication of humans by other humans. In fact, we are the only indigenous life on our planet who tries to domesticate each other, along with other animals. This domestication can range from a mild form, which helps us to adapt to close-quarters living in population centers, or the more severe form which uses ghosts, gods, spooks, and spirits as a tool for domestication. The earliest domestication of significance is the form developed by walled city-states in Mesopotamia c.6.500 BCE. At this time, democratic assemblies were being replaced by kingships; and as we know kingships eventually were replaced by hereditary monarchies.

From those who have not read the book, The Gospel Writers, I often get the question, "How do you know for sure that there is no god?" I answer them in this way, "There is only one way to prove to you that a god does not exist; and that is, to prove to you why one does."

If you were a young member of the Ruling Class, not to be confused with the Upper Class wealthiest minority, and you asked me to teach you the secret studies known only to the Ruling Class, the Ruling Class Figure Heads (kings, queens, etc.), and the Priests, I would reveal to you, the following:

I would start by saying that it is all about "legitimizing ownership." That's the key. When a potter makes a pot, he has the right to do with it what he wants, including charging you for using it. When a basket weaver makes a basket, he has the right to do with it what he wants, including charging you for using it. When a god makes a planet, he has the right to do with it what he wants, including charging you for using it.

Ruling Class - Lesson Number I

To own something that was never yours to own in the first place, requires that some kind of "original owner" exist, and that this "original owner" (at a minimum) "gave" it to you.

Ruling Class - Lesson Number II

When the original owner cannot be found, such as the "original owner" of the land, invent one. Tell the people on the land that the "original owner" is an all powerful god, and that you have spoken with this god, and that this god has given you all of the land as a gift for being a good and just person; and because that god knows that you will make sure that all of the people on the land will worship that god. Why a fictitious god, you ask? Because at this time in history, a god (like a Supreme Court) would be the highest "Legal Authority" in the land and therefore any laws and contracts (rulings) handed down by a god could not at this time, be nullified or overturned. Clever legal loophole, wouldn't you say? Make sure you call it a lord (top authority) god; a lower ranking god will not work.

And, do not be naive and think that your army alone will keep the people submissive to your will. They must believe that you have the legal right by divine authority to take control of the land; otherwise you will spend much of your time and money trying to put down rebellions that will spring up from time to time.

Ruling Class - Lesson Number III

You do not need to brainwash them extensively with religion. Because, what they worship is generally unimportant, as long as you maintain ownership of the land by (fictitious) divine authority, which will allow you to control the people on the land. The people know, that for anyone banished from the land, it will mean agonizing loneliness (because they do not speak the languages of the people in other lands) and eventually death. You can always threaten someone with banishment, if they try to rebel and make any statement that refutes your fictitious legal right.

Ruling Class - Lesson Number IV

Once you have told the lie, you can never admit to anyone that the "original owner," (the maker of the land -- a god) never existed. You must silence or kill anyone who tries to say that the "original owner" never existed, or that the whole thing was a hoax to steal the land from the people on the land.

Ruling Class - Lesson Number V

There is an alternative to silencing or killing the people who do not support the "original owner" hoax or idea. Buy their loyalty; but buy it with something that costs you nothing to give away. Tell them that the "original owner" will grant them "immortality" in exchange for worship and belief in him, as the "original owner." In addition, tell them that this immortality will be spent in a place of great beauty and love, where they can be reunited with loved ones who have already died.

And they will be gullible enough to believe you. Why?

Because everything comes back to life after dearth, such as the Sun each day, the Trees each spring, and even you by way of your first-born son; who looks like you.

Ruling Class - Lesson Number VI

To get the people to work the land that you have now stolen from them, using Lessons 1-4 previously discussed, so that they will generate wealth for you and other Ruling Class members, tell the people that it is the "original owner's" wish that they toil and suffer, so that when they get to that place of great beauty and love, they will appreciate it more. And, that they will never have to work again, once they get there. Plus, they will always be loved and never abandoned by the "original owner."

Ruling Class - Lesson Number VII

Tell the people that the "original owner" is invisible and cannot be seen or described. And, that the "original owner," has no name; in other words, he is not like anyone the people might have heard of before or might run across later.

