I just wanted to throw some firewood on an entertaining fire that I’ve been watching here lately. I think the author does a fairly good job but I think he should’ve spent more time analyzing the origin and usage of the J word and how it changed over time.
You're welcome. Funny how, after months of non-stop Christ seethe posts, it only took about a half-dozen shitposts mocking paganism to spark some interesting dialogue. I also find it amusing how the obvious paygans have suddenly retreated to anon posting today instead of openly defending their position here. Respect to the real pagans that are.
WhitePeopleThings is supposed to be for posts contsining those things unique or especially connected to White people. How is this relevant to the elevation of White people? If you fail to answer this to my satisfaction, I am deleting the post.
[ - ] Name [op] 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 18:33:02 ago (+1/-0)
About three days ago there was a post on this topic in the sub. Like 100 comments or some thing. Figured this would be the place to continue the conversation.
[ - ] Name [op] 0 points 6 monthsNov 6, 2023 03:43:40 ago (+0/-0)
My apologies. I was only posting to the sub where the conversation was already ongoing. Without that precedent my behavior would’ve been different.
It would be understandable if you deleted the post.
…place for things that just white people do. White people culture and behaviors. Please post anything that especially demonstrates how society is kept aloft without expressly stating it.
[ - ] Name [op] 0 points 6 monthsNov 6, 2023 06:57:06 ago (+0/-0)
I was quoting the sub rules because I had failed to read them previously and my subsmission is clearly in violation of them. I have apologized to you and I am reluctant to give you anything else.
It would seem you have two courses of action; 1) tell the dumb ass that violated your subs rules not to do that again or 2) delete the offending post.
Since Christianity has obvious Jewish origins — including its founder, Jesus, who was a descendant of David and of Abraham (Matthew 1:1) and who also was an observant Jew, as well as Saint Paul who claimed that he was “circumcised on the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, as to the Law, a Pharisee” (Philippians 3:5) — it’s reasoned that no White person should be associated with Christianity because it was merely invented to fool non-Jews and to weaken every bit of European racial identity.
Well, at least the author admits that even if Jesus really did exist (he probably didn't but okay) that he was a kike and thus the entire religion is kikery even at its best.
A lot of his criticisms come down to "the good jews of the new testament criticize the bad jews who became talmudic" and "jews are antagonistic towards christianity". But that's kind of a retarded argument. Zionist jews criticize communist jews who criticize zionist jews. George Soros points the finger at Israel and says they're the bad guys while hiring judeo-communist terrorists to orchestrate BLM rallies. The jews criticize each other because they are always trying to play all sides to make sure all sides are controlled by jews. Thus, a group of jews starting a new movement that is critical of another group of jews is not a sign that those jews actually oppose jewish power - it is just as likely to be a psyop to gain control of people who are critical of that group of jews by placing them under another group of jews. See the wahhabi muslim leaders and Saudi royal family, a group of crypto-jews who run the biggest branch of islam and pretend to be anti-jewish while actually helping israel prepare to take over the middle east.
As for point 4, telling christians to put jews on equal footing while the jews themselves are only pretending to be egalitarian in order to take power is why christianity looks so much like communism. Communism was a bunch of jews claiming all people are equal to manipulate the lower classes into supporting jews who then declared themselves the most equal people once their communist organizations were in power. The very fact that the bible tells christians to treat jews as equal and as one in Jesus is why it is so dangerous, just as the communist manifesto telling communists to treat jews as equal and ignore ethnic distinctions is dangerous.
Josephus was hired by Titus Vespasian to help him pacify the jewish lands while on the campaign that destroyed the temple in jerusalem 40 years after Jesus' supposed life. If the gospels were true, that would make Titus the "son of man" predicted in the gospels who would return and destroy the temple, thus basically making Titus the second coming of the jewish messiah. As a jew, Josephus knew he couldn't stop the Romans from re-conquering judea, but he could subvert them from within, so he offered to create a new religion that would get the jews to accept Roman rule and adopt some Pagan practices while secretly subverting that same religion to make it spread through Rome and get the Romans to worship jews.
There's a bunch of parallels between the events of the first three gospels and the military campaign of Titus Flavius, such as spearfishing jews in the see of Galilee at the same point when Jesus went to Galilee and said he'd make fishers of men. Another great example is when Jesus drove the legion of demons into the pigs and drove them into the sea. If you take the story literally, who the fuck was herding 2000 pigs anywhere in judea/israel where the local religion forbade the eating of pork? It's ridiculous. But if you realize that it was an allegorical metaphor for Titus breaking a group of about 2000 jews who were trying to train themselves into a legion to counter the Roman legions, then it makes a lot more sense why they'd use pigs as an insult to the jewish rebels (as Animal Farm did to the jewish leaders of communism over 1800 years later).
The supposedly pro-Roman quotes in the bible that the article references such as Saul telling the christians to obey Roman authorities and Jesus telling them to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's make much more sense in this light. Josephus was writing a story that looked on the surface to be pro-Roman but which had undertones that riled up the lower classes against Rome instead.
People who have trouble with this generally have trouble with it because they can't fathom the way jewish dishonesty works. The jews don't just tell you a straightforward lie and expect you to believe it. They tell you a lie and then they tell you another lie that's in opposition to that lie and then another lie in opposition to that one, so when you figure out you've been told one lie, you adopt another of their lies as if it's the alternative. They use pieces of truth to pull you into a worldview that is fundamentally dishonest, but which looks correct if you just look at the few pieces that they use to trick you into it, all while building up multiple other competing worldviews that are just as dishonest so that if you abandon that worldview you have multiple other jewish lies to choose from.
This is why you need to stop believing anything jews have ever touched. Seriously, just take anything the jews had a hand in and throw it in the trash and start over.
The claim that Jesus didn't exist whatsoever is almost certainly false. There aren't many serious scholars who believe this. Carrier is in a minority. Ehrman and Metzger are clear that the man Jesus existed. The controversial claim is whether Jesus was divine. The likelihood that Paul invented Christianity whole cloth is, to me, extremely unlikely. That doesn't make Christianity true. But Paul is very convinced he had an ecstatic experience following something like what is described in the older Merkabah literature: an exaltation to the third heaven, or whatever. We can ask the question about what Paul stood to gain for inventing Christianity: he certainly did not make what was an already "cushy" life any easier on himself. And I'm highly skeptical that any single Jew, or small group of them, had the "2000-year sight" that would possibly motivate their present actions.
I'd give that "future sight" possibly to later Khazarian mongrels only after they'd already established the right control mechanisms over national money supplies that made planning for the next century possible.
In reality, I think the Jew is just inclined by its nature toward believing in and fomenting the sorts of ideological movements that increase Jewish survival. That is, it isn't conspiratorial in the sense where, say, someone like Paul had a salient awareness that, by inventing X belief, he would accomplish Y. No, they just tend to believe revolutionary things, because revolution is the Jewish strategy of parasitism. Probably, the Christ movement had begun to gain some converts in the outlying (primarily military) outposts of the Roman empire in Palestine (to the chagrin of Roman authorities), and local Jewry unconsciously recognized these spotty, local shifts occurring in public opinion; like any good parasite, they recognize all forms of disatisfaction or change as a "break in the skin" of the host society. There is a reason they came to be associated with the voice of the devil. Paul, being of this kind, was disposed to having his "revelatory experience" as a more or less intuitive emergence of his innate opportunism, making itself conscious to him. This doesn't require Paul conspiring to invent Christianity. It just requires Paul's innate qualities (like all Jews) to sense where the "envelope edges" in a society's social structure are most malleable, and to capitalize on this softening.
I truly think that if you asked most Jews about this sort of thing, they'd not have the slightest self-awareness to suggest conspiracy (that is not to say there aren't Jews conspiring in the upper echelons of power). There is a strong analogy here between the Jew and women generally. Men often go wrong by trying to overlay rational structures onto women's thinking and decision-making, when, in reality, most women aren't aware of their implicit reasoning. They're just experiencing things and operating according to complicated, innate machinery for doing what women do. I think it is like that with Jews, also. They're inclined toward believing whatever is going to increase their entry into a larger society's "soft spots", just like women can do this to men in arguments with natural agility - to say the thing that just throws any possibly mutually productive outcome of the argument out the window (really, taking what could be a discussion and turning it into a fight).
local Jewry unconsciously recognized these spotty, local shifts occurring in public opinion; like any good parasite, they recognize all forms of disatisfaction or change as a "break in the skin" of the host society.
You really hit the nail on the head with that, as I said elsewhere. They act on instinct.
Paul, being of this kind, was disposed to having his "revelatory experience" as a more or less intuitive emergence of his innate opportunism, making itself conscious to him.
Yeah, and as I have said before, I believe they are heavily descended from priests. The more fanatical revelations they have they stronger their mandate to rule over the peasants. I also think people tend to have “revelations” toward their own personal benefit. No jew will ever have an ecstatic vision that Irishmen are God’s chosen people. Its just hman nature, or perhaps animal nature.
There is a strong analogy here between the Jew and women generally
Now you are in trouble. Im going to have to bury you up to the neck and stone you to death for your rebellious male ways. A vision from Shekinah told me this was right and just. Please don’t argue with your faulty male logic. ;-P
Seriously though, one day I hope you will see that everything youve just said about female bias and belief, though true, is also every bit as true of males. We tend to believe things to be true and right based on self interest. And males have self interests that often clash with women’s.
For instance, all war is driven by males, and it is never just. Males “believe” wars are just because it is in their interest to do so. But its simply a strategy to acquire the resources of other males in order to improve their reproductive potential. The Greeks did not attack Troy because Paris ran off with Menelaus’ wife. They attacked Troy because they were greedy and wanted its wealth. None of this is rational. All humans are better off when we prevent any person from profiting off violence, which is another form of parasitism— almost entirely enacted by men. But just try to overlay rational structures onto a soldier’s thinking. Are these men aware of their impicit reasoning?
This bias is a universal condition. We pick our sides based on instinct or emotional predisposition, and then construct narratives and ideologies to support our impulses. You believe God blessed males with an extra dose of logic because you want to, and you overlook billions of exceptions to this “truth”. Men unconsciously search for soft spots to exploit as well.
The underlying issue is group benefit vs individual benefit. People who must economically collaborate to survive (ie., men and women) should not exploit each other and when given the opportunity they usually will. Subjugating women is not “good” exploitation. Men on this site simply overlook the types of injustices that always occured within male dominated societies as acceptable because they happend to women or necessary/built-in when they happened between men. I believe you are letting male irrationallity and exploitation off the hook because it seems trad. Imo.
Now you are in trouble. Im going to have to bury you up to the neck and stone you to death for your rebellious male ways.
Haha :)
Seriously though. . .
So, I don't really want to disagree with you. Maybe I can make my point in a way that you'll find more agreeable. I think you're right to point out that implicit reasoning, ad hoc reasoning, cognitive dissonance, etc., are also going to feature in an analysis of male behavior. I really do want to make clear that when I single out women in this regard, it's not to say that men are immune to these things.
Instead, I should have made it a priority to highlight that there is a social and a moral difference between male and female examples.
The difference is that, given the necessary conditions for a human society to flourish, nature interacts differently with male and female "irrationality". Society results in a different set of pressures that face irrationality of both kinds. A simple example would have to do with political pressure. You point out the differential likelihood for men to be violent, to be the causes of violent encounters, and to reason irrationally about the causal story that explains their violent encounters. Fair enough. But we can also look at the reasons why it might be that men have the responsibility for undertaking violent expression. At some points, your post almost carried the implication that there was no natural necessity facing humans to ever be violent - that it is always an outcome of irrational processes. I would disagree with that wholesale.
Probably, male proximity to violence has to do with the fact that males face the expectation to be in and around - and to do the things most associated with - the very conditions that promote violence, e.g., diplomacy between groups that are opposed (not even ideologically perhaps) by an intrinsic set of economically opposed interests (two monkeys, one banana).
Women have historically been protected not just from this sort of violence, but they have also been protected from the tense activities necessary BOTH to do violence AND to avoid violence. Diplomacy is a negotatiation between economically adverse groups. There is a greater moral responsibility that has been felt by men - NOT as a result of some institutional injustice, but as a result of nature - to be rational as it concerns the interests of other people, because this is a necessary skill for the sake of successful diplomacy. Therefore, men have faced an utterly different evolutionary pressure to develop a partcular sort of moral cognition that women did not face the same pressures to develop. The evo-biological function of women pertains primarily to ensuring her own self-interests are met because of the direct relation meeting her interests has with meeting the interests of her offspring. She must be healthy to bare healthy children. She must be healthy to produce healthy breastmilk. Yada, yada. There is a kind of "social organismal" computation occurring here. A male has a natural responsibility to look out for the female interest (in peace generally) by (i) maintaining a functional competitive game with other male members of his own society and (ii) maintaining a functional competitive game with members of other societies. It is the male who has bore the responsibility, and the risk, of diplomacy.
