The “elites” (depraved satanic world-controllers) never invented a better means of total control of the masses than… ‘official political statements’.
Bro, it’s simpler than that. There is no ‘satan’, so there can’t be any satanists. But there can be lucky people with great wealth who get into little clubs and talk about ways to keep everyone else working so they don’t have to.
That is how awesome the secret elite are. Guys that don’t wanna work. What?! You mean nothing more profound or sinister than that is happening? Just a bunch of slobs trying to avoid getting a job?
Yeah, 'fraid so, man. I wish it were more exciting than that, but it ain’t.
“There is no ‘satan’, so there can’t be any satanists”
that makes no sense. A Satanist merely believes in Satan, he isnt an analytic proof of his existence.
You underestimate the effects of boredom that great wealth tends to cause. People develop all kinds of fetishes and sadisms.
Analysis is a Western procedure to get to the bottom of things, true. But such proof of it’s inadequacy is evident in Russia, where such proofs are built on action, since the communist Marx-Lenin days, prior to that the serfdom it consisted of, reminiscent of Marx beginning misguidance, because he aimed social understanding and change that geared to the sorry effects of British industrialization.
As far as Putin’s mindset on the conflict , it is neither territorial expansion, nor any other pretext including NATO expansion, although they operate within Putin’s primary motive. That his political ambitions owing to his singular interpretation as expressive to his conscious realization , that only the right moves toward some semblance of what remains of the Soviet politburo, that constrain a characteristic similar to Trump.
And here is a latest credible opinion of how the telephone interview between the two men went down:
)(())(
OLITICS
TRUMP GETS A TASTE OF PUTIN’S TACTICS
The Russian leader is offering few concessions in negotiations over Ukraine. How hard is Trump willing to push for the peace he promises?
MARCH 18, 2025
Vladimir Putin isn’t going to make this easy for Donald Trump.
For weeks, Trump has bragged about his close relationship with his Russian counterpart and declared that Putin wanted to bring a quick end to the war that he, of course, started more than three years ago. Trump’s national-security team worked with Ukraine to come up with a 30-day cease-fire proposal in hopes of persuading Moscow to accept it. And his press secretary declared yesterday that Ukraine and Russia were on the “10th yard line of peace.”
Follow The Atlantic
on Apple News
But when the two men spoke today, Putin had his own ideas.
Putin did agree during the more-than-two-hour call to halt strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure, and he pledged to continue negotiations. But that limited deal fell far short of what the White House had forecast in recent days, and it now confronts Trump with a dilemma. In order to secure the peace he has promised, he might have to engage in something he has yet to do: get tough with Putin.
Trump, predictably, dressed up his call with Putin as a win, posting on social media that the conversation was “a very good and productive one.”
The peace process “is now in full force and effect, and we will, hopefully, for the sake of Humanity, get the job done!” he wrote.
In truth, Putin offered next to no concessions, and his goal, according to a Kremlin readout of the call, remains maximalist: preventing Ukraine’s rearmament and sovereignty. In order for him to accept Trump’s full cease-fire proposal, Putin said, Ukraine would have to stop rearming its military and sending new soldiers to the front lines, and all foreign governments—including the United States and Kyiv’s European allies—would have to stop sending military assistance or intelligence to Ukraine.
Read: Trump is Nero while Washington burns
Taken together, those demands would severely weaken Ukraine’s ability to defend itself, and Trump did not agree to them in the call. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, speaking with reporters in Ukraine after the Trump-Putin call, expressed “skepticism” about Putin’s motivations and made clear that no lasting deal could be made without his nation’s involvement. Still, he added, “if there is a partial cease-fire, this is a positive result,” and he signaled that Ukraine would accept the limited agreement, even though it would allow Russia to continue to pummel his nation’s cities and towns.
If the strikes on energy infrastructure indeed stop, it would be the most significant mutually agreed suspension of attacks in the war. A senior White House aide framed that to me as a major achievement, the first step toward a broader peace (Trump long ago abandoned his campaign promise to end the war in 24 hours). But Trump’s national-security team will now need to debate a course of action, and the aide, who requested anonymity to discuss internal conversations, conceded that difficult decisions lie ahead. Will Trump allow the U.S. to pressure Moscow—by toughening sanctions on Russia or increasing aid to Ukraine—to push Putin to soften his demands? Or will Trump once more defer to Putin and isolate Kyiv?