Tell them also, that the "original owner" can see into their hearts and minds, twenty-four hours a day, ever day of the year. And that, the "original owner" will know, by looking into their hearts and minds, if they do not love him in return or are thinking of abandoning him, (even though he would never think to stop loving them or of abandoning them). This will make them feel very fearful from being under a watchful and invisible eye every moment of their life, with absolutely no privacy anywhere on the planet, and feel very guilty for not loving and staying with someone who loves them. In other words, someone who would never abandon them or become disloyal. This fear and guilt will help them to remain loyal.

Ruling Class - Lesson Number VIII

Remember to tell the people that the Earth was made by the "original owner" in 6,500 BCE; so they do not go looking for the "democratic" non-kingship model, prior to that time. You do not want the Ruling Class - Worker Bee model to be discovered, as the hoax it is; or you will have an expensive and time consuming rebellion on your hands.

The Math and the Perception of Time

The Hoax Version

a. - 6,500 BCE + 2,003 CE = 8,503 years since the hoax for stealing land has been going on.

b. - 6,500 BCE + 2,003 CE = 8,503 years since the Jewish god created the Earth and all the life forms on the planet.

c. - 8,503 divided by 8,503 = 1.00 or 100% of the time, civilization has been going on the way we want them to believe it has. Therefore, it is perfectly normal to live life the way they currently are and there was no other type, ever.

The Truthful Version

a. - 6,500 BCE + 2,003 CE = 8,503 years since the hoax for stealing land has been going on.

b. - 150,000 - 120,000 years since our species has been on Earth (anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans - from Mitochondrial Eve - White et al. 2003).

c. - 8,503 divided by 135,000 (arithmetic mean) = 6.3 percent of the time.

The hoax for stealing land has been going on for less than 10% of the time since we, anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans, have been on Earth. Or, about 472 generations of your ancestors out of about 7,500 generations of your ancestors. In other words, an extremely brief time; and not a very long time as Old Testament religions and the Ruling Class need the Worker Bees to believe. Conceal this at all costs forever or we, the Ruling Class, Old Testament religions, and Figure Heads, are all doomed.


And, even though Turkey was the real "Cradle of Civilization," tell them that Mesopotamia was instead. We don't want them to know about Turkey either.

Next week, we will teach you how to keep this newly stolen land wealth in your family, through the use of a new invention called "Hereditary Monarchies." It's a more advanced version of the hoax you are currently using for your kingships, and it will keep democratic assemblies from forming once again (such as those prior to 6,500 BCE), after your death. End of Lessons.

As I mentioned early, I would answer them in this way, "There is only one way to prove to you that a god does not exist; and that is, to prove to you why one does," which was for the purpose of land ownership and taxes.

Whether it was the LORD of the gods, Yahweh (Jewish god of the Hebrews), during the time of Moses, or the LORD of the gods, Marduk, during the time of King Cyrus of Persia (see Cyrus Cylinder -- The British Museum in London), LORD gods were legal and social domestication tools for the Ruling Class and their Figure Heads and nothing more.

a. - Ownership of the land.

b. - Ownership of everything on the surface of the land, including water.

c. - Ownership of everything below the surface of the land, such as gold, diamonds, granite, limestone, etc.

d. - Ownership of everything living or dead on top off or below the surface of the land.

Including the taxes collected on the land of our planet, how many billions upon billions upon billions of dollars would you expect the dollar amount that this land-and-tax hoax represents, which also included all mineral rights, lumber, animals for food and trade goods, water rights, etc.?

Do you think some minority Ruling Class group, might lie to keep an aggressive hold on this wealth? How about a religious organization, the ones who legitimized the taking of the land in the first place? Do you think they might lie to keep a firm and continuous hold on this wealth? If you were to suddenly become the inheritor of the same massive chunk of land that King Cyrus of Persia claimed legal ownership of, what would you be willing to do to keep it? And at the same time, what would you be willing to do to keep all the people on that land from rebelling due to your illegal ownership of that land?

Manipulating our ancestors into believing that Old Testament religions were about spirituality, immortality, ethics, and morality, was a ruse to keep them, and now us, focused on something that sounded very important to pay attention to; and simultaneously, away from figuring out the real function of religion.