And that is a good thing. We benefit from the existence of a female strategy in our society, since it fixes the "half" of the species most appropriate and apt for ensuring healthy offspring (at the proximal range) to the direct object of their interest (kids, home), while the male takes on the risk of ensuring healthy offspring at the "distal" range, e.g., maintaining the overall game the society plays, which includes maintaining borders, political order, military order, you name it.
It's not that either sex is immune to irrationality, it's that each faces different pressures against their irrational potential. In some respects, men have adapted by being less inclined to irrationality in one respect than another. Similarly, females have adapted by being less inclined to irrationality in other regards, where perhaps men are more inclined to it. Maybe men have less aptitude when it comes to sensing certain things about the environment that would be detrimental to a family unit, i.e., whether resources are distributed equally among offspring, or whatever. Male and female brains end up pairing well together, including the dynamic tension between them, for the sake of the population, not necessarily for the sake of the individual. . .BUT (a big but), we WOULD expect that the aggregate effects would tend to favor the female at the individual level because that winds up favoring the offspring at the individual level, which has to happen (it's the interface between the individual and the popoulation level).
One consequence of this is that, taken as a whole, society has a greater carrying capacity for female irrationality per se (that 'per se' is a group-lvl feature). A society can tolerate greater female irrationality internally, and societies do do this. And this is observable in ordinary social interaction. It's why a "Karen" meme is possible. It's why, concerning a dispute over some bullshit at a department store, it will be treated entirely differently if a female raises hell with staff than if a male does in the same respect. He will be treated as a threat in a different manner than her, even if he is not giving any rational indication he means harm. She can be completely wrong, and everyone can know it, but you're going to get a situation where the store manager rolls his eyes and ends up conceding something: Karen-ism happens because it works. If it didn't work, it wouldn't happen. The reason the store manager is going to roll his eyes and concede something is because he or she knows that this kind of thing is acceptable in society. People may not like it. The Karen may get some annoyed glances in her direction, but the chances are very slim she is going to have police called, nor will her outburst send a wave of utter alarm through store-goers. They'll think: "Oh, a Karen."
In general, we recognize women will do pretty much whatever to get what they want, and implicitly, we all recognize this is because that's what she is programmed to do. Men face a broad-level expectation to behave differently, even though they have the resources available to violently get what they want. It's a strategy on their part which society says is "off the table", as a natural necessity for having a society. He faces a natural handicap in how he must compete internally to the society because if he didn't face that pressure, there would be no society. Men would just be killing each other over food and women, and no organization would be possible. That is to say, the first layer of necessity when it comes to the conditions for a functioning society to form in the first place is a limitation upon males. You don't get to limitations on females unless males are limited first, which is the key fact most feminists tend to miss. You don't get the conditions for recognizing female oppression in a developed society unless the men of that society were systematically oppressed against "being themselves" first. The thing is, we've had functioning societies for a long time. So these pressures have become more or less fixed, and males tend to come with a distinct moral cognition "baked" into them - at least, the necessary machinery for it; environmental stimuli have to follow in order to fully develop it, which is what various facets of cultures do with things like initaitic rites and sporting events introduced to boys at young ages.
At some points, your post almost carried the implication that there was no natural necessity facing humans to ever be violent
I believe human groups could evolve to be even less violent than Scandinavians, less violent then women. Who knows if theres a limit to the level of pacifism that would be sane and rational. But if everyone is predisposed to be non-violent there is no risk of a tyranny through violence. You are assuming some other form of exploitive tyranny would outlaw violence as a means of resistance. But other exploitive strategies can also be eugenically removed simulataneously. Many species exhibit very little violence toward one another. The prime source of internecine violence in any species is from competing males and the impetus of this is polygyny: the ability of males to achieve high reproductive success through elimination of other sexually competitive males. A highly monogamous population is one in which males do not harm, exploit, or predate on their own fellow males.
Probably, male proximity to violence has to do with the fact that males face the expectation to be in and around - and to do the things most associated with - the very conditions that promote violence,
So it’s just a councidence that males of almost every species exhibit higher violence than their female counterparts ? Its just social expectations, for the history of every human civilization we know of. This is just like arguing that women didnt invent cars and nuclear power plants because of unfair social expectations.
two monkeys, one banana
More like 2 monkeys, 2 bananas and both monkeys want both bananas. And the bananas have vaginas. Its genetic. Maleness is older than the human race. You are repeating the same reproductive modes as bears and deer stags and roosters. Cheap 3 minute reproduction cycletimes lead to certain trade offs: quantity over quality of parental investment.
Key to achieving a more utopian society (I say more because I dont know if a conflictless society is possible) is to minimize useless competitiion between members. To do this you limit wealth disparity, you institute a true meritocracy, you eliminate the ability to become enriched by vice, war, bureacracy, religion, entertainment, etc, and you prevent men from ever impregnating more than one woman ( or vice versa). I think you also have to maintain a stable population level.
Women have historically been protected not just from this sort of violence, but they have also been protected from the tense activities necessary BOTH to do violence AND to avoid violence.
Thanks men for protecting us from men. Except for the times that women are mudered or raped in war or from male criminals. That “greater moral responsibility” is kinda spotty.
The evo-biological function of women pertains primarily to ensuring her own self-interests are met because of the direct relation meeting her interests has with meeting the interests of her offspring.
You are dreaming if you thnk this doesnt apply to men.
A male has a natural responsibility to look out for the female interest
When its in his interest. Lots of societies and environments where this isnt true.
) by (i) maintaining a functional competitive game with other male members of his own society and (ii) maintaining a functional competitive game with members of other societies.
Women dont have competition within their own society? Hahaha.
Male intrasexual competition is higher in humans and most other animals because males have the potential to play a quantity over quality game reproductively. Male violence and internecine competition is directly correlated to how promiscuous they are. There is greater variability in reproductive success among males. Thats why niggers are so violent.
Relatively Monogamous men like northern Europeans are less violent and corrupt because they are historically the most monogamous. You talk about the unfair environment males are subjected to (increased competition) but that environment you are talking about is the environment of other males’ behavior! When males finally understand that this is why male individuals can be treated disposably and why the male sphere is so cut throat, they can change this and change the high reproductive and wealth disparities among men. But you talk about the condition of male fate as a thrall to violence and competition as if it came from the wild blue yonder. It comes from other males and it is changeable. White men live more cooperatively than niggers and the society of white men can be improved upon too.
maintaining the overall game the society plays, which includes maintaining borders, political order, military order, you name it.
See, you are just assuming that the results of excessive male competition are built in obstacles that we need to thank men for mitigating. Men cause those problems.
we WOULD expect that the aggregate effects would tend to favor the female at the individual level because that winds up favoring the offspring at the individual level, which has to happen
Would we? Or would we expect that the bigger stronger individuals force their opinions on the weaker individuals in personal interactions. Do we believe that polygynous warlords throughout history who kill and enslave other males in order to hoard multiple females dont play one wife off against another? This is why the female condition is so deplorable in the middle east and other 3rd world shitholes. Males will get away with what they can at womens expense, same as women. That is why you must ensure a balance of power. The more males can exploit females the more they will. You think because some males are fair or uxorious to women, that this is a fundamental male quality, it ain’t.
Jesus look at niggers. They knock up a dozen hos and never bother with their babies or baby-mammas. They ensure their self interest by making lots of babies and killing other niggers. And stealling.
One consequence of this is that, taken as a whole, society has a greater carrying capacity for female irrationality per se
Dont agree. Karenism only works in highly monogamous socities because males are forced to compete for the highest value females instead of the highest number of females. This empowers individual females as opposed to women in the polygynous middle east. Promiscuity will eventually destroy the Karen and simping or uxorious male behaviors like chivalry, but Karens generally don’t understand this. But its hardly a rule of all human societies. Women have more clout in some societies than others.
In general, we recognize women will do pretty much whatever to get what they want, and implicitly, we all recognize this is because that's what she is programmed to do
Where is this country and when can I move there? Is this what Michigan is like? Maybe the cold is worth it.
Seriously this has not been my experience at all as a woman. Its not what Im programmed to do and I dont feel entitled to behave however. This is a cartoon woman that has sprung from the mind of dangus. It bares no relation to my reality or the reality of most women. Most of us cant just bat our eyelashes and get men to throw money at us.
It's a strategy on their part which society says is "off the table",
Same with women. I was not raised to get a man with alot of money who would take care or me. That was considered a backward strategy which was off the table to respectable educated white girls. I was pressured to compete academically and economically with men. I never tried to take advantage of men economically through sex which I also felt was off the table. There are innumerable ways in which this society treats the average woman like garbage. You are cherry picking the worst of women while giving a pass to the worst of men.
That is to say, the first layer of necessity when it comes to the conditions for a functioning society to form in the first place is a limitation upon males. You don't get to limitations on females unless males are limited first, which is the key fact most feminists tend to miss
I would say the first limitation is on females. When females are limited sexually you have the transition of the most primitive, economically backward matrilineal societies to the quasi-civilized patrilineal polygynous ones. Men will only support their own children when female fidelity is guaranteed. But peaceful cooperative prosperous societies require for males to also limit their reproduction to a single female. This represents the transition from corrupt shithole nation to egalitarian first world country. Otherwise men just enslave and cheat other men to support their harems. Male and female behaviors are quite variable
You don't get the conditions for recognizing female oppression in a developed society unless the men of that society were systematically oppressed against "being themselves" first. The thing is, we've had functioning societies for a long time.
You dont think women havent been systematically oppressed againt being themselves? Functioning for whom?
I believe human groups could evolve to be even less violent than Scandinavians, less violent then women.
I think your tendency is (too) highly reductive. For example, I think you'd want to explain the features of a non-violent society by appealing strictly to the genetic pool that represents the members of that society. I think this is flatly wrong. There is a complex interaction with bi-directional causation between the biological factors and the social-political factors. Comparatively, Scandinavians might demonstrate an intrinsic predisposition toward less violent behaviors than other groups, but I don't think this is sufficient to negate the violence that is intrinsic to nature. Social structures are playing a causal role in how violence emerges at the level of the society. In effect, we cannot say that Scandinavians are simply non-violent people intrinsically; some societies figure out better or worse ways of organizing their "game" so as to dissuade violence.
But if everyone is predisposed to be non-violent there is no risk of a tyranny through violence.
This is a Brady Bunch view of fundamental truths about life in the world. I consider it utterly naive. A predisposition toward violence never disappears. It is integrated according to the success of the imposed order, the summation of social contracts and arrangements a group sets up to get on together. I'll grant you without issue that the ability to do that very thing implies a sufficiency condition that is biological, i.e., perhaps before we can even expect this ability to form cooperative, largely non-violent games, we must expect a certain level of intelligence and predisposition toward non-violence. But this is not exhaustively explanatory. You don't get along in nature without violence. Nature is violence.
And you might be tempted, as people often are, to talk about creatures like Bonobos or something. But go check out recent research on Bonobo responses to morally charged behaviors. They respond far more strongly to bullies, whereas chimps and humans respond more fondly to cooperation and kindness (at least when we are talking about infants and adolescents). We'd be mistaken to think an implicit violence is lacking in Bonobo societies. It's almost mythical the way these things are discussed. Oh, strong female solidarity and group effort just keeps everything peachy keen. Muh matriarchy.
Shit like this might work in Bonobo land, but the fact of the matter is, humans are far too intelligent and inter-competitive for this to work. The second men became passive tantrum-throwers who wait for seconds after the females hand them scraps, is the moment a patriarchal human group sweeps through and murders everyone because, well, male violence is a feature of nature's weapons that, once out of the bag, can't be put back in.
Not only that, but I think you're going to run into the same argumentative trouble Sapolsky does when he attempts to argue against the existence of free will on biological grounds, which is that you can't get a coherent moral claim out of that belief, if you do hold that belief. What do I mean? Humans believe they have free will, ubiquitously. So when someone like Sapolsky comes and says: "Hey that criminal should be treated differently, perhaps non-violently in terms of how we handle him, because he doesn't have free will." Okay, well then I have the same argument to support the fact I'm going to capitally punish him. I have no free will in the matter.
If you want to reduce us to genes, then I always have the appeal to my genes to discount any "ought" you throw at me, including that some other type of order would be objectively better than the one we currently have (not that I'm agreeing it's obvious there would be a better one).
So it’s just a councidence that males of almost every species exhibit higher violence than their female counterparts ? Its just social expectations, for the history of every human civilization we know of. This is just like arguing that women didnt invent cars and nuclear power plants because of unfair social expectations.
No. Everyone is violent. Violence might be thought to exist on a spectrum that describes the various ways that we achieve our goals - a spectrum having what we determine contextually is a more "pro-social" end and an end that is more antisocial. Violence is ubiquitous. Males just excel at one form of it better than women for biological reasons, but women have their forms of violence, even if they are indirect (i.e., female gives a distress signal that alerts other males to come kill an "offending" male or something). The male disposition toward more effective physical violence is why they had to defend societies from other violent males; what I'd been discussing is the actual evidence for higher male violence in society. A particular way of organizing can't simultaneously be built on the need for males to be violent (to protect what is theirs) and then, when the weather is fairer, say, "Look, the males tend to be in more violent encounters statistically speaking!" Well, yeah.
