Here you can find the n°129 of the show Unspun led by Jan Irvin :
This one is the last of a serie of three with Caleb Thomas where they talk about what the real vampires and werewolves were.
I am very grateful to Irvin for bringing the subject of entheogens in ancient christianity. This is fantastic add-on to the subject of astrotheology : not only the constellations, but the mushrooms can be deciphered while reading carefully the Holy scriptures ! Irvin is a defender of the russian New Chronology, and shares my opinion about the not so brilliant ancient past of humanity, contrary to the common idea of the enlightenment of ancient civilizations that the obscurantist christian church has come to destroy.
It is important to know that Jan Irvin changed his mind about entheogens (which he calls now suggestogens). A careful research shows that the CIA and the deep state were promoting the pseudo-counterculture movement, and if the CIA wants us to take drugs then… they shall not be so good. I must say that I am quite convinced by the argument that ergot and mushrooms hides the wide practice of drinking the blood of sacrificed young people and children to reach these trance experiences in old religion. It is perfectly clear from the research they display that adrenochrom has the same effects as mescaline. It is found as a natural degradation product of adrenaline present in the blood. The more the victim is afraid the more she is high on adrenalin and the more adrenochrom is present. The blood of young people is favoured to get the better results. This is where the legends of vampires came from. Vampires were the sorcerers who practiced human sacrifice and drank the blood of the victims.To get it short, vampires were the ones who drinked the blood of people, werewolves ate the flesh.
We could say that mushrooms and ergot are more civilized ways to practice trance shamanism, but even if the attendants did not drink blood, mushrooms were used along human sacrifices. And the results of their taking ended bad more than once, frenzied participants commiting themselves to orgiastic behaviour and sometimes killing themselves. As Irvin says, these products are useful for traditional initiation, but they let the person extremely vulnerable to malevolent hypnotists.
I do not share the black and white saying of Irvin and Thomas. Ayahuasca seems to be useful for severe depressive disease and gives quick results, compared to a life taking of antidepressants that have issues too. Though yes, the side effects exist and a physician is not prepared to face them as an experienced shaman is.
I would add that even if the drinking of the blood of young people is used to get high on adrenochrom, it is not the main reason that theses sacrifices were committed, but to make the god a favourable mind. Yes, this is black magic, but the notion of « doing no harm » that distinguishes the white and the black kinds of magic was not very clear from the start.
My main disagreement is the political direction the discussion goes, and the search of the guilty group, the pro-christian / antijudaic, antishamanic coloring it displays. And while I am of the Fomenko side myself, I do not take everything he says as face value. The death of Christ Andronicus did not lead to a reform of christianity from old sacrifical paganism to the modern church. There is no Andronicus who is another avatar of Jesus, from myth lore disguised as history. This a common error by Fomenko to think that a last avatar is naturally a real character.
If the « new christianity » were the same pagan church clerks that cover their prints, they did not need to be « infiltrated ». If the Romanov are guilty of « antichristian » behaviour, why do they appear on the scene at the times of the council of Trent, when the roman church convert the monarchies of Europe ? Yes, human sacrifices are licit in the Old Testament, but the drinking of blood is not, as Irvin gives examples by and large. Yes, the drinking of the blood of the circumcised baby boy is a reminiscence of old blood magic, but the share of the flesh and the blood of Christ are too, and both are not the real thing anymore.
Fomenko has much research and some of it is better than the rest. The foundation of Etruria by the Slavs for example. This is proven by some maps he did not display from the beginning of the 16th century, where Etruria is synonymous to Tuscia or Tuscany, and the nearby tribes, the etrurian cities and tribes names written : Sabii, Latinii, Umbrii, Tarquinii. You have Vei and Caere on the map but Florence too !
It is known that in the 15th century the « byzantine emperor » and the leading intellectuals from Byzantium like Pletho went to Italy at the Medici court. They were the offspring of the roman eastern empire and broke ties with it. They brought with them kabbalah and the cult of the roman gods. Among them was the cult of Jove called Jupiter when they did not want to speak his name. The prophetic books display the habit to eat the flesh and drink the blood of their enemies, but it seems that these customs had ceased before in Byzantium. The pope was the Pontifex maximus of the cult of Jove. The pope Julius II decided to conquer Gaul for the new empire. His identity with Julius Caesar is proved by some careful research by the french group « Chronology 2.0 ». Some monks of the cult of Jove had the idea to create a « universal church for an universal empire » and picked the celtic god Esus to convert more easily the Celts, as the son of Jove.