So are we a modern civilization? Hardly. A very small group of people (wolves) still claim ownership of all of the land and its resources on our planet, which legally belongs to all indigenous flora and fauna on our planet. They acquired ownership, first by fictitious LORD gods, and now they maintain ownership by armies in addition to Old Testament religions. I would expect that when we are tried of being the sheep on our planet, that we will actually move on to become a modern civilization and cage the wolves instead. The first step in doing this will be to completely eliminate Old Testament religions, along with taking back our land and eliminating this Roman property tax nightmare that we are all still living in.

homepage: homepage: http://www.thegospelwriters.com/


over simplification 21.Dec.2004 07:34

brent

I agree with your premise (that religion is the tool of social control)
however you have grossly over simplified the Jewish writings, which are very complex and not subject to such over simplification as though somehow they represented some monolithic construct deviously created by scheming elites

the story of the creation of the documents spans many centuries, but only goes back to about 1000 BCE (not this other date of 6500 BCE, if you are referring to the Bible and not perhaps some other religions). Furthermore, according to the book of Samuel and the Book of judges, people were living in 'anarchist' communities without the existence of states much later than 6500 BCE.

The book of Micah has as one of its principle themes land reform and the overthrow an oligarchy that controlled all the land

according to Jeremiah documents such as Leviticus and Numbers were forgeries cooked up by the priests

according to the prophet Hosea both the book of Judges and the book of Kings promoted an ideology that was a religious forgery

the old testament is complex and not the simple thing you make it out to be, and the ideology you condemn was controversial even thousands of years ago since in a strange way (which makes the Bible 'contradictory') the protests are preserved in the text next to the documents the protestations condemn (which is why the Bible is 'contradictory')

some discussion of this complexity can be found in a zip file bible commentary i have posted on my site

 http://www.awitness.org/bibcom.zip

jeremiah 21.Dec.2004 07:41

brent

it is interesting to note however that Jeremiah does agree with your analysis of the political purpose of the Torah laws...there are hundreds of such regulations in the Bible and stories which concern land ownership being assigned by a God, even if it means killing everyone already there, such things being found in the Torah
according to Jeremiah, in the eight chapter, the Torah laws were forged by what he called 'the lying pen of the scribes' which had then made the Torah 'into a lie'. It is interesting to note that he then goes on to suggest that the land would be taken away, since he says that the point of these regulations was to promote the stealing of 'ill gotten gain' and the practice of 'abominations', with the biggest crime in the Torah being the theft of land which, as in Micah, would now be taken away from those who had accumulated this land.

so your analysis of the purpose of the Torah is correct, and this ideology also informs such documents as judges and kings, but your criticism of the prophets in this regard is not valid and you have oversimplified what is actually a much more complex set of documents than your broad and sweeping condemnation would suggest is the case...

God? 21.Dec.2004 07:57

brent

your position on he existence of God being 'disproven' because the old testament contained crap is hardly valid either, as is your suggestion that people did not believe in a diety before 6500...this argument is invalid and far to braod and sweeping as such arguments always seem to be

it is interesting to note that both the belief in God and the belief in no God are equally ridiculous, and the suggestion is often made that somehow the belief in no God makes more sense, is more rational, when actually either position is absurd, making any argument based on so called reason nonsensicial

for example we could say that universe suddenly appeared spontaneously from nothing about ten billion years ago...

or we could suggest that universe just always existed eternally, being uncreated, with no beginning and no end

if we ask 'where did God come from' or 'how could God be eternal with no beginning or end' it is equally incomprehensible to ask 'how could the universe have no beginning and no end'

it is also absurd to suggest that the universe had a beginning, which leaves us to wonder what existed in the endless eternity before this beginning, which would be nothing one must suppose, and then somehow something came from nothing, which is also absurd, just as it is incomprehensible to imagine either God or the universe being eternal with no beginning or no end

so then it is the case that really nothing should exist, and the fact that there is existence is absurd, no matter how you look at it, and the claim that somehow it makes more sense to believe in something absurd with no God than it does to believe in the exact same absurdity with a God is nonsense, and reveals nothing more than a strong ideological bias against the belief in God, which is also absurd in a different sort of way, since it suggests a strange hatred of justice, since the belief in God is typically tied in with a belief in justice (so for example we find that those who are being murdered by oppressors at the last moment of their existence place their last hopes in God just before they are destroyed, while those who slaughter and destroy them do so with the confidence that they are destroying life forever and ever sending their victims into the eternal blackness...