More like 2 monkeys, 2 bananas and both monkeys want both bananas. And the bananas have vaginas. Its genetic.
I'm not really convinced that this is as big of a problem for modern human societies. Even if sexual instincts in males are driven by innate polygynous motivations (that is, if I agree to that), I tend to go for more of the mongam-ish theory. The majority of men are not running around trying to conquer many women. You might be talking about a small, small minority of the male population here. The vast majority of men are married and locked down. People might, on average, be disposed probabilistically to having one or a couple of extra-marital sexual affairs, most of which aren't going to result in offspring, though some will. I'm not denying the role of the basic evo-bio dogma that genes are "seeking" to copy themselves as much as possible. For example, I'm fine with you saying that present-day tendencies in humans to compete with one another irrationally (hoarding unecessary wealth, for example) result from genetically-explainable impulses to maximize survival and reproduction. Fine.
I'm saying that the social order has largely been successful in integrating primitive instincts and reflexes into productive group-level strategies and institutions for creating societies that benefit their members more than they harm them. Doing that largely means overcoming certain kinds of violence we would be predisposed to engage in if not for the ipmlicit social contract to play the "game" the society has set up.
To do this you limit wealth disparity, you institute a true meritocracy, you eliminate the ability to become enriched by vice, war, bureacracy, religion, entertainment, etc, and you prevent men from ever impregnating more than one woman ( or vice versa).
Good luck. How you gonna accomplish that with those pesky genes you think explain literally everything? Do we just begin a eugenics program? Also, who gets to decide about wealth disparity and what's justified and what isn't. Some aspects of your plan sounded very Communistic. These are the wishes of people who, given the power, would be tyrants. I mean no offense to you by that, Helena. I don't think you're a tyrant, but then again, I don't live with you!
Thanks men for protecting us from men. Except for the times that women are mudered or raped in war or from male criminals. That “greater moral responsibility” is kinda spotty.
Human females are horrible to one another. Oh man, you'd be up shit creek if you counted on human female solidarity in some lesbianic matriarchy where men were just sperm donors. Ooof.
I mean, men exist. It is kind of good that men exist to protect you from other men. I think there could be a kind of misandrist current running beneath your speech here. I don't mean in the typical sense where we're discussing some bitter journalist over at Jezebel. I mean it more in the sense where the consequences of some of your thinking would seem to specify that maleness per se was an evolutionary misstep. The thing is, once you have sexual dimorphism, you've got this game going. The key master becomes pitted against the gate keeper.
The very male violence you're talking about is the same which created a society where women get to be choosers, i.e., of who they sleep with. Why? Because men who violate this rule - by and large, I'm NOT claiming rape doesn't occur - get punished by other men. If men didn't do that, you'd just get raped without consequence. Again, I don't see any sense in talking like: "Well, what if we were more like Bonobos." Well, Bonobos might survive in their particular ecological context, but they don't seem capable of demonstrating any higher order coopeartivity either, like forming advanced institutions and building skyscrapers. Their cooperativity is perhaps the loosest form that can exist in a society that lacks violence. It's a remarkably loose association, and this is the point I have been making all along: the double-sidedness of things. The same violence that causes us problems is the same factor that helps create such strong bonds. You get both as a package deal. Take away the threat of violence and watch our bonds as human beings grow weaker and weaker. Violence would just rememerge because of the contempt we'd gain for one another, which is exactly what is happening with increasing egalitarianism.
You are dreaming if you thnk this doesnt apply to men.
Stop making this a schoolroom "but he did X!" sort of thing. You keep wanting to focus on these intrinsic things. Of course it applies to men. The pressures against men for pursuing their own interests in the ways they'd be intrinsically programmed to are what differs. Intrinsically, men in this society see pussy, and they'd go rape the woman. That's the brute. There is significant pressure facing him that opposes his doing this. My claim has been that society tends to have a greater carrying capacity for a more general irrational expression in women than it does for men. Society cannot survive with MOST men behaving irrationally. Though, society does tend to create a small pool of men who behave irrationally (at the centers of power).
When its in his interest. Lots of societies and environments where this isnt true.
It is always in his interest, if you want societies that build skyscrapers and cure diseases.
Male intrasexual competition is higher in humans and most other animals because males have the potential to play a quantity over quality game reproductively.
Just like women have the potential to play the hypergamy game. It's a constant balance. You're going to lose society if you shift too far in either direction.
Relatively Monogamous men like northern Europeans are less violent and corrupt because they are historically the most monogamous.
But this is a timewise development. You don't have a story where the world just one day becomes populated with humans of different genetic kinds, some of which are violent and others are non-violent. The environment demanded that men of certain kinds became more monogamous because socially organizing was necessary for survival in those environments (like Northern Europe), and enforced monogamy was more or less necessary because society can't happen when a man doesn't have the confidence that, after he goes off to cut lumber in the frigid temps till sundown, his wife might be being impregnated by some other man. Over time, the social environment selects for those who are more monogamous. But destabilizing factors always remain. If you take the "fight" out of men, then female competitive interests will dominate and she'll begin playing games that destabilize the male intersex competitive environment, so on and so forth. It's not as if women are kind of just the default "rational biological unit" of nature here, which left to "her" own devices, absent male violence, would produce a utopian society - at least not in the case of intelligent beings.
See, you are just assuming that the results of excessive male competition are built in obstacles that we need to thank men for mitigating. Men cause those problems.
I just don't know what possible world you are envisioning where it isn't. It is not just a "male" problem. It's a human problem. It's a problem for us all, but yes, it is a problem that has to be overcome largely by men. Men have to get their shit together as a primary condition for the possiblity of useful social organization. The lynchpin is not primarily women, because in the case where women didn't have their shit together, there would be a male population, perhaps a foreign one, who would come along and correct their shit. Within any society, there is a really important negotiation occurring between males and females. Like, we're getting our shit together as men for both of our sakes, but that also means we have to expect you aren't going to sabotage us and fuck our enemies. Thanks.
The more males can exploit females the more they will. You think because some males are fair or uxorious to women, that this is a fundamental male quality, it ain’t.
I agree. There isn't one sex that is less predisposed to "bad" behavior. It's an emergent sort of negotiation that has to take place. I'm saying that, in causal terms, in explaining a functioning society, it is the male nature that has to succumb first. Men have to start cooperating before female considerations start to affect the game; and would I say that's fair? No. Nature isn't fair.
It sucks to be a man. It sucks to be a woman. It sucks to be, in a lot of (but not all) ways.
Women have more clout in some societies than others.
Yes. It's a teeter-totter.
But when shit hits the fan, you're going to want a society with violent males, at least who have preserved a violent capacity.
Where is this country and when can I move there? Is this what Michigan is like? Maybe the cold is worth it.
Haha
It bares no relation to my reality or the reality of most women. Most of us cant just bat our eyelashes and get men to throw money at us.
I agree that it is over-simplified. These conversations, about what we ought to be doing to direct society, always rely on cartoons, to some extent. But this isn't any different than pointing out that some niggers don't nig. It's about noticing trends [trajectories, directions of change] in the behavior of a certain group, like with women in the west, and asking ourselves, alright, what is this emblematic of? Mostly, it's about resisting extremities of change in either direction. But Marxist narratives being what they are, the whole stock and trade is about such extreme transitions. For me to critique women in the west today is not for me to say that the male is default superior. We're both shit. But we both have roles to play, and I don't think these are nominal. I don't think we just invent them.
I was pressured to compete academically and economically with men. I never tried to take advantage of men economically through sex which I also felt was off the table.
Maybe this wasn't good. This was a consequence of a feminist movement which promulgated the idea that egalitarian roles for men and women in society would be, on account, a good thing. It may be that women competing for males on the basis of non-economic factors is actually a better thing. I'm not saying that makes things easier on women. It doesn't. Neither does it make things easier on men. Having to be the quality of male that gets a high-quality female isn't an easy thing to do. Again, a properly functioning meritocratic hierarchy is really shitty for everyone to endure at the individual level, but tends to be better for the group.
Men will only support their own children when female fidelity is guaranteed.
Okay, then perhaps we can shift things and say that there is a symmetrical limitation that must occur on both men and women. Men have to cooperate and be monogamous and less violent. Women have to be less promiscuous and assume longer-term risk by wedding herself (formally or otherwise) to a single man. But this has nothing to do with egalitarianism. Nothing at all. It's a game. That's the better metaphor to use. Nothing is equal about games, other than a base, axiomatic set of rules.
You dont think women havent been systematically oppressed againt being themselves? Functioning for whom?
I acknowledged that I could come to agree that society implies a symmetrical limitation experienced by both males and females.
As far as the functioning question. . .well, everyone. We may not be doing things perfectly, but life is, from a 50k foot perspective, better to live today than it was 5,000 years ago, and much better than it was 10,000 years ago, and much better than 50,000 years ago. This is precisely why we ought to resist Marxist narratives that prescribe extreme shifts along primitive parameters (like sexual ones), since, on the whole, society may not be perfect, but looking at large enough timescales, we're doing something more right than wrong. The changes we need to make probably aren't deeply primitive and esoteric; the changes needed are probably quite obvious, albeit this doesn't indicate they'll be easy in the making.
And by "almost no serious scholar believes this" you mean nearly every scholar who disagrees with it is a christian who has a vested interest in not believing it. Also, 97% of climate scientists believe manmade climate change bla bla bla. That's not a counter argument. Almost no serious mainstream historian will tell you the holocaust didn't happen. Almost no serious mainstream source will tell you the jews did 9/11. And yet the holocaust didn't happen and the jews did 9/11. Address the argument or don't, but don't use fallacies that you know to be untrue when dealing with the jews as if they're a valid counter argument.
The fact that the gospels clearly parallel events that happened 40 years after they were written, contain absurd things like people herding thousands of pigs in a country where nobody is allowed to eat pork, and also draw heavily from other popular cults at the time like Mithraism and the cult of Julius Caesar (whose initials are the same not just in English but also in Latin and Greek) makes it far more likely that the gospels are an intentional construct rather than people just writing down history. They didn't need 2000 year sight to motivate their actions, they just needed 100 year sight to motivate them to undermine Rome. And when you look at the metric fuckton of evidence that they plan psyops decades in advance (see 9/11 and covid predictive programming decades ahead of both psyops), it's not out of character for them to plan a movement with the intent of it putting the jews in a better position a couple generations down the line.
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 12:06:14 ago (+1/-0)*
So, the best reason, to me, for thinking that Jesus was an actual person is the fact that, if Jesus had been invented, the gospels are almost certainly the stories we would not have received. They were clearly responding to things like the death of Jesus as a way of coping with something they hadn't expected. If the story had been invented, from floor to ceiling, you wouldn't have a Jesus that needed to come back to life because Roman authorities nailed Him to a tree.
There is nothing about the figure of Jesus in the gospels that suggests, if you were going to invent Him, you would have done it that way in order to achieve a distinctly political goal. In order to see why, you have to think a priori. You can't give yourself the benefit, 2000 years after the fact, of knowing what happened with Christianity. Put yourself in early 1st-century Palestine. You want to invent a messianic figure to galvanize or to fool or to whatever. Jesus is the last figure you're going to come up with. It would take brilliance of a super-human sort to have the foreknowledge of what the figure of Jesus would come to do in the following centuries.
They needed the resurrection myth to compete with Pagan resurrection myths. It also parallels Joseph in Genesis getting trapped in the pit for 3 days and then escaping. There are plenty of theological reasons why they would have created a story with such a myth. How is giving people a myth of a man who can cheat death - first with Lazarus, then with his own - not a powerful theological tool? Especially when the point is to rile people up against Rome while making it look like you're riling people up against the jews, having Jesus get "defeated" by dying only to pull the victory out of his ass with the resurrection made it a more motivating myth. If the hero always wins, there's no tension. If the hero appears to lose but then pulls victory from the jaws of defeat, it makes for a more powerful and motivating narrative element.
Also, as something that drew from the cult of Julius Caesar, Julius was backstabbed by his own friend Brutus, betrayed and killed. The cult of Julius Caesar took the blood stained cloak of Caesar and marched through the streets of Rome with the cloak hanging from a cross. The Caesar cult continued to use the imagery of the cross until they were absorbed into christianity by Constantine. That imagery was clearly borrowed by christianity.
They needed the Resurrection myth to compete with. . .
What specific pagan resurrection myths are you talking about? I'm not talking about a mythological vegetative-cycle narrative of the "god" who dies in Autumn and rises again in Spring. The story of Jesus involves a bodily resurrection from physical death. I don't believe this was common to antecedent pagan tradition; after all, Paul is mocked by the Athenians for telling the Passion story. Why? Because he says that Jesus was raised from bodily death. If you go and look at most of the theological beliefs of pagan precursors, it's clear that bodily death means entry into some kind of afterlife, not physical resurrection.
How is giving people a myth of a man who can cheat death. . .not a powerful theological tool?
So your claim is really that Jesus was supposed to be a figure who opposed Pharisaism only nominally. But in the course of that story, since Jesus "proves" himself to be God via the Resurrection, then what this really is is a disguised rebellion against the emperor cult.
