essential study, nothing is more explicit and goes deeper than his work. Nimrod de Rosario confuses things and is alleged to have been CIA yet his work is also quite insightful though conflictual with Serrano's and as Serrano said is "jewish gnosticism".
I'm in the process of reading Nimrod de Rosario's work. I've never heard any the allegation that he was CIA but I did read somewhere that Master Serrano took much of his material from him. I don't think that is the case but if Master Serrano characterized de Rosario's work as, "Jewish Gnosticism" I have yet to discern where that evolves from. He pulls no punches in describing the Jewish roots of the Controller's Synarchy and delineating the Jews as the bane of mankind and the source of its evil ills. Considering that and his praise of and admiration for the Fuhrer, much of their writings are congruent. I will say that de Rosario's syntax is at times perplexing and even ambiguous, unlike Master Serrano's.
Rosario is divisive indeed. I would stick with Serrano myself though there are rare gems in Rosario especially in terms of details found nowhere else in as explicit form.
There is a lot of really great material in Rosario's work. We must never throw out the baby with the bathwater. However, there is only one, incomparable, Master Serrano. 88!
Miguel possessed invaluable knowledge regarding Lucifer and the Black Sun.
essential study, nothing is more explicit and goes deeper than his work. Nimrod de Rosario confuses things and is alleged to have been CIA yet his work is also quite insightful though conflictual with Serrano's and as Serrano said is "jewish gnosticism".
I'm in the process of finishing Nimrod de Rosario's Foundations after his novel, and although this is indeed a very interesting work, I'm wary of it.
I'll comment more extensively once it's finished and if it's worthwhile.
What did you get from it on your side?
I'm in the process of reading Nimrod de Rosario's work. I've never heard any the allegation that he was CIA but I did read somewhere that Master Serrano took much of his material from him. I don't think that is the case but if Master Serrano characterized de Rosario's work as, "Jewish Gnosticism" I have yet to discern where that evolves from. He pulls no punches in describing the Jewish roots of the Controller's Synarchy and delineating the Jews as the bane of mankind and the source of its evil ills. Considering that and his praise of and admiration for the Fuhrer, much of their writings are congruent. I will say that de Rosario's syntax is at times perplexing and even ambiguous, unlike Master Serrano's.
Rosario is divisive indeed. I would stick with Serrano myself though there are rare gems in Rosario especially in terms of details found nowhere else in as explicit form.
There is a lot of really great material in Rosario's work. We must never throw out the baby with the bathwater. However, there is only one, incomparable, Master Serrano. 88!