The roman empire is the church of Rome with its dioceses.
Jove is called Dispater in the celtic area and he is considered as a late purely celtic god, though his name displays clearly a latin origin while most of the gaulish gods have the greek grammar in their names. The priests of the new church are the first jesuits and the Priests of the Temple of Jerusalem aka the Church of the Order of the Temple. The Old Testament is kept but a gospel of John is created for the priests to follow. But many sides want to put hands upon the new power in the west. The council of Trent is an eighteen years battle to adopt the dogma of the church, and it seems that from the start, the Knights Templars were about to lose every prerogative they had. This is why the gallic king Henri II, known as the « last knight king » refuse the presence of gallic bishops at the council. In 1551, during the council, he declares war to the pope, which is known as the « gallican crisis ».
Yes judaism is involved in the practice of usury – which Irvin says is vampirism too, but usury makes a return in the church of Rome precisely by the jesuits at the times of the council of Trent. The roots of it are not to be found in the Old Testament, because the Old Testament has the practice of the Jubilees to put an end to all the debts, and never speaks of any kind of interest rate. So OT is neither the foundation of usury and of blood drinking. Jubilees make their appearance in the history of the roman church but quite late, in the 14th century and do not last after the council of Trent. These are precisely the same Jubilees told by the Old Testament. Jan Irvin makes a long statement about « the judaizing Calvin », a book according to which the swiss man Calvin would be a covert jewish. He is not. He is a priest from the church of Rome at a time when it is still of the unitarian kind aka jewish because the name of the god is Jove or Jupiter. When the church of Rome becomes trinitarian in Trent, the knights from the order of the Temple would be called jewish. This is why the Freemasons do not make any difference in their rituals between the Temple of Jerusalem and the Order of the Knights Templars. This is why the history of the Jews is based upon the history of the Templars. At Trent, the Temple fell apart.
The old unitarian church is a church of Jove and Jesus. It seems from the apocryphal gospels and the older John that no « Christ » was involved. Christ is a creation from the later trinitarian church which makes Francis Bacon say that he wants for the universal church the cooperation from the « Jews that accept the Christ » during the wars of religion. It is known that jews do not accept the Christ, so these jews were of the unitarian church of Rome that would accept the canon of the New Testament of the roman catholic church, the Christ figure and most of the times the trinity. It is clear from the statement by Bacon that the modern protestants did side with Rome and were not their opponents.
Jan Irvin attacks the characters of the Puritans coming from Britain to the United States as hidden jewish people that have massacred the native while the blame was put later upon christians. Puritanism starts in 1559 in Britain, precisely at the times of the council of Trent, at the same times Henri II in France declares war to the pope. This is a reaction upon the new cult that would undermine their positions in the church. It is not surprising to see them at the origins of the unitarian churches. Yes it is highly possible that they had issues regarding human sacrifices. But they were only jewish in the old meaning of the word.
They were persecuted by the Stuart monarchy after Charles II took side with the roman (aka the anglicanist) church. The Stuart dynasty defended the old templar clergy and this was the purpose of the jacobite cause and the creation of freemasonry in 1598. They had welcomed then the Templars from France after Gallia converted to the roman catholic faith when Henri 4 was crowned in 1594.
The anglicanist schism in 1534 was not a schism from the roman catholic church, but from the unitarian church. It is perfectly known from many researchers that the old british church is of johannite faith.
Clement VII was elected after a battle between the partisans of Pompeo Colonna and Jules Medici (???) , who would win the case in 1523. Charles V did conquer Rome in 1527 and took the pope Clement VII captive. He is then crowned by him in 1530. In our opinion it was the end of the original johannite church on the continent, who was then under the power of the emperor. It is said by Fomenko that Charles V is an alter ego of Nebuchadnezzar (as he is Augustus). And this is precisely the parallel with the taking of the biblical Jerusalem in 609 BC. The pope becomes a puppet as Sedecias was. It is the taking of the taking of the temple by Titus too, because it would be the end of the unitarian johannite church. We must remember that Charles V is the son of a man named Phillip the Fair (as the king of France who put an end to the order of the Knights Templar in 1314). And Clement VII was member of the Order of Saint-John.
Another reflection of the emperor Charles is Charlemagne. But there are many maps of the emperor Carolus magnus in the 16th century. You will find none of Charles V. The drawing of the empire of Carolus magnus corresponds exactly from the just former maps of the « roman empire » and not to the later drawings that limit his empire to a small « Saint empire ». In a 1592 map displaying Gallia in the times of Henri III, you would find Francia orientalis and Francia occidentalis exactly as in the times of the old Charlemagne. For Lotharingia, it is the latin name of the area nowadays called Lorraine.