If the hero always wins, there's no tension. . .
I think you might be underscoring the difficulty of inventing a world-myth ad hoc. Just because you can retroactively think of reasons why such and such a feature of a story could have been useful for such and such a goal (note the evolutionary, Darwinian thinking here), doesn't mean that the people who first promulgated the story of Jesus actually had the capacities and opportunities to simply INVENT all of these things whole-cloth. Sure, everyone has a capacity to come up with ficitonal stories. The trouble here is connecting a mere invention with a movement that changed the planet. I think you'd find it is remarkably hard to do this, and nobody has the freedom to simply sit around and engineer the "right" story for the job. Think about what you're assuming on behalf of the so-called inventors. If you think it's a simple matter to invent a world-changing belief system just like that, based on a single guy who dies, in a cultural milieu that worships political power (emperor), there are many executives at many companies who would pay to sit down with you and learn how to manipulate millions of people this easily.
Also, as something that drew from the cult of Julius Cesar. . .
If you're suggesting that cultic worship of the Cross icon started with Cesar and was stolen by Christians, I think you're mad. First of all, I'm skeptical about your claim. I would like to know more about the claim, as to the "use" of the Cross image by the Roman cult prior to the adoption of Christianity. Frankly, I just don't believe that. And there is additional evidence that works against you, i.e., things like the fact that early Christian converts among Rome's military outposts were using the Cross as a code to indicate themselves. The Cross as a symbol of a particular salvific triumph was wholly Christian, not Roman. Your claim sounds like something that emerges in the 20th century that goes through all of the essential symbolic features of Christianity and says: "Yep, stolen," and then gives very weak evidence, like, hey, these guys hung something on the Cross while marching through the street. It's recorded here in [one source] exactly one time. Ergo, Christians took this.
Bear in mind that the only claim I opposed in this thread to begin with is that the person Jesus Christ was invented out of thin air and had no actual, historical correspondent. I did not start out by arguing that Christianity is true. I did not say that Christianity was not influenced by antecedent myths - I think it was. But I am saying that it was not wholly engineered by taking a bunch of parts from existing traditions and assembling them to create an utterly fictional Jesus person.
For more on the cross thing, and on the astrotheological symbolism that went into the creation of the Jesus myth, check out comment 228 on the OP article.
In Nordic mythology, Baldur is killed by Loki and resurrects. He is a god of light so there is sort of a solar/seasonal symbolism to it, just as with Tammuz and many others, but there's plenty of solar symbolism around Jesus as well, so saying that it's somehow different from the many many Pagan myths where resurrection is tied to the solar cycle is foolish. Part of the point of christianity was to take the symbolism that worked for Paganism and separate it from its natural roots - to take the cycle of death and rebirth and remove it from the sun and the seasons by a couple steps so you no longer think about resurrection in a cyclical, seasonal sense and think of it literally rather than allegorically.
At the time the Jesus myth was concocted by Josephus, there were many jewish cults competing with each other - pharisees, sadduccees, and zealots, just to name a few. Criticizing one jewish cult does not make Jesus anti-jewish, especially when the surface level of the myth by Josephus was supposed to appear to be a new branch of judaism to pacify the jews. It would need to oppose some branches of judaism without being anti-jewish on the whole, and it was written that way.
Taking a myth and using it to change the planet is something the jews have done multiple times since. 9/11 and covid are both clear recent examples - everything we were told in real time about those events was a lie, and yet they animated the planet. When Josephus was spreading the myth with the backing of the Flavians - one of the first popes was a member of the Flavian royal family, even - it absolutely did have enough power backing it to spread whether it was based on historical fact or created from scratch. Get enough people talking about it and they will start to treat the myth as true even if it never was.
The cross has been a symbol in tons of Pagan religions separate from christianity. Celts worshipped the cross long before they converted. The Nords had a solar cross that was similar to the Celtic cross. The Egyptian ankh is similar to the cross. The Romans built shrines at crossroads dedicated to the ruling class as much as to their Gods. As for the specific link from the cult of Caesar to the cross symbolism and the origins of the Jesus myth, this article summarizes half a dozen books from different scholars and historians that show the links, which go far beyond just the cross thing.
I tend to agree with @CHIRO here. I didn’t read the whole thread. But aside from my position that Jesus probably existed, I think you and many others here don’t actually fathom how jewish dishonesty works. Jews believe they are chosen, they believe they are righteous. They lack self awareness of who and what they really are.
The jews criticize each other because they are always trying to play all sides to make sure all sides are controlled by jews.
They don’t do this consciously. I think the best way to understand them is to realize they were bred as hereditary priests. Priests generally use ideology to control the population and aggrandize themselves. If you breed that into a closed priestly caste for a few hundred years, you will obtain a group of adapted parasites. Do they know they are parasites? No.
Theoretically jews can live off of and be proponents of any ideology as long as that ideology provides a cushy position of privilege for its priests/politicians/academics who are its ideological leaders— housed, clothed and fed by the gentile workers. The ideology is almost incidental.
From their point of view, the world was made for priests (or other bureacrats). Why dont gentiles accept that this is the nature of the world? I assume the wolf wonders why sheep insist on running from him for similar reasons. But beefs between wolves are real, not simply a show for sheep.
To believe that josephus or paul developed a 2000 year long conspiracy plan to control gentiles is to attribute an absurd amount of patience and intelligence (not to mention solidarity) to the jews which neither they nor any other human group could achieve. The jews are not paying 27D chess. If they were that smart and patient we would be royally fucked with no chance against their strategy. They are simply a group of humans who were bred to exploit cultural institutions, like gentiles were bred to build buildings and exploit wheat fields.
they just tend to believe revolutionary things, because revolution is the Jewish strategy of parasitism. ...local Jewry unconsciously recognized these spotty, local shifts occurring in public opinion; like any good parasite, they recognize all forms of disatisfaction or change as a "break in the skin" of the host society.
@Chiro puts it very well here. In some jewish circles there may be conscious conspiracies (in fact they are far more conspiratorial than us) but they are not all united in a conspriatorial plan that was hatched 2000 years ago through Christianity. Jewishness is an instinct to parasitize when certain opportunities appear. Its genetic, not a conscious plan. From our POV, jews look like they are taking orders from a scheming “main jew” but that is an illusion.
Why do niggers steal bicycles? Is it a plan? Do the niggers get together and say “let the nigging begin?” No, its not a conspiracy. Its a genetic program they are running. It’s the same with the jews. Theres no conscious plan. They behave in comparable ways under many different environments, including (arguably) the Hebrews in Egypt, the Christian takeover of Rome, the Islamic expansion, and Communism.
I believe that as a Hanif, Mohammed was something lke a jew (i.e. a genetic and religious schism of the israelites) . The Saudi royal family doesn’t know they are genetic jews. They just find themselves to be copacetic wth Israel, whereas the Iranians are genetically, culturally more comparable to the christianized gentiles.
They use pieces of truth to pull you into a worldview that is fundamentally dishonest, but which looks correct if you just look at the few pieces that they use to trick you into it, all while building up multiple other competing worldviews that are just as dishonest so that if you abandon that worldview you have multiple other jewish lies to choose from.
Its not intentional. Their mosaic of ideological bullshit—which lacks any real world practicality— is their bread and butter. They have lived of bullshitting for thousands of years. Therefore they believe in bullshit. As in mother nature, the decievers dont know they are deceiving. I came to this conclusion after reading about mafia hypothesis in the context of brood parasitism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasitism The cuckoo feels “justified” in attacking the host bird which rejects its eggs. Ive had several close jewish friends. None were privy to a conspiracy to vanquish gentiles. They all believed the holocaust was real and Christian morality was unfair and backward and that their people were arbitrarily oppressed historically by ours. They are predisposed to believe they are the victims which is a key trait in their arsenal.
I was glad to see you bring up the priestly social order. One other thing to consider with the Jews historically is their broadly ethnic animosity toward the developed world at large, which in context meant the various empires who subjugated them and together demonstrated an ability to "get on" in the world - that is, to get on with God's natural law - in a way that the Jews were unable to (hence, a particular covenantal law between the Jews and God is not surprising to find: a special one of their own). The Biblical stories of Cain and of Job are the most trenchant Jewish self-reflection you'll find in the written record. "But God. . .we gave up X. Why was X not good enough? Why is it never good enough? Then the gentiles give up Y, and you favor them. Now I will kill them out of animosity." With Job, you get the long-suffering, yet perfectly obedient and penitent man, who can't understand his suffering. Job's a Jew. He won't analyze his real-world behaviors. He must think that his suffering is caused by a God with a special plan for him.
By and large, Jews have assembled the public aspects of their cultural identity through outright theft. Even their priest class and their God concept came from the Egyptians. Also, the Assyrians and the Babylonians. The constant binary with the historical Jew is the relation between parasitization versus assimilation. This "A-word" is the Jewish nightmare. But their dependence on the host has turned into a theology and a worldview that puts them at odds with everyone else. They are humanity's "special boy", who has never direclty encountered God on their own, but rather through the auspices of successful civilizations who later (and ubiquitously) turn on the Jew for being a parasite. This history of "persecution" is central to their identity. They are always "strangers in a strange land". Go and listen to today's Kabbalists in the Lurianic strain: they are spiritual foreigners cast away in a hostile world they weren't meant for. Sound like every Communist-leaning 20-something today who can't get on in the world and so convinces himself he is special? It should.
They are simply a group of humans who were bred to exploit cultural institutions, like gentiles were bred to build buildings and exploit wheat fields.
Yes. A good archetype for understanding the Jewish strategy is to think of the home-wrecking male rake. This man never quite grows up. Never becomes an actualized adult. He can't build a family by creating the necessary pre-conditions for it. Instead, he skates about looking for problems to occur in existing relationships between other people - because. . .well, life is hard, and "getting on" is mostly about learning to live in tension without breaking. This rakish male then goes to the troubled female spouse when she is alone, and he exploits her weakness and isolation. He creates distinctions of animosity between she and her husband, like miniature Marxist narratives. If a gardener doesn't sow his plot properly, like seeds these distinctions will take root.
At the social level, this is just what Jews do. They create dissension within a society and opposing ranks by actuating the soft spots where it already occurs. Look for disatisfaction wherever it can be found and convince the disatisfied folks that their problem is to blame on whatever the central scaffolding of the society is, be it the government, or a differentially successful founder race, or what have you.
For very natural reasons, these layers of disatisfaction in any society tend to be nearest to the outside, where occurs the boundary between self-and-other - I'm pointing out a direct correlation between a society's physical boundaries and its cognitive boundaries. That's a society's skin. Jews exploit soft spots to gain entry, and then they create divergences of energy flow within the society (to themselves) that are fed by internal tensions. Consider how much financial flow has been created by the opposition between wokeness and conservatism. You'll find Jews controlling the money-receiving entities on both sides of the aisle because they recognize "voltage flows across the gap". They exploit ideological wounds to a host's unity.
The immature male I mentioned often isn't aware of what he is. He doesn't have to write a plan down on paper to pursue women the way he does. It is just in his nature, an adaptation to the qualities he lacks. A strategy. He just is this way. If you pile pride on top of that ("I am this way because I am superior"), together with divine privilege ("I am this way because I am superior and God decrees it"), you have a pattern that can't be changed discursively. It's difficult enough to talk an individual person out of a cancerous behavioral pattern that is well-fixed (say, by a certain age); it's practically impossible to "talk" the Jew out of Jew-ing. When things are sanctioned by God, you can't change them.
I'll bump NSW here. @NaturalSelectionistWorker
I'm quite familiar with the astrotheological take on world religions. The "Zeitgeist gambit" has been a figment of internet theology discussions for a long while now. To be fair, I think it does explain many things. For example, why did Jesus have 12 disiciples? Chances are quite good this particular enumeration is chosen because of its affinity with existing cosmological frameworks that were long present in a society's belief system. Also, facts like: precisely three days between death and resurrection, or the form a particular saying takes (which may be edited to accord with a long-revered saying that pre-dated it). Things like that.
What I tend to reject is the notion that these particulars having an astrotheological explanation necessarily refutes the essential claims of the faith. Egyptian religion may have featured a dying and resurrecting deity (Osiris/Horus), but there is a difference between what these terms mean when it comes to Christianity. What Egyptian religion did not have was a precise doctrine of incarnation which says God was wholly unified to a human nature on earth, died, and resurrected from physical death. That is a unique claim. Explaining the appearance of numbers like 12 might be possible to do with astrotheology, even while the essential aspects of the faith are true. Maybe it isn't esential to Christian truth that Jesus has 12 disicples. To see why, imagine that Christianity is true (broadly conceived). Is it essential to salvation for a Christian to think Jesus had 12 disicples? If you instead believed that Jesus only had 9 disicples, is something essential to the faith lost? If you think Jesus went to Jerusalem rather than Galilee after He was resurrected, does this ultimately impact the outcomes of your faith? I don't think it does.