so then those who argue vehemently for the nonexistence of God, which is an emotional argument, and not rational, since as I pointed out above, such an argument can never be rational or make any sense whatsoever no matter how you frame it, it turns out to be the case that the vehement opposition to the existence of God is something that is shared by both oppressors and those who argue vehemently for emotional reasons in favor of the nonexistence of God, typically always claiming to have proved this beyond doubt, which is not true, since that cannot be done, but nevertheless, due to some deep seated emotional hostility such people attempt to destroy faith, while upholding the belief system of evil oppressors, destroying justice and the last hope of the oppressed in the process...why anyone would dream of a world with no God is a mystery to me...it is more emotionally sane to say 'I hope there is a God' than to long for no God, which is to long for the victory of wickedness and cruelty, with the evil being triumphant, destroying their victims completely

the point of the above paragraph is just to point out the emotionally disturbed and rather twisted nature of the hope for no God and the attempts to destroy all faith, which always strikes me as being monstrous and must be happening for emotional, and not intellectural reasons, since there is no common sense of rational way to comprehend the imcomprehensible and the absurdity of the universe, which means that adamant arguments against the existence of God are emotionally driven for some mysterious reason (enlighten me as to what the actual emotional motives for such a dark hope might be)

chains of illusion 21.Dec.2004 09:09

sparky

although the posting glides too swiftly over the teachings involved, he nonetheless provides an argument for the (ab)use of religion in the siezure of power and right to ownership. clearly the use of religion or the collusion of religious authority with sovereign authority might just have been a natural process in the development of agriculture and non-nomadic societies. anthropologists seem to have gone over this ground time and again.

what the author avoids is the extremely crucial dynamic of political discourse in the Rousseau / John Locke traditions, to oversimiplify: that people are bound into a social contract for the common good, and that private property is the highest most sacred right of the individual.

okay, sure I am willing to agree that religious institutions (regardless of how genuine or phony their teachings were) have been used, or have colluded with, or have actively conspired to manipulate and dominate peoples all over our planet. but in the so-called "democratic" period, the dynamic of revolution is introduced, so that the "rights" of humans, once "granted" to them by the "grace" of God (and his agents of the nobility), are codified in consitutional bodies of law. This naturally seems like a good thing. however, if you consider that those who WRITE the laws, those who INTERPRET the laws, ENFORCE the laws, and REVISE the laws, are all one and the same ruling classes, along with their sycophants and flunkies, then you see that constitutional rights and process of law alone are not sufficient to advance the real interest of the vast majority of human beings.

Still, the author hits on the KEY issue: private property. The idea of "ownership" as ultimately sacrosant and irreversible. Therefore the greedy bloodsuckers who can amass wealth can keep it forever in perpetuity and pass it to their offspring. what is this if not the same kind of Kingship in different clothes?

So why are BUSH et al so intent on ELIMINATING the inheritance tax? Duh...they want to keep the reigns of power forever? and Duh... as long as the grass-chewing idiots will stand there and get shit on and slaughtered and starved and humiliated one generation after another everything is fine, right?

This is why the SACRED HOLY war was fought against the evil of Communism and its supposed representatives Soviet Russia and China, because they DARED to consitutionally abolish private ownership and to give individuals a RIGHT to sustenance. The mere IDEA that ordinary humans could have a RIGHT to even a morsel of wealth, enough to actually eat and survive, was an unspeakable horror to the ruling class, who demand rights to own ALL WEALTH at ALL TIMES.

Of course, neither the Soviet Union nor the PRC were ever close to communist states. They became dictatorships of state capitalism in the worst forms. China barely escaped the fate of the USSR by dealing with the devil.

No, friends, it is not monotheistic religion alone that we are fighting, though that is clearly at the root of this mess. We are fighting a deeply entrenched concept of ownership which favors the ruling class and destroys the life of the commoner. We need only to turn the tables and make damned sure that the common man and woman have a RIGHT to sustenance, freedom of movement and speech, and the right to accumulate through their own toil or ingenuity an ADEQUATE stake of the total wealth available. This sense of ADEQUACY is all that we are missing. The idea that a single person simply does not NEED a BILLION DOLLARS of assets, nor even a hundred million, nor indeed even fifty million. But let us be honest, those with the ultimate avarice, who will go to the point of slaying us all to slake their thirst for wealth, will not be stopped by any sense of adequacy, nor any legislation. The French tried to send them all the guillotine, and even that did not work.

