
Loki
112 posts

Loki
@LokiRomilly
Loki, the Norse god of magic, who significantly later in time became William Shakespeare.


The ‘rules-based international order’ is nothing but a highly-polished crime syndicate




Israel is hunting Muslims and urging Christians communities not to provide them shelter. God knows what occupying forces will do to those brave enough to help their fellow human being. Evoking the Holocaust while defending Israel’s expansionist violence is a mockery and a shame.


Alternative authorship theories (which are conspiracy theories) regarding the work of playwright William Shakespeare (23 April 1564 – 23 April 1616), are part of the Zionist anti-English propaganda machinery. To provide more detail: however much a group or indivudual lies about something, this cannot alter material reality regarding the past. Zionists are guilty of blending complete lies with facts and half-truths, including when it comes to events that occurred a long time ago, where there is understandably not going to be a lot of evidence in the present day to corroborate whether the events took place. These Zionists built fictitious narratives they constantly presented as historical fact; often exploiting their social or academic status to intimidate others into believing they are an authority on subjects people find intriguing and know to be important, but where there is not a lot of information about, because these events took place before modern and contemporary recording and research technology existed, such as photography. For clarity, I am not referring to the literary genre historical fiction; I am referring to fiction presented as historical fact. Zionists often suggest the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence, especially in these alternative authorship theories. My stepfather, throughout my childhood, would read some of these alternative authorship theories, and I being younger then, may have taken that to mean he believed them to be true, but understand now he probably did not believe them. I certainly did not believe these theories, and the more I thought about them, the more absurd they seemed. The particular alternative authorship theory my stepfather was most interested in, the theory that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the plays of William Shakespeare, is essentially a gross exaggeration of a class disparity within England at the time Shakespeare wrote his plays, perhaps to portray England as a backwards nation. I remember hearing these theories claimed that only the aristocracy had access to "the classics" (meaning works of literature from Greek and Roman antiquity, including mythology), and Shakespeare would have needed to have read "the classics", for it to have been possible for him to have written, the plays and poems most people believe he wrote. Shakespeare was not an aristocrat (that is true), so according to the theories, because Shakespeare was not an aristocrat, he couldn't have written his plays, as there are many references to Greek and Roman antiquity within the plays of William Shakespeare. This particular theory falls apart, when it is understood Shakespeare went to a good grammar school, in Stratford-upon-Avon in the 16th century, where he studied "the classics". Shakespeare trained as an actor in London, where he had access to many works of literature. Similarly, there's an incorrect idea that some people have held, which is that anyone can write anything they want on Wikipedia. Obviously, not everything on Wikipedia is going to be correct, but it does set academic guidelines and rules for what is on its pages. This suggests that the content on Wikipedia is by people with some academic knowledge, regardless of the truthfulness in what they write, as an academic could be more skilled at breaking these academic rules. Here's a Wikipedia article with clear summaries of both the "pro-Stratfordian" and "anti-Stratfordian" arguments regarding the plays of William Shakespeare: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespea…







These images show the effects of dopamine-blocking "medications" (also named antipsychotic drugs). I took Risperidone (a powerful and damaging drug even for a dopamine-blocking drug), for a bit in my early twenties following a misdiagnosis. It slowed my metabolism, which meant I put on a least two stones in weight, mostly on my belly, in around one month. On these drugs, I couldn't exercise without getting unusually tired. Walking became more difficult, I would get cramp or numbness in my legs after around 200 metres. Not what I needed for self-confidence and a positive body image, especially in my early twenties while in recovery from a serious mental crisis. Nothing against the naturally larger proportioned individual, but I am not one of them, and I certainly didn't need a drug that made me look like I didn't know how to excercise or know what a healthy diet consisted of. I took Risperidone for around three months before stopping, as it was doing much more harm than good. I don't take any dopamine-blocking drugs, and haven't done for a significant amount of time. I have only taken them periodically and for short periods of time. Psychiatry is a pseudoscience, no matter that the literal translation of the word psychiatry is, 'medical treatment of the soul'.


These are "Rapes (county subdivision or borough)"? The "Rapes of Sussex"? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_(cou… Anglo-Saxon revisionism has a long history, which leads me to believe that these "Rapes (county subdivision or borough)" weren't ever a real thing, and are a creation of Anglo-Saxon revisionists, ideologists, ideologues, and claimants. Why? Let me explain. The words in the English language for a county subdivision, are "borough" or simply "county subdivision". The word rape, in the English language, has meant a violent sex crime for a long time. These claimants have also suggested that the word rape to mean a violent sex crime has its roots in the word rapier (also a type of sword), which they have claimed is an old French-Norman (as in the Norman Conquest of England) word, which meant "to take by force." Obviously homonyms exist (words with the same spelling and sound, but with a different meaning) such bat (as in a baseball bat) and bat (a type of winged animal). However, this strikes me as revisionism that reads something like, "before the Norman Conquest in 1066, rape (the word rape) meant a nice thing. It meant a county subdivision or borough: fields and villages full of gentle peaceful folk, milking cows and that sort thing. After the Norman Conquest though, rape (the word rape) would come to mean forcibly (non-consensually) buggering someone in their arsehole (bumhole) or fanny (vagina)." I see no evidence for their existance, e.g., no archaeological or documented evidence for their existence. Firstly, why is it only the "Rapes of Sussex"? They were probably too cowardly to make their claims stretch across all of England and/or Great Britain. I can't read the Latin language, but I doubt they are referred to in the Domesday (pronounced doomsday) Book, despite what has been claimed. Claims which read something like "there are some mention of them in Domesday book", while not explaining how they are mentioned. Here is a page of the Domesday Book: opendomesday.org/place/TQ0107/a… Here's a brief description of my understanding of pre-Norman Conquest England, and the migration of Germanic tribes into the island of Great Britain. Following the collapse of the Roman Empire, Germanic tribes, thought to be mostly the Angles and the Saxons, but also the Jutes (who were mostly from what is now present-day Denmark), gradually migrated into Great Britain. It seems obvious to me that wars and battles were fought between the Romano-British and the migrating Germanic tribes, for various reasons (see Great Britain in the Dark Ages, and Arthurian Legend etc). But, it was a migration, and not settler-colonialism as the term is understood today. I am not an expert on post-Norman Conquest England, but I understand that it resulted in slavery (a very bad thing) disappearing within England, and being replaced with serfdom (still a bad thing, but nowhere near as bad as slavery). Revisionism (which includes Zionism and Nazism) in general, follows this thinking: "We are a pure people (race, culture, tribe, religion, whatever), and have been for centuries (and/or millennia). Some bad people (different race, culture, tribe, religion, whatever), did a bad thing to us a long time ago, and they are the ones we need to get (meaning to kill or hurt in some way) now.