Perennialism has an answer for these things, i.e., God's revelation to mankind has been a process in which greater and greater clarity is achieve with time. Aspects of fundamental truth became clearer to mankind over the eons. Under this view, Christianity is understood as the culmination of the revelation, not just the latest kid on the block. Not one competitor among others. Rather, it is the Revelation that the others have anticipated, hence, you shouldn't be surprised to find that what had been true in a whisper in previous belief systems finds it's consummate, concrete fixation in the Christian tradition.
I'm not saying that's an answer that ought to satisfy you; I'm pointing out that it's the answer you're likeliest to get from a Christian with at least a little sophistication.
One other thing to consider with the Jews historically is their broadly ethnic animosity toward the developed world at large
Priests tend to pander to their laity. “You’re better than those other people, because you worship through us. Our God is better than those other gods. Because we are his chosen people” — circular reasoning from a childish morality. Primitive cultures have similar moralities. “Us” is good. “Them” is evil. IMO this is on full display for most of the old testament. We know now they invaded Egypt as the “Hyksos” but they leave that bit out of their righteous struggle to overcome the tyrranical Pharoah by killing the first born of those filthy Egyptians who had it coming.
By and large, Jews have assembled the public aspects of their cultural identity through outright theft. Even their priest class and their God concept came from the Egyptians.
Im lately trying to resist calling the Hebrews and Israelites Jews. Modern jewish groups are only about 50% levantine. Other people such as the palestinians are at least as or more likely to be descended from people from those groups. The theological legacy is also not as solid as the jews would like to think. Bronze age polygynous monaltrists worshipping El did not follow the same religion as modern rabbinical jews. We should stop giving them that mantle of Hebrewism == Judaism. Modern judaism is one of many schisms of the cult of El. These schisms were theologically diverse and influenced/syncretized with Egyptian, Assyrian religions and also Persian and Greek religions and include many forms of “judaism” as well as islam and christianity.
So what makes them special?
The constant binary with the historical Jew is the relation between parasitization versus assimilation.
I think there is an element within modern jews that is the legacy of these ancient priests. And it is parastitic. And it can be characterized as resisting assimilation. The ethnic jews within christianity assimilated with gentiles so christianity is a false path from judaism according to jews. Many european jews assimilated into the larger gentile population over the centuries, defecting from rabbinical judaism and its associated parasitic economic model. What is left? Those most resistant to assimilation and most suited for parasitism. I feel some of the traits of these early priests of El (ideological manipulation, public performance, exploitation of workers, a facility for creating narratives, bureacracy, politics) may have proved to be useful adaptations for an itinerant jewish subculture living parasitically amongst the goyim. I feel ther legacy is more strongly characterized as an economic mode than a genetic one.
This history of "persecution" is central to their identity.
Its a core myth in their religion. Anyone who suggest that they are especially persecuted gets that answer from me. An objective review of history dosent support it. Its a jewish belief and Im not jewish. No non-jew should accept that jewish precept. Hundreds of different societies just let them live amongst them until one day they just decided big noses suck? Big fuckin coincidence. Likeliest explanation is that jews acted against the interests of the people of their host nations. For some reason atheists seem to have as big a problem seeing this as christians. They dont understand that is is just a jewish religious tenet.
I have noticed that other social parasites like gypsies and blacks always play up their victimhood and espouse that their reputations for crime and deception are just false accusations and conspiracies propagated by a racist host society. They inculcate themselves with these beliefs and it actually encourages them to commit more crime upon the host society by justifying it. I think this is how “mafia hypothesis” works. Radical feminism has similar underpinnings. Jewish dominated psycho-analysis focuses on victimhood of the individual (usually by parents) as justification (or causation) of dysfunctional modes of behavior for similar reasons. Its a very attractive explanation for people who lack self awareness and are unhappy, dissatisfied with their lives.
For very natural reasons, these layers of disatisfaction in any society tend to be nearest to the outside, where occurs the boundary between self-and-other
In 19th cent Russia is was serfs. Now its BLM and absolute foreigners with no claim to any of our national prosperity other than some jew said they were American.
it's practically impossible to "talk" the Jew out of Jew-ing.
Jewishness is likely to be along something like a normal distribution. Traits we see as really jewy maybe weak in some jews, and perhaps strong in some gentiles. If we can screen for what makes a jew jewy, perhaps there are some we can convince. But Id settle for convincing the gentiles to resist jewing in the first place.
Chances are quite good this particular enumeration is chosen because of its affinity with existing cosmological frameworks that were long present in a society's belief system.
Yeah I do not think elements in christianity common to other religions is evidence of a jewish mastermind single handedly engineering an irresistable religion to ensnare the goyyim. Not in any sort of conscious way. Why do many religions have comparable themes and symbols? I tend to think its usually because of cognitive similarities extant across all or most human groups. We are talking about artifacts of the way our symbolic thought is accomplished. Comparative religion examines these trends all over the world— they dont all originate from jewish schemes. Also jews are subject to the appeal of syncretism to pander to their audience as much as anyone. This is not necessarily a conscious deception.
Under this view, Christianity is understood as the culmination of the revelation, not just the latest kid on the block.
I think Christianity is a little better than judaism because it is was more informed by a greco-roman influenced faction of judaism competing with the predecessor of rabbinic judaism and then it was taken over and shaped by white gentiles for thousands of years. Sure it was utilized by some of the most corrupt whites in europe to legitimize theft and conquest, but the average European is just simply more just rational and egalitarian than the average middle-easterner, and Christianity has been shaped by them. Christianity is more than what a bunch of jews or even romans decided 2000 years ago. Christians have decided what Christianity is more than anyone and that is more often than not, white people. I dont have to tell you that much has been said on the nature of good and evil and what must be accomplished to justify salvation among Europeans over the millenia which did not come literally from the bible.
Whites have an instinct to behave less corruptly and parasitically, and like jews and everyone else they adopt a narrative which fits that instinct. In our case, the adapt a hebrew/ jewish narrative to their values.
To believe that josephus or paul developed a 2000 year long conspiracy plan to control gentiles is to attribute an absurd amount of patience and intelligence (not to mention solidarity) to the jews which neither they nor any other human group could achieve. The jews are not paying 27D chess.
I never said they planned for the modern era 2000 years ago, stop making up ridiculous strawmen. I said they hatched a conspiracy to take over Rome from within, which is entirely reasonable based on your other assertions about jews. If the priestly jews needed a population to parasitize, and their people were conquered and fracturing, parasitizing the conquerors is a logical step creating a religion that would fool the Roman Emperor into spreading it and enabling jews to become priests over gentiles was entirely within Josephus' abilities.
That said, you likely underestimate the degree to which elite occult jews plan things decades in advance. They were inserting covid and 9/11 predictive symbolism into our media decades before each event. That means they already had a general idea of the psyops they were going to use to control millions of people decades before implementing them. Underestimating your enemies is a fatal mistake. Don't make it.
Perhaps I am conflating your views with others Ive seen around these parts. Some have argued that the entire history of Christianity is one which in which jewish masterminds have controlled goyyim mental zombies for 2000 years. This is too absurd to entertain imo. But I also think there is zero chance that the spread for Christianity was a conscious psyop by josephus or anyone else. It was just jews jewing, doing what comes naturally.
Like the spread of commmunism . Was it a secret plot by Marx to rule over gentiles? No. It was just a bureacracy-centric ideology which appealed to jews and pandered to the working class white man (at least initially, until the jews pivoted to niggers and women) No reason to believe they did it intentionally to shit up the world. They truly believe they are doing everyone a great big favor by brainwashing everyone into changing the countries they did not build.
Underestimating your enemies is a fatal mistake. Don't make it.
I dont. I simply dont entertain explanations that require massive improbable conspiracies by a super intelligent superhuman race which has none of the foibles or weaknesses that all other human groups have. I think jewish agendas are accomplished in a far more spontaneous manner than you believe. And that they are largely unaware that they are doing anything wrong or parastiic. I seek to understand why a group of highly parasitic humans can arise (knowing it can happen to any group of people under the right conditions.) This helps me to look at jewish behavior objectively although I hate them. I know they are not all twirling their mustaches and plotting against us. Yet even very friendly ones are our enemies and I understand why. I think expecting a cartoon villain is a fatal mistake.
Marx had ties to the Rothschilds. So did Ayn Rand. If you don't think billionaires are willing to pull highly orchestrated conspiratorial bullshit to control trillions of dollars of wealth, you're wrong.
Race is real and different races are different. Nigger brains can plan for a day or so but can't plan for a year because they have no need to. White brains can plan for a year but only the best of us can plan for a century, but we have pulled off things that required a century of planning - there were castles, cathedrals, and many other great architectural projects that required 100+ years of planning and labor. The kikes are merchants, so rather than planning their year to get through winter (as whites had to do to survive), they had to plan out long journeys by land and sea where it would be a month from one stop to the next and multiple years before they'd return home. Because of their history as merchants who were located at the meeting point between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, between Europe, north Africa, and Asia, they had to plan land and sea trade routes to the ends of the known world. That required a level of planning that was beyond what even whites had to do to survive. It came with plenty of side effects, like an aversion to real work and a manipulative nature which make them intolerable in any significant quantity in other nations, but it does give them the advantage of being able to plan long term to a greater degree than almost anyone else.
But you're also underestimating just how fucking WEIRD the jews are. Watch this and get back to me. It's not just that the jews planned 9/11 decades in advance, it's not just that they inserted that symbolism into mass media decades in advance, it's not just that they told us ahead of time what they were going to do - they've done it dozens of times in dozens of different forms of media with fucktons of occult symbolism wrapped around their predictions, and they brag about it.
[ - ] chrimony 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:11:01 ago (+2/-1)
The (((Christianity))) cult has its roots in an earlier cult that can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. See, for example, "The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness":
It was a jewish affair that was brought to the gentiles by Saul the Pharisee. So while I don't think it was invented by jews to take over Rome, that is, in effect, what happened.
The author makes much ado about how the Bible condemns "Talmudic" jews, but there's nothing new about "righteous" jews railing against other misbehaving jews.
But regardless, the end result is still the same: gentiles worship the god of Israel, Yawheh/Rabbi Jebus, and as a result Christians are the biggest supporters of Israel and jews today.
The real reason why many Christians support Israel today is a shockingly large number of them are illiterate and their pastors are controlled prostitutes. The teachings of Christ are the recipe to end jewishness if we define jewishness as all the negative attributes had by jews that plague the world. God came down in flesh to rebuke the the rabbinical jew, and to show love in everything else.
Also calling Jesus Rabbi makes no sense and shows how little you know about his teachings because he himself said don't call me Rabbi.
[ - ] x0x7 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:34:13 ago (+2/-1)
It says that those who call themselves jews and are not (those who are not converted meeting the new standard of a circumcised heart, so basically those we call jews today), are the synagogue of Satan.
So basically, jews who say they're christian are good and you should let them lead your church, but jews who don't are bad.... and you can't see the problem with that? The kikes always play all sides, and you're letting your side get played.
Why would I want to get my heart circumcised? I don't even want to get my dick circumcused. What a disgusting religion. "Accept cutting off of the tip of your dick into your heart. Get the tip of your dick cut off on the inside." Um, no. How can you even write something like "circumcised heart" with a straight face?
[ - ] Name [op] 0 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 18:37:17 ago (+0/-0)
I was recently reading a totally different attack on Christianity. The premise was that they had stolen most of their mysticism from Hindu sources. Hari Krishna or whatever Of all of the valid attack of vectors on the Christian associations how come the only one that is ever played out is the “jew on a stick“ one?
Of all of the valid attack of vectors on the Christian associations how come the only one that is ever played out is the “jew on a stick“ one?
Just read the (((Bible))), dude. Saul the Pharisee. Rabbi Jebus. The Chosen People with a Promised Land.
"25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[d] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.”
28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."
[ - ] Name [op] 0 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 19:06:48 ago (+0/-0)
Are you going to specify which Bible or are you just messing with me? I’ve been playing around with some of the older orthodox Bibles and I can’t quite find your quote in them worded the way you have it worded if I can find it at all.
Perhaps some of the other Bibles were jewed in different ways or at different times than the Roman Bibles you are familiar with?
I use English Standard Version because that was the one recommended when I did some research as being the most authentic. I know lots of Christians have a fetish for KJV, but it's hard to read:
If you think it's just a versioning problem, tell me what you're preferred version is. But the basic facts of the (((Bible))) as I laid them out are not a versioning problem. It's a fundamental one.
[ - ] Name [op] 0 points 6 monthsNov 6, 2023 05:12:38 ago (+0/-0)
Some of the modern versions have decent translations. Like Matthew 10 56. I like to go Syrian. Read the entire chapter in context.