The partial cease-fire holds benefits for both sides. Ukraine has struggled for years with Russia’s attacks on its energy grid, which at times have plunged cities into darkness and cold. But agreeing to the deal also was in Putin’s interest—Ukraine has recently ratcheted up its attacks on gas and oil facilities deep in Russian territory, weakening Moscow’s most crucial stream of revenue at a time when the nation’s war-weary economy is struggling.
Marc Polymeropoulos, a former U.S. intelligence official who is a Trump critic, told me that Putin’s demand for an end to those strikes—and his willingness to relinquish his own military’s ability to do the same—is proof that the strikes “are having a much more severe effect than even we imagined. Putin wants them to stop. That’s a pretty good measure of effectiveness.”
Today’s essential stories. In audio. Listen in The Atlantic app.
That’s all that Putin was willing to give up, though, and he telegraphed his intent to keep the war going or, at least, to end it only on terms that he could dictate. According to the Kremlin readout of the call, Putin insisted on the “absolute need to eliminate the root causes of the crisis,” which include, in Moscow’s view, Ukraine seeking security guarantees from the West, such as admission to NATO or the European Union. Putin also suggested cutting Kyiv out of future negotiations, leaving the talks solely between Washington and Moscow. And his demand for a complete end to all foreign military support to Ukraine is simply a nonstarter: Even though Trump and Vice President J. D. Vance have previously threatened to discontinue American support for Kyiv, Ukraine’s European partners have in recent weeks only increased their pledges.
“It’s clear that Russia remains the obstacle to peace in Europe,” Democratic Senator Chris Coons told me in a statement. “I’m glad to see a halt on infrastructure strikes but many of Putin’s ‘requests’—like a ban on arms or intel sharing—make clear what he is after: a neutered Ukraine that can’t defend itself.”
Of note: Neither the White House’s nor the Kremlin’s readout of the call described any discussions between the two leaders over the fate of the territory Russia has seized from Ukraine. Russia has claimed about 20 percent of Ukraine’s land, beginning with the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014. Air-raid sirens continued to go off around Ukraine today. Still, the call yielded some positives for Ukraine, which will at least for now continue to receive U.S. assistance as it tries to work out backup plans with Europe in case Trump eventually cuts off Kyiv.
“Frankly, this is the Russian playbook of using negotiations as an instrument of armed conflict,” Polymeropolous, the former intelligence officer, told me. “But in the grand scheme of things, it’s probably less bad than everyone imagined. At least the U.S. didn’t sell Ukraine down the river.”
Read: Trump is offering Putin another Munich
Few in the national-security community are counting on Trump to suddenly align himself more solidly with Kyiv. For weeks, he and his administration have embraced Moscow’s view of the war in Ukraine. Trump has decreed that Zelensky is “a dictator,” repeated Putin’s lie that Ukraine started the conflict, declared that Ukraine didn’t have any “cards” in the negotiations, and already denied Kyiv’s top wish—that it be allowed to enter NATO, the alliance designed as a bulwark against Russian aggression. The pause in U.S. intelligence-sharing and shipments of military supplies to Ukraine earlier this month allowed Moscow to make gains on the battlefield, most notably in the Russian territory of Kursk, land that had been Ukraine’s strongest bargaining chip in possible upcoming negotiations. And, of course, in Trump’s first term, the United States at times levied tough sanctions against Moscow, only to be undermined by the president’s warm words for Putin, including during their infamous 2018 Helsinki summit.
So far, Trump hasn’t done anything to suggest that he’s cooling on Putin. When Zelensky didn’t give Trump everything he wanted in their Oval Office meeting last month, the U.S. president berated his Ukrainian counterpart, and Trump’s allies called for new elections in Kyiv. When Putin didn’t give Trump everything he wanted today, the Russian leader still got a friendly Truth Social post from Trump, pledges of further talks, and possibly some hockey games featuring the best players from each country.
But there were signs that Trump wasn’t happy with how Putin played his hand. Trump has rarely missed opportunities to chat with reporters during the first eight weeks of his presidency; just yesterday, he fielded questions multiple times, including when predicting that Putin wanted peace, and he often boastfully engages with the press while signing executive orders.
Another such signing was scheduled for the Oval Office this afternoon. But reporters were not invited to watch, depriving them of the chance to ask questions about the Putin call. Trump remained behind closed doors.
Jonathan Lemire is a contributing writer at The Atlantic. He also serves as a co-host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe.
()
Further, later this argument was proposed, from highliting acute but critical critics of the honesty and reality that surrounded the conversation.