It is said of the old Charlemagne that he convoked a council in Aachen in 809 and imposed the « filioque » in the Credo. The filioque is the basis of the great schism of 1054 between the orthodox and the roman churches. The nicean Credo from 325 says that the Holy ghost proceeds from the father and the son. It is recalled by Leo the great in 447, in the council of Frejus in 797, the symbol of Athanasius in the 7th century and in the writings of the Fathers of the church. But this is not so in the gospel of John where the Holy ghost proceeds from the father only and the Symbol of Nicea AND Constantinople in 381. And believe it, the pope Leo III refused the decision from the council of Aachen to include the filioque in the Credo !
What is a council where the pope is forced to accept the decision of the emperor ? How did he have to accept the filioque that was supposed to be there from the beginnings of the church in 325 ? Are we supposed to believe that the schism of orthodox churches took more than seven centuries to finally happen (325-1054) ? To finally reappear in the 17th century with the flee of the Puritans in the New world ? Are we supposed to forget that the original dispute in Nicea in 325 did not involve the « orthodox » side against the roman catholics, but the unitarian Arius. So if a schism did happen, it was the schism of the unitarian or arian church, that had vanished suddenly at the end of the 6th century.
But as Carolus magnus is Charles V, this schism happened in the 16th century. The pope is Leo X (1513-1521), the council is the council of Latran (1512-1517).
Henry VIII undertook the anglicanist schism in 1534 to obtain divorce it seems. In his own country, he imprisoned the whole clergy, named Thomas More as chancelor, and the help of Thomas « Cromwell ». But this is certainly not the real story because the clergymen he imprisoned were certainly of the british johannite church, and did not side with the new puppet of Rome. What we have is a reflection of the revolution that was taking place in Rome. In reality, the « anglicanist » church is a creation of the later Hanover kings. Thomas More’s Utopia perfectly sides with the trends of the roman catholic faith as he makes a wish for the creation of an Inquisition to punish those that « hides their true thoughts ».
Irvin adds the figure of Sabbatai Zevi, the jewish messiah, as a manifestation of satanism from pagan and jewish origin. Yes it could be said that the heretic Zevi is a kind of satanist, whose bad behaviour is supposed to please « God ». But this is not exactly the same thing as human sacrifices and pagan rituals. The goal of the human sacrifices in pagan rituals is not to do evil to please the god, but to sacrifice something to the god in order to be spared from bad things already come or possibly to come. And Zevi – while still secretly revered in secret by some – is not a figure from mainstream judaism. Yet he belongs to the modern branch of abrahamism that is called nowadays judaism, not to the older unitarian branch of christianism. It is said that the year he became famous was 1666. This is maybe some form of joke from roman historians. The big fire of London happened in 1666, the Saint-Paul cathedral burned, the roman catholics were accused. It is a copy (or – probably – the original) of the burning of Rome by Nero, at the times of Saint-Paul was martyred and the christians accused. Nero is supposed to code for the number 666 in Revelation as some people have argued from the calculations called gematria. In fact 666 is the number that is coded in the greek names of Christ like Abraxas, Iesus, Mithras… It is evident that the beast is Jesus, because Revelation speaks of one of its head that was deadly wounded and that its mortal wound was healed. This kind of cryptography was the work of roman people like the french Blaise de Vigenère. He made the character Apollonius of Tyane as a copy of the Jesus Christ from the gospel in 1599, as a « translation » from the old Philostratus.
For the stories of stolen babies that are supposed to be sacrificed, we must remember that the Templars were the tribute collectors for the church (and the empire). The tribute involved is a tithe that is a tenth of the harvests AND a tenth of the boys that at the former times were taken from the local population to become part of the army. Sacrificial rites do exist in the Old Testament, but at the times of the conquest of Gaul, Julius Caesar stood against them. The church wished to keep the Old Testament complete, but it is clear that some christian groups did not accept its bloody parts, as the Cathars.
Yes Irvin and Thomas are right to say that Christianity put an end to human sacrifices when the lamb of god washed away the sin of the world for every person that had faith. It ended the practice of slavery from debts too, which probably put and end to the practice of the jubilee year. This was done by the unitarian templar church. But later, the roman catholic church introduced the interest rate. The muslim world is clearly of arian or unitarian descent, and did not practice usury. Its tales of Abraham and Jesus are free from sacrificial elements.