Chapter 11 v.1 But I say, Hath Aloha put away his people? Not so. For I also am of Israel, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benyamen. v.2 Aloha hath not put away his people whom from before he knew. Or know you not what he saith in the scripture concerning Elia, when he cried unto Aloha against Israel, saying, v.3 My Lord, thy prophets have they killed, and thy altars overthrown, and I alone am left, and they seek my soul? v.4 And it was said to him by revelation, Behold, I have left to myself seven thousand men, who upon their knees have not kneeled nor worshipped Baal. v.5 So also, at this time, a residue is left by the election of grace. v.6 But if by grace, it is not of works; otherwise grace is not grace. But if by works, it is not of grace; otherwise work is not work. v.7 What then, That which Israel sought he hath not found; but the election hath found: but the rest of them are blinded in their hearts. v.8 As it is written, Aloha hath given them the spirit of trouble, And eyes that see not, and ears that hear not, until the present day. v.9 And David again saith, Let their table become a snare before them, And their reward be for a stumbling-block: v.10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, And their back at all times be bowed; v.11 But I say, Have they stumbled so as to fall? Not so: but, by their stumbling was salvation to the Gentiles, unto [the stirring up of] their zeal. v.12 And if their stumbling were wealth to the world, and their condemnation wealth to the Gentiles, how much then will their fulness be? v.13 To you, Gentiles, I speak, I, who am apostle of the Gentiles, in my ministry I glory, v.14 if I may provoke my fleshly kindred, and save some of them. v.15 For if their rejection was the reconciliation of the world, what (will) their conversion (be) but life from the dead? v.16 For if the first-fruits be holy, (so) also (will be) the mass; and if the root be holy, (so) also the branches. v.17 And if the branches were cut off, and thou who art a wild olive art engrafted in their place, and hast a participation of the root and fatness of the olive, v.18 boast not against the branches: but if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root beareth thee. v.19 And perhaps thou wilt say, The branches were cut off, and I in their place am engrafted: v.20 Well, they on account of unbelief were cut off, and thou by faith standest: be not exalted in thy mind, but fear. v.21 If Aloha spared not them who were branches by nature, (take heed) lest he spare not thee. v.22 Behold, then, the goodness and the severity of Aloha: towards them who fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; if not, thou also wilt be cut off. v.23 And they, if they continue not in their want of faith, they also shall be engrafted; for Aloha is able again to engraft them. v.24 For if thou who art of the wild olive which is thy nature, wast cut off, and, which was not thy nature, art engrafted into the good olive, how much more they, if they are engrafted into the olive of their nature? v.25 But I would have you know, my brethren, this mystery, that you may not be wise in your own mind,---that blindness of heart for a little space is unto Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be brought in: v.26 and then all Israel shall be saved. As it is written, The Redeemer shall come from Sion, And turn iniquity from Jakub; v.27 And then shall be to them my covenant, When I have forgiven them their sins.
218 ETHERIDGE TRANSLATION O F THE ARAMAIC NT v.28 But, in (regard of) the gospel, they are enemies on your account; and, in the election, they are beloved on account of the fathers. v.29 For Aloha turneth not in his gift and in his vocation. v.30 For as you also were not obedient unto Aloha at the first, and now have received mercy, through their disobedience; v.31 so also these are now disobedient for the mercy that is upon you, that upon them also might be mercy. v.32 For Aloha hath included them all in disobedience, that upon all he might show mercy. v.33 O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of Aloha, whose judgments man searcheth not, and whose ways are inscrutable! v.34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor? v.35 Or who hath first giveth to him, that so he should receive from him? v.36 For all is of him, and all in him, and all by him. To him be praises and benedictions unto the age of ages. Amen.
Why? I mean, the Aloha Snackbar is kinda funny, but other than that it reads like a weird version of KJV, which is already hard enough to read.
Read the entire chapter in context.
I have done so. It's even worse in context. Saul is telling the gentiles that the jews were the original branches of the heeb tree, and having been cut off, the gentiles were wild branches grafted in their place. But if the jews repent, then they will be an even better graft back onto the tree, for they are natural to the tree, unlike the unnatural gentiles. In short, YOU ARE AN UNNATURAL GRAFT.
Do you even read what you post, or do you just choose a hard to read version so you can gloss over it and assume the context fixes what is plainly read in a modern version?
I love debating any idea, but this one obviously does not track.
The basic sequence of events means that the jews put in a whole lot of work and effort to maintain and start the psyop, but then stopped putting nearly the same level of effort into maintaining the psyop as time progresses, even very nearly admitting their hand in it. The pattern in the middle doesn't fit.
They would have to see 300+ years into the future but then be too stupid not to racemix with gentiles and breed themselves out as the elite controlling group within christianity.
No, wasnt invented by jews. BUT neoprotestantism are cults invented by jews to replace Christianity with this subversion. Thats why Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics, etc are against Israel as we speak and Evangelists and Neoprotestants are pro Israel.
[ + ] DeusExMachina
[ - ] DeusExMachina 3 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 16:41:28 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 3 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 12:22:53 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 2 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 14:28:50 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 21:15:39 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 16:18:46 ago (+1/-0)
niggers can be christians
[ + ] Name
[ - ] Name [op] 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 18:33:02 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 21:17:48 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Name
[ - ] Name [op] 0 points 6 monthsNov 6, 2023 03:43:40 ago (+0/-0)
It would be understandable if you deleted the post.
…place for things that just white people do. White people culture and behaviors. Please post anything that especially demonstrates how society is kept aloft without expressly stating it.
[ + ] SparklingWiggle
[ - ] SparklingWiggle 0 points 6 monthsNov 6, 2023 06:24:36 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Name
[ - ] Name [op] 0 points 6 monthsNov 6, 2023 06:57:06 ago (+0/-0)
It would seem you have two courses of action; 1) tell the dumb ass that violated your subs rules not to do that again or 2) delete the offending post.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 6 monthsNov 8, 2023 09:40:11 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 2 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:28:55 ago (+3/-1)
Well, at least the author admits that even if Jesus really did exist (he probably didn't but okay) that he was a kike and thus the entire religion is kikery even at its best.
A lot of his criticisms come down to "the good jews of the new testament criticize the bad jews who became talmudic" and "jews are antagonistic towards christianity". But that's kind of a retarded argument. Zionist jews criticize communist jews who criticize zionist jews. George Soros points the finger at Israel and says they're the bad guys while hiring judeo-communist terrorists to orchestrate BLM rallies. The jews criticize each other because they are always trying to play all sides to make sure all sides are controlled by jews. Thus, a group of jews starting a new movement that is critical of another group of jews is not a sign that those jews actually oppose jewish power - it is just as likely to be a psyop to gain control of people who are critical of that group of jews by placing them under another group of jews. See the wahhabi muslim leaders and Saudi royal family, a group of crypto-jews who run the biggest branch of islam and pretend to be anti-jewish while actually helping israel prepare to take over the middle east.
As for point 4, telling christians to put jews on equal footing while the jews themselves are only pretending to be egalitarian in order to take power is why christianity looks so much like communism. Communism was a bunch of jews claiming all people are equal to manipulate the lower classes into supporting jews who then declared themselves the most equal people once their communist organizations were in power. The very fact that the bible tells christians to treat jews as equal and as one in Jesus is why it is so dangerous, just as the communist manifesto telling communists to treat jews as equal and ignore ethnic distinctions is dangerous.
Meanwhile the evidence that Jesus was made up by Josephus Flavius is pretty strong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UqG8w7ezUQ
Josephus was hired by Titus Vespasian to help him pacify the jewish lands while on the campaign that destroyed the temple in jerusalem 40 years after Jesus' supposed life. If the gospels were true, that would make Titus the "son of man" predicted in the gospels who would return and destroy the temple, thus basically making Titus the second coming of the jewish messiah. As a jew, Josephus knew he couldn't stop the Romans from re-conquering judea, but he could subvert them from within, so he offered to create a new religion that would get the jews to accept Roman rule and adopt some Pagan practices while secretly subverting that same religion to make it spread through Rome and get the Romans to worship jews.
There's a bunch of parallels between the events of the first three gospels and the military campaign of Titus Flavius, such as spearfishing jews in the see of Galilee at the same point when Jesus went to Galilee and said he'd make fishers of men. Another great example is when Jesus drove the legion of demons into the pigs and drove them into the sea. If you take the story literally, who the fuck was herding 2000 pigs anywhere in judea/israel where the local religion forbade the eating of pork? It's ridiculous. But if you realize that it was an allegorical metaphor for Titus breaking a group of about 2000 jews who were trying to train themselves into a legion to counter the Roman legions, then it makes a lot more sense why they'd use pigs as an insult to the jewish rebels (as Animal Farm did to the jewish leaders of communism over 1800 years later).
The supposedly pro-Roman quotes in the bible that the article references such as Saul telling the christians to obey Roman authorities and Jesus telling them to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's make much more sense in this light. Josephus was writing a story that looked on the surface to be pro-Roman but which had undertones that riled up the lower classes against Rome instead.
People who have trouble with this generally have trouble with it because they can't fathom the way jewish dishonesty works. The jews don't just tell you a straightforward lie and expect you to believe it. They tell you a lie and then they tell you another lie that's in opposition to that lie and then another lie in opposition to that one, so when you figure out you've been told one lie, you adopt another of their lies as if it's the alternative. They use pieces of truth to pull you into a worldview that is fundamentally dishonest, but which looks correct if you just look at the few pieces that they use to trick you into it, all while building up multiple other competing worldviews that are just as dishonest so that if you abandon that worldview you have multiple other jewish lies to choose from.
This is why you need to stop believing anything jews have ever touched. Seriously, just take anything the jews had a hand in and throw it in the trash and start over.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 2 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:53:54 ago (+3/-1)*
I'd give that "future sight" possibly to later Khazarian mongrels only after they'd already established the right control mechanisms over national money supplies that made planning for the next century possible.
In reality, I think the Jew is just inclined by its nature toward believing in and fomenting the sorts of ideological movements that increase Jewish survival. That is, it isn't conspiratorial in the sense where, say, someone like Paul had a salient awareness that, by inventing X belief, he would accomplish Y. No, they just tend to believe revolutionary things, because revolution is the Jewish strategy of parasitism. Probably, the Christ movement had begun to gain some converts in the outlying (primarily military) outposts of the Roman empire in Palestine (to the chagrin of Roman authorities), and local Jewry unconsciously recognized these spotty, local shifts occurring in public opinion; like any good parasite, they recognize all forms of disatisfaction or change as a "break in the skin" of the host society. There is a reason they came to be associated with the voice of the devil. Paul, being of this kind, was disposed to having his "revelatory experience" as a more or less intuitive emergence of his innate opportunism, making itself conscious to him. This doesn't require Paul conspiring to invent Christianity. It just requires Paul's innate qualities (like all Jews) to sense where the "envelope edges" in a society's social structure are most malleable, and to capitalize on this softening.
I truly think that if you asked most Jews about this sort of thing, they'd not have the slightest self-awareness to suggest conspiracy (that is not to say there aren't Jews conspiring in the upper echelons of power). There is a strong analogy here between the Jew and women generally. Men often go wrong by trying to overlay rational structures onto women's thinking and decision-making, when, in reality, most women aren't aware of their implicit reasoning. They're just experiencing things and operating according to complicated, innate machinery for doing what women do. I think it is like that with Jews, also. They're inclined toward believing whatever is going to increase their entry into a larger society's "soft spots", just like women can do this to men in arguments with natural agility - to say the thing that just throws any possibly mutually productive outcome of the argument out the window (really, taking what could be a discussion and turning it into a fight).
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 6 monthsNov 8, 2023 12:30:03 ago (+1/-0)
You really hit the nail on the head with that, as I said elsewhere. They act on instinct.
Yeah, and as I have said before, I believe they are heavily descended from priests. The more fanatical revelations they have they stronger their mandate to rule over the peasants. I also think people tend to have “revelations” toward their own personal benefit. No jew will ever have an ecstatic vision that Irishmen are God’s chosen people. Its just hman nature, or perhaps animal nature.
Now you are in trouble. Im going to have to bury you up to the neck and stone you to death for your rebellious male ways. A vision from Shekinah told me this was right and just. Please don’t argue with your faulty male logic. ;-P
Seriously though, one day I hope you will see that everything youve just said about female bias and belief, though true, is also every bit as true of males. We tend to believe things to be true and right based on self interest. And males have self interests that often clash with women’s.
For instance, all war is driven by males, and it is never just. Males “believe” wars are just because it is in their interest to do so. But its simply a strategy to acquire the resources of other males in order to improve their reproductive potential. The Greeks did not attack Troy because Paris ran off with Menelaus’ wife. They attacked Troy because they were greedy and wanted its wealth. None of this is rational. All humans are better off when we prevent any person from profiting off violence, which is another form of parasitism— almost entirely enacted by men. But just try to overlay rational structures onto a soldier’s thinking. Are these men aware of their impicit reasoning?
This bias is a universal condition. We pick our sides based on instinct or emotional predisposition, and then construct narratives and ideologies to support our impulses. You believe God blessed males with an extra dose of logic because you want to, and you overlook billions of exceptions to this “truth”. Men unconsciously search for soft spots to exploit as well.
The underlying issue is group benefit vs individual benefit. People who must economically collaborate to survive (ie., men and women) should not exploit each other and when given the opportunity they usually will. Subjugating women is not “good” exploitation. Men on this site simply overlook the types of injustices that always occured within male dominated societies as acceptable because they happend to women or necessary/built-in when they happened between men. I believe you are letting male irrationallity and exploitation off the hook because it seems trad. Imo.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 6 monthsNov 8, 2023 13:46:24 ago (+0/-0)*
Haha :)
So, I don't really want to disagree with you. Maybe I can make my point in a way that you'll find more agreeable. I think you're right to point out that implicit reasoning, ad hoc reasoning, cognitive dissonance, etc., are also going to feature in an analysis of male behavior. I really do want to make clear that when I single out women in this regard, it's not to say that men are immune to these things.