“It is not yet clear how far Trump pressed the full 30-day ceasefire proposal, negotiated a week earlier with Ukraine by his secretary of state, Marco Rubio. Lord Ricketts, a former UK national security adviser, said: “We need to know how Trump reacted to it. But I can only assume it was designed to ensure a Zelenskyy rejection, taking the pressure off Putin.”
Again from the Atlantic
Satanism has long been ientified as a protest against the church, and apart from some extremists, Satanists are largely atheist who take on an extreme opposition to the church, using scripture against those defending Christian positions. They are using the belief of the Christians in satan against them.
Sorry guys , there was no impropriety intended in an interference with questions about Satanic prevalence, but here is a take: if it is not correct to play games of geopolitical urgency at this point , then if a decision needs to be made that such dark games are reflective of and to the good will of the planet, it would seem that such view must have come from Satanic and not Godly mouths.
La Vey, the worlds foremost Satanist, writes:
- Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
- Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
- Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
- Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates.
- Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
- Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
- Satan represents man as just another animal who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development”, has become the most vicious animal of all.
- Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
- Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.
By the way this is not the Satanism Humanize was talking about.
I was, in my own way, agreeing with him.
Again compelled: to agree with The Church’s early incursion into Gnosticism, for which t Holy See was censured, Pope Francis briefly brought it out early in His Papal service.
In fact did not Christ counsel to love your enemies, and that includes the greatest supposed enemy of them all.
In fact satan is categorical, not absolutely in the likeness of Lucifer, the devil, the fallen archangel, or etc.
The way evil and the good work in this time is tantamount of a surge for integration, as Nitzche described in beyond good and evil, prio to that an undifferentiated unity, and as above down below- dictates the artificiality of cyborg entities to evoke the same above, a tableau of unrealized morality, excused by the lack of knowledge of such differences.
Why? Because befor and after, above and below, Man knew not of such differences,
Knowledge of meant not participating or acting immorally, but in pure innocence, as children act.
This would not be tantamount of being evil in anyway, it meant either before paradise was lost and after it was regained.
We are entering that age of the cyborg. Just a pro-position.
In the Bible, the concept of “As Above So Below” is a powerful reminder of the interconnectedness between the spiritual and physical realms. This principle can be seen in various verses that highlight the unity and harmony between heaven and earth. As stated in Matthew 6:10, “Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.” This verse emphasizes the alignment of God’s will in both realms, showcasing the mirroring effect of the divine above and the earthly below.
)(. (). )(
As above down below, this needs no comment other than it presents God as revealing Himself through His own agency, being called or invited in.
()()()
Pretty much the same is said in the ‘Emerald Tabley:
Emerald Tablet
Not to be confused with the Emerald Tablets of Thoth the Atlantean (1930), the work of 20th-century occultist Maurice Doreal.
The Emerald Tablet, the Smaragdine Table, or the Tabula Smaragdina [a] is a compact and cryptic Hermetic text.[1] It was a highly regarded foundational text for many Islamic and European alchemists.[2] Though attributed to the legendary Hellenistic figure Hermes Trismegistus, the text of the Emerald Tabletfirst appears in a number of early medieval Arabic sources, the oldest of which dates to the late eighth or early ninth century. It was translated into Latin several times in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Numerous interpretations and commentaries followed.
Medieval and early modern alchemists associated the Emerald Tablet with the creation of the philosophers’ stone and the artificial production of gold.[3]
It has also been popular with nineteenth- and twentieth-century occultists and esotericists, among whom the expression “as above, so below” (a modern paraphrase of the second verse of the Tablet) has become an often cited motto.
Tis true without lying, certain and most true. That which is below is like that which is above and that which is above is like that which is below to do the miracle of one only thing. And as all things have been and arose from one by the mediation of one: so all things have their birth from this one thing by adaptation. The Sun is its father, the moon its mother, the wind hath carried it in its belly, the earth is its nurse. The father of all perfection in the whole world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into earth. Separate thou the earth from the fire, the subtle from the gross sweetly with great industry. It ascends from the earth to the heaven and again it descends to the earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world and thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. Its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. So was the world created. From this are and do come admirable adaptations where of the means is here in this. Hence I am called Hermes Trismegist, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.
— English translation of the Emerald Tablet by Isaac Newton[4]
‘
And finally from Krokoptin’s ‘Fuck you god” (wherever he is, both God and Kroootkin)critiqued coincidentally to the above and below)
If get the big picture
A Jerky Boys overdub.
Ew, no dark mode? Gross.
1 Like
Of course there is, and it’s the light after the before darkness.
All things considered.
Though about Darko, can’t see it.