Somehow the actual wealth must be redistributed. That is the only answer.

As for the arguments about the existence of God and beginning and end of the Universe: is it such a problem to simply accept the Universe as it is and live in it? Is that such a big problem for you? Because that is a PROBLEM that I have with all monotheistic religions, that they MUST have a reason for their existence, in the form of an angry resentful patriarchal psycopath, who will torture them during their phsyical existence, then torture (or reward) them for all of eternity, depending on how thoroughly you kissed his ass. This sounds like the Mafia to me, pal.

I will stick to Buddhism, to the Universe as a storehouse of experience and consciousness. It is our task to raise our consciousness. Pure and simple. That is the only meaning of existence. Take it or leave it buddy.

problem 22.Dec.2004 01:03

brent

As for the arguments about the existence of God and beginning and end of the Universe: is it such a problem to simply accept the Universe as it is and live in it? Is that such a big problem for you?


You know there are certain questions I have raised about 'the universe as it is' and here I am speaking about such interesting pieces of information as that NASA video tape, not to mention that recent audio tape that I discuss on my website. Oh yah, and then there is that business about the Wing made out of clouds, that whole summit of the Americas protest business that came before that NASA video tape.

But I won't repeat the whole story...anyone can check it out if they don't already know

so in answer to your question, no I don't have a problem with the universe 'as it is' but what I do have a problem with is living on a planet in the universe as it is with a bunch of people who don't know anything about the universe as it is, while their government hides crucial evidence from them, and while the rject the little evidence that is visible, making it seem likely that they would rject even more evidence should it become available which is unlikely since that would humiliate George Bush. Therefore we must not discuss the issue of the universe as it really is, our place in the universe, are we alone in the universe and other such cosmic questions, since we have to protect some paltry palitician from being humiliated

I have mentioned this previously, and that I have a problem with, and I also have a problem with people insisting, rightly, that they are against Bush and his policies, while at the same time protecting his ass because they seem to have a problem with me, or they have their doctrine about the universe and don't want that doctrine threatened by inconvenient facts...these things I have a problem with

now as for your characterization of belief in God as being something about some crazed psychopath, this is typical of critiques of religion, whereby for example, one trashes the Torah laws, and then makes a leap of logic and claims that this proves that 'there is no God', when actually that simply proves that one could trash the Torah laws. Similarly, let us suppose that you trash some psychopathic God - it does not then logically follow that you have proven that no God exists, only that you can trash a psychopath...anyone who ever held a new born baby in their arms would know that no such psychopathic God could exist in this universe, so that really is not much a point being made there

if you are referring to certain comments I made in previous posts of mine, that was SARCASM, which perhaps some people take literally, having been trained all their life to think of God as a psychopath one must suppose

 http://www.awitness.org/

Junk argument 22.Dec.2004 04:44

Dorothy

That people have often used rhetoric regarding the intentions of god(s) in disputes over wealth, services and behaviour is so obvious as to be rarely denied.

The obvious self-serving motives of such people are no argument either way regarding the existence of god(s). To posit such a relationship is a fallacy called 'ad hominem'.

For example :

GW Bush says oil exists.
GW Bush is a war-criminal.
Therefore, oil does not exist.

the boogeymen and women under your adult beds 25.Dec.2004 05:31

antitheist

GW Bush says oil exists.
GW Bush is a war-criminal.
Therefore, oil does not exist.
__________________

Ah...but there is indisputable, tangible, reproducable and predictive evidence in abundance that certain hydrocarbon molecules can be extracted from our planet's crust. Your car depends on it.

But there is no evidence to suggest that deities, demons goblins, ghouls, witches, souls, spirits, faeries, easter bunnies, santa clauses, pixies or elves exist anywhere but the products of our imaginations. Hence, there are no technologies to exploit such.

see:
www.nobeliefs.com

God or, no? 07.Jun.2005 00:37

Me

RE: God or, no.............. No matter how much the intellectual debate rages on, the only way for anyone to decide for themselves whether or not God exists is to ask Him to help them decide. Seriously, if you wanted to find out for yourself whether or not swimming was possible, would you read debates on swimming,&listen to someone else tell you whether or not it was possible or, try it & find out for yourself?? If anyone is so savvy as to be able to discern this solely by intellect, then, what does one have to lose by trying?