Instead, I should have made it a priority to highlight that there is a social and a moral difference between male and female examples.
The difference is that, given the necessary conditions for a human society to flourish, nature interacts differently with male and female "irrationality". Society results in a different set of pressures that face irrationality of both kinds. A simple example would have to do with political pressure. You point out the differential likelihood for men to be violent, to be the causes of violent encounters, and to reason irrationally about the causal story that explains their violent encounters. Fair enough. But we can also look at the reasons why it might be that men have the responsibility for undertaking violent expression. At some points, your post almost carried the implication that there was no natural necessity facing humans to ever be violent - that it is always an outcome of irrational processes. I would disagree with that wholesale.
Probably, male proximity to violence has to do with the fact that males face the expectation to be in and around - and to do the things most associated with - the very conditions that promote violence, e.g., diplomacy between groups that are opposed (not even ideologically perhaps) by an intrinsic set of economically opposed interests (two monkeys, one banana).
Women have historically been protected not just from this sort of violence, but they have also been protected from the tense activities necessary BOTH to do violence AND to avoid violence. Diplomacy is a negotatiation between economically adverse groups. There is a greater moral responsibility that has been felt by men - NOT as a result of some institutional injustice, but as a result of nature - to be rational as it concerns the interests of other people, because this is a necessary skill for the sake of successful diplomacy. Therefore, men have faced an utterly different evolutionary pressure to develop a partcular sort of moral cognition that women did not face the same pressures to develop. The evo-biological function of women pertains primarily to ensuring her own self-interests are met because of the direct relation meeting her interests has with meeting the interests of her offspring. She must be healthy to bare healthy children. She must be healthy to produce healthy breastmilk. Yada, yada. There is a kind of "social organismal" computation occurring here. A male has a natural responsibility to look out for the female interest (in peace generally) by (i) maintaining a functional competitive game with other male members of his own society and (ii) maintaining a functional competitive game with members of other societies. It is the male who has bore the responsibility, and the risk, of diplomacy.
And that is a good thing. We benefit from the existence of a female strategy in our society, since it fixes the "half" of the species most appropriate and apt for ensuring healthy offspring (at the proximal range) to the direct object of their interest (kids, home), while the male takes on the risk of ensuring healthy offspring at the "distal" range, e.g., maintaining the overall game the society plays, which includes maintaining borders, political order, military order, you name it.
It's not that either sex is immune to irrationality, it's that each faces different pressures against their irrational potential. In some respects, men have adapted by being less inclined to irrationality in one respect than another. Similarly, females have adapted by being less inclined to irrationality in other regards, where perhaps men are more inclined to it. Maybe men have less aptitude when it comes to sensing certain things about the environment that would be detrimental to a family unit, i.e., whether resources are distributed equally among offspring, or whatever. Male and female brains end up pairing well together, including the dynamic tension between them, for the sake of the population, not necessarily for the sake of the individual. . .BUT (a big but), we WOULD expect that the aggregate effects would tend to favor the female at the individual level because that winds up favoring the offspring at the individual level, which has to happen (it's the interface between the individual and the popoulation level).
One consequence of this is that, taken as a whole, society has a greater carrying capacity for female irrationality per se (that 'per se' is a group-lvl feature). A society can tolerate greater female irrationality internally, and societies do do this. And this is observable in ordinary social interaction. It's why a "Karen" meme is possible. It's why, concerning a dispute over some bullshit at a department store, it will be treated entirely differently if a female raises hell with staff than if a male does in the same respect. He will be treated as a threat in a different manner than her, even if he is not giving any rational indication he means harm. She can be completely wrong, and everyone can know it, but you're going to get a situation where the store manager rolls his eyes and ends up conceding something: Karen-ism happens because it works. If it didn't work, it wouldn't happen. The reason the store manager is going to roll his eyes and concede something is because he or she knows that this kind of thing is acceptable in society. People may not like it. The Karen may get some annoyed glances in her direction, but the chances are very slim she is going to have police called, nor will her outburst send a wave of utter alarm through store-goers. They'll think: "Oh, a Karen."
In general, we recognize women will do pretty much whatever to get what they want, and implicitly, we all recognize this is because that's what she is programmed to do. Men face a broad-level expectation to behave differently, even though they have the resources available to violently get what they want. It's a strategy on their part which society says is "off the table", as a natural necessity for having a society. He faces a natural handicap in how he must compete internally to the society because if he didn't face that pressure, there would be no society. Men would just be killing each other over food and women, and no organization would be possible. That is to say, the first layer of necessity when it comes to the conditions for a functioning society to form in the first place is a limitation upon males. You don't get to limitations on females unless males are limited first, which is the key fact most feminists tend to miss. You don't get the conditions for recognizing female oppression in a developed society unless the men of that society were systematically oppressed against "being themselves" first. The thing is, we've had functioning societies for a long time. So these pressures have become more or less fixed, and males tend to come with a distinct moral cognition "baked" into them - at least, the necessary machinery for it; environmental stimuli have to follow in order to fully develop it, which is what various facets of cultures do with things like initaitic rites and sporting events introduced to boys at young ages.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 6 monthsNov 8, 2023 17:24:59 ago (+0/-0)
I believe human groups could evolve to be even less violent than Scandinavians, less violent then women. Who knows if theres a limit to the level of pacifism that would be sane and rational. But if everyone is predisposed to be non-violent there is no risk of a tyranny through violence. You are assuming some other form of exploitive tyranny would outlaw violence as a means of resistance. But other exploitive strategies can also be eugenically removed simulataneously. Many species exhibit very little violence toward one another. The prime source of internecine violence in any species is from competing males and the impetus of this is polygyny: the ability of males to achieve high reproductive success through elimination of other sexually competitive males. A highly monogamous population is one in which males do not harm, exploit, or predate on their own fellow males.
So it’s just a councidence that males of almost every species exhibit higher violence than their female counterparts ? Its just social expectations, for the history of every human civilization we know of. This is just like arguing that women didnt invent cars and nuclear power plants because of unfair social expectations.
More like 2 monkeys, 2 bananas and both monkeys want both bananas. And the bananas have vaginas. Its genetic. Maleness is older than the human race. You are repeating the same reproductive modes as bears and deer stags and roosters. Cheap 3 minute reproduction cycletimes lead to certain trade offs: quantity over quality of parental investment.
Key to achieving a more utopian society (I say more because I dont know if a conflictless society is possible) is to minimize useless competitiion between members. To do this you limit wealth disparity, you institute a true meritocracy, you eliminate the ability to become enriched by vice, war, bureacracy, religion, entertainment, etc, and you prevent men from ever impregnating more than one woman ( or vice versa). I think you also have to maintain a stable population level.
Thanks men for protecting us from men. Except for the times that women are mudered or raped in war or from male criminals. That “greater moral responsibility” is kinda spotty.
You are dreaming if you thnk this doesnt apply to men.
When its in his interest. Lots of societies and environments where this isnt true.
Women dont have competition within their own society? Hahaha.
Male intrasexual competition is higher in humans and most other animals because males have the potential to play a quantity over quality game reproductively. Male violence and internecine competition is directly correlated to how promiscuous they are. There is greater variability in reproductive success among males. Thats why niggers are so violent.
Relatively Monogamous men like northern Europeans are less violent and corrupt because they are historically the most monogamous. You talk about the unfair environment males are subjected to (increased competition) but that environment you are talking about is the environment of other males’ behavior! When males finally understand that this is why male individuals can be treated disposably and why the male sphere is so cut throat, they can change this and change the high reproductive and wealth disparities among men. But you talk about the condition of male fate as a thrall to violence and competition as if it came from the wild blue yonder. It comes from other males and it is changeable. White men live more cooperatively than niggers and the society of white men can be improved upon too.
See, you are just assuming that the results of excessive male competition are built in obstacles that we need to thank men for mitigating. Men cause those problems.
Would we? Or would we expect that the bigger stronger individuals force their opinions on the weaker individuals in personal interactions. Do we believe that polygynous warlords throughout history who kill and enslave other males in order to hoard multiple females dont play one wife off against another? This is why the female condition is so deplorable in the middle east and other 3rd world shitholes. Males will get away with what they can at womens expense, same as women. That is why you must ensure a balance of power. The more males can exploit females the more they will. You think because some males are fair or uxorious to women, that this is a fundamental male quality, it ain’t.
Jesus look at niggers. They knock up a dozen hos and never bother with their babies or baby-mammas. They ensure their self interest by making lots of babies and killing other niggers. And stealling.
Dont agree. Karenism only works in highly monogamous socities because males are forced to compete for the highest value females instead of the highest number of females. This empowers individual females as opposed to women in the polygynous middle east. Promiscuity will eventually destroy the Karen and simping or uxorious male behaviors like chivalry, but Karens generally don’t understand this. But its hardly a rule of all human societies. Women have more clout in some societies than others.
Where is this country and when can I move there? Is this what Michigan is like? Maybe the cold is worth it.
Seriously this has not been my experience at all as a woman. Its not what Im programmed to do and I dont feel entitled to behave however. This is a cartoon woman that has sprung from the mind of dangus. It bares no relation to my reality or the reality of most women. Most of us cant just bat our eyelashes and get men to throw money at us.
Same with women. I was not raised to get a man with alot of money who would take care or me. That was considered a backward strategy which was off the table to respectable educated white girls. I was pressured to compete academically and economically with men. I never tried to take advantage of men economically through sex which I also felt was off the table. There are innumerable ways in which this society treats the average woman like garbage. You are cherry picking the worst of women while giving a pass to the worst of men.
I would say the first limitation is on females. When females are limited sexually you have the transition of the most primitive, economically backward matrilineal societies to the quasi-civilized patrilineal polygynous ones. Men will only support their own children when female fidelity is guaranteed. But peaceful cooperative prosperous societies require for males to also limit their reproduction to a single female. This represents the transition from corrupt shithole nation to egalitarian first world country. Otherwise men just enslave and cheat other men to support their harems. Male and female behaviors are quite variable
You dont think women havent been systematically oppressed againt being themselves? Functioning for whom?
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 6 monthsNov 9, 2023 11:49:04 ago (+0/-0)
I think your tendency is (too) highly reductive. For example, I think you'd want to explain the features of a non-violent society by appealing strictly to the genetic pool that represents the members of that society. I think this is flatly wrong. There is a complex interaction with bi-directional causation between the biological factors and the social-political factors. Comparatively, Scandinavians might demonstrate an intrinsic predisposition toward less violent behaviors than other groups, but I don't think this is sufficient to negate the violence that is intrinsic to nature. Social structures are playing a causal role in how violence emerges at the level of the society. In effect, we cannot say that Scandinavians are simply non-violent people intrinsically; some societies figure out better or worse ways of organizing their "game" so as to dissuade violence.
This is a Brady Bunch view of fundamental truths about life in the world. I consider it utterly naive. A predisposition toward violence never disappears. It is integrated according to the success of the imposed order, the summation of social contracts and arrangements a group sets up to get on together. I'll grant you without issue that the ability to do that very thing implies a sufficiency condition that is biological, i.e., perhaps before we can even expect this ability to form cooperative, largely non-violent games, we must expect a certain level of intelligence and predisposition toward non-violence. But this is not exhaustively explanatory. You don't get along in nature without violence. Nature is violence.
And you might be tempted, as people often are, to talk about creatures like Bonobos or something. But go check out recent research on Bonobo responses to morally charged behaviors. They respond far more strongly to bullies, whereas chimps and humans respond more fondly to cooperation and kindness (at least when we are talking about infants and adolescents). We'd be mistaken to think an implicit violence is lacking in Bonobo societies. It's almost mythical the way these things are discussed. Oh, strong female solidarity and group effort just keeps everything peachy keen. Muh matriarchy.
Shit like this might work in Bonobo land, but the fact of the matter is, humans are far too intelligent and inter-competitive for this to work. The second men became passive tantrum-throwers who wait for seconds after the females hand them scraps, is the moment a patriarchal human group sweeps through and murders everyone because, well, male violence is a feature of nature's weapons that, once out of the bag, can't be put back in.
Not only that, but I think you're going to run into the same argumentative trouble Sapolsky does when he attempts to argue against the existence of free will on biological grounds, which is that you can't get a coherent moral claim out of that belief, if you do hold that belief. What do I mean? Humans believe they have free will, ubiquitously. So when someone like Sapolsky comes and says: "Hey that criminal should be treated differently, perhaps non-violently in terms of how we handle him, because he doesn't have free will." Okay, well then I have the same argument to support the fact I'm going to capitally punish him. I have no free will in the matter.
If you want to reduce us to genes, then I always have the appeal to my genes to discount any "ought" you throw at me, including that some other type of order would be objectively better than the one we currently have (not that I'm agreeing it's obvious there would be a better one).
No. Everyone is violent. Violence might be thought to exist on a spectrum that describes the various ways that we achieve our goals - a spectrum having what we determine contextually is a more "pro-social" end and an end that is more antisocial. Violence is ubiquitous. Males just excel at one form of it better than women for biological reasons, but women have their forms of violence, even if they are indirect (i.e., female gives a distress signal that alerts other males to come kill an "offending" male or something). The male disposition toward more effective physical violence is why they had to defend societies from other violent males; what I'd been discussing is the actual evidence for higher male violence in society. A particular way of organizing can't simultaneously be built on the need for males to be violent (to protect what is theirs) and then, when the weather is fairer, say, "Look, the males tend to be in more violent encounters statistically speaking!" Well, yeah.
I'm not really convinced that this is as big of a problem for modern human societies. Even if sexual instincts in males are driven by innate polygynous motivations (that is, if I agree to that), I tend to go for more of the mongam-ish theory. The majority of men are not running around trying to conquer many women. You might be talking about a small, small minority of the male population here. The vast majority of men are married and locked down. People might, on average, be disposed probabilistically to having one or a couple of extra-marital sexual affairs, most of which aren't going to result in offspring, though some will. I'm not denying the role of the basic evo-bio dogma that genes are "seeking" to copy themselves as much as possible. For example, I'm fine with you saying that present-day tendencies in humans to compete with one another irrationally (hoarding unecessary wealth, for example) result from genetically-explainable impulses to maximize survival and reproduction. Fine.
I'm saying that the social order has largely been successful in integrating primitive instincts and reflexes into productive group-level strategies and institutions for creating societies that benefit their members more than they harm them. Doing that largely means overcoming certain kinds of violence we would be predisposed to engage in if not for the ipmlicit social contract to play the "game" the society has set up.
Good luck. How you gonna accomplish that with those pesky genes you think explain literally everything? Do we just begin a eugenics program? Also, who gets to decide about wealth disparity and what's justified and what isn't. Some aspects of your plan sounded very Communistic. These are the wishes of people who, given the power, would be tyrants. I mean no offense to you by that, Helena. I don't think you're a tyrant, but then again, I don't live with you!
Human females are horrible to one another. Oh man, you'd be up shit creek if you counted on human female solidarity in some lesbianic matriarchy where men were just sperm donors. Ooof.
I mean, men exist. It is kind of good that men exist to protect you from other men. I think there could be a kind of misandrist current running beneath your speech here. I don't mean in the typical sense where we're discussing some bitter journalist over at Jezebel. I mean it more in the sense where the consequences of some of your thinking would seem to specify that maleness per se was an evolutionary misstep. The thing is, once you have sexual dimorphism, you've got this game going. The key master becomes pitted against the gate keeper.
The very male violence you're talking about is the same which created a society where women get to be choosers, i.e., of who they sleep with. Why? Because men who violate this rule - by and large, I'm NOT claiming rape doesn't occur - get punished by other men. If men didn't do that, you'd just get raped without consequence. Again, I don't see any sense in talking like: "Well, what if we were more like Bonobos." Well, Bonobos might survive in their particular ecological context, but they don't seem capable of demonstrating any higher order coopeartivity either, like forming advanced institutions and building skyscrapers. Their cooperativity is perhaps the loosest form that can exist in a society that lacks violence. It's a remarkably loose association, and this is the point I have been making all along: the double-sidedness of things. The same violence that causes us problems is the same factor that helps create such strong bonds. You get both as a package deal. Take away the threat of violence and watch our bonds as human beings grow weaker and weaker. Violence would just rememerge because of the contempt we'd gain for one another, which is exactly what is happening with increasing egalitarianism.
Stop making this a schoolroom "but he did X!" sort of thing. You keep wanting to focus on these intrinsic things. Of course it applies to men. The pressures against men for pursuing their own interests in the ways they'd be intrinsically programmed to are what differs. Intrinsically, men in this society see pussy, and they'd go rape the woman. That's the brute. There is significant pressure facing him that opposes his doing this. My claim has been that society tends to have a greater carrying capacity for a more general irrational expression in women than it does for men. Society cannot survive with MOST men behaving irrationally. Though, society does tend to create a small pool of men who behave irrationally (at the centers of power).
It is always in his interest, if you want societies that build skyscrapers and cure diseases.
Just like women have the potential to play the hypergamy game. It's a constant balance. You're going to lose society if you shift too far in either direction.
But this is a timewise development. You don't have a story where the world just one day becomes populated with humans of different genetic kinds, some of which are violent and others are non-violent. The environment demanded that men of certain kinds became more monogamous because socially organizing was necessary for survival in those environments (like Northern Europe), and enforced monogamy was more or less necessary because society can't happen when a man doesn't have the confidence that, after he goes off to cut lumber in the frigid temps till sundown, his wife might be being impregnated by some other man. Over time, the social environment selects for those who are more monogamous. But destabilizing factors always remain. If you take the "fight" out of men, then female competitive interests will dominate and she'll begin playing games that destabilize the male intersex competitive environment, so on and so forth. It's not as if women are kind of just the default "rational biological unit" of nature here, which left to "her" own devices, absent male violence, would produce a utopian society - at least not in the case of intelligent beings.
I just don't know what possible world you are envisioning where it isn't. It is not just a "male" problem. It's a human problem. It's a problem for us all, but yes, it is a problem that has to be overcome largely by men. Men have to get their shit together as a primary condition for the possiblity of useful social organization. The lynchpin is not primarily women, because in the case where women didn't have their shit together, there would be a male population, perhaps a foreign one, who would come along and correct their shit. Within any society, there is a really important negotiation occurring between males and females. Like, we're getting our shit together as men for both of our sakes, but that also means we have to expect you aren't going to sabotage us and fuck our enemies. Thanks.
I agree. There isn't one sex that is less predisposed to "bad" behavior. It's an emergent sort of negotiation that has to take place. I'm saying that, in causal terms, in explaining a functioning society, it is the male nature that has to succumb first. Men have to start cooperating before female considerations start to affect the game; and would I say that's fair? No. Nature isn't fair.
It sucks to be a man. It sucks to be a woman. It sucks to be, in a lot of (but not all) ways.
Yes. It's a teeter-totter.
But when shit hits the fan, you're going to want a society with violent males, at least who have preserved a violent capacity.
Haha
I agree that it is over-simplified. These conversations, about what we ought to be doing to direct society, always rely on cartoons, to some extent. But this isn't any different than pointing out that some niggers don't nig. It's about noticing trends [trajectories, directions of change] in the behavior of a certain group, like with women in the west, and asking ourselves, alright, what is this emblematic of? Mostly, it's about resisting extremities of change in either direction. But Marxist narratives being what they are, the whole stock and trade is about such extreme transitions. For me to critique women in the west today is not for me to say that the male is default superior. We're both shit. But we both have roles to play, and I don't think these are nominal. I don't think we just invent them.
Maybe this wasn't good. This was a consequence of a feminist movement which promulgated the idea that egalitarian roles for men and women in society would be, on account, a good thing. It may be that women competing for males on the basis of non-economic factors is actually a better thing. I'm not saying that makes things easier on women. It doesn't. Neither does it make things easier on men. Having to be the quality of male that gets a high-quality female isn't an easy thing to do. Again, a properly functioning meritocratic hierarchy is really shitty for everyone to endure at the individual level, but tends to be better for the group.
Okay, then perhaps we can shift things and say that there is a symmetrical limitation that must occur on both men and women. Men have to cooperate and be monogamous and less violent. Women have to be less promiscuous and assume longer-term risk by wedding herself (formally or otherwise) to a single man. But this has nothing to do with egalitarianism. Nothing at all. It's a game. That's the better metaphor to use. Nothing is equal about games, other than a base, axiomatic set of rules.
I acknowledged that I could come to agree that society implies a symmetrical limitation experienced by both males and females.
As far as the functioning question. . .well, everyone. We may not be doing things perfectly, but life is, from a 50k foot perspective, better to live today than it was 5,000 years ago, and much better than it was 10,000 years ago, and much better than 50,000 years ago. This is precisely why we ought to resist Marxist narratives that prescribe extreme shifts along primitive parameters (like sexual ones), since, on the whole, society may not be perfect, but looking at large enough timescales, we're doing something more right than wrong. The changes we need to make probably aren't deeply primitive and esoteric; the changes needed are probably quite obvious, albeit this doesn't indicate they'll be easy in the making.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 12:03:17 ago (+1/-1)
The fact that the gospels clearly parallel events that happened 40 years after they were written, contain absurd things like people herding thousands of pigs in a country where nobody is allowed to eat pork, and also draw heavily from other popular cults at the time like Mithraism and the cult of Julius Caesar (whose initials are the same not just in English but also in Latin and Greek) makes it far more likely that the gospels are an intentional construct rather than people just writing down history. They didn't need 2000 year sight to motivate their actions, they just needed 100 year sight to motivate them to undermine Rome. And when you look at the metric fuckton of evidence that they plan psyops decades in advance (see 9/11 and covid predictive programming decades ahead of both psyops), it's not out of character for them to plan a movement with the intent of it putting the jews in a better position a couple generations down the line.
: IVLIUS CAESAR and IESUS CHRISTUS in Latin.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 12:06:14 ago (+1/-0)*
There is nothing about the figure of Jesus in the gospels that suggests, if you were going to invent Him, you would have done it that way in order to achieve a distinctly political goal. In order to see why, you have to think a priori. You can't give yourself the benefit, 2000 years after the fact, of knowing what happened with Christianity. Put yourself in early 1st-century Palestine. You want to invent a messianic figure to galvanize or to fool or to whatever. Jesus is the last figure you're going to come up with. It would take brilliance of a super-human sort to have the foreknowledge of what the figure of Jesus would come to do in the following centuries.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 12:24:08 ago (+1/-1)
Also, as something that drew from the cult of Julius Caesar, Julius was backstabbed by his own friend Brutus, betrayed and killed. The cult of Julius Caesar took the blood stained cloak of Caesar and marched through the streets of Rome with the cloak hanging from a cross. The Caesar cult continued to use the imagery of the cross until they were absorbed into christianity by Constantine. That imagery was clearly borrowed by christianity.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 6 monthsNov 7, 2023 10:47:25 ago (+0/-0)*
What specific pagan resurrection myths are you talking about? I'm not talking about a mythological vegetative-cycle narrative of the "god" who dies in Autumn and rises again in Spring. The story of Jesus involves a bodily resurrection from physical death. I don't believe this was common to antecedent pagan tradition; after all, Paul is mocked by the Athenians for telling the Passion story. Why? Because he says that Jesus was raised from bodily death. If you go and look at most of the theological beliefs of pagan precursors, it's clear that bodily death means entry into some kind of afterlife, not physical resurrection.
So your claim is really that Jesus was supposed to be a figure who opposed Pharisaism only nominally. But in the course of that story, since Jesus "proves" himself to be God via the Resurrection, then what this really is is a disguised rebellion against the emperor cult.
I think you might be underscoring the difficulty of inventing a world-myth ad hoc. Just because you can retroactively think of reasons why such and such a feature of a story could have been useful for such and such a goal (note the evolutionary, Darwinian thinking here), doesn't mean that the people who first promulgated the story of Jesus actually had the capacities and opportunities to simply INVENT all of these things whole-cloth. Sure, everyone has a capacity to come up with ficitonal stories. The trouble here is connecting a mere invention with a movement that changed the planet. I think you'd find it is remarkably hard to do this, and nobody has the freedom to simply sit around and engineer the "right" story for the job. Think about what you're assuming on behalf of the so-called inventors. If you think it's a simple matter to invent a world-changing belief system just like that, based on a single guy who dies, in a cultural milieu that worships political power (emperor), there are many executives at many companies who would pay to sit down with you and learn how to manipulate millions of people this easily.
If you're suggesting that cultic worship of the Cross icon started with Cesar and was stolen by Christians, I think you're mad. First of all, I'm skeptical about your claim. I would like to know more about the claim, as to the "use" of the Cross image by the Roman cult prior to the adoption of Christianity. Frankly, I just don't believe that. And there is additional evidence that works against you, i.e., things like the fact that early Christian converts among Rome's military outposts were using the Cross as a code to indicate themselves. The Cross as a symbol of a particular salvific triumph was wholly Christian, not Roman. Your claim sounds like something that emerges in the 20th century that goes through all of the essential symbolic features of Christianity and says: "Yep, stolen," and then gives very weak evidence, like, hey, these guys hung something on the Cross while marching through the street. It's recorded here in [one source] exactly one time. Ergo, Christians took this.
Bear in mind that the only claim I opposed in this thread to begin with is that the person Jesus Christ was invented out of thin air and had no actual, historical correspondent. I did not start out by arguing that Christianity is true. I did not say that Christianity was not influenced by antecedent myths - I think it was. But I am saying that it was not wholly engineered by taking a bunch of parts from existing traditions and assembling them to create an utterly fictional Jesus person.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 6 monthsNov 7, 2023 18:16:18 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 6 monthsNov 7, 2023 12:09:37 ago (+0/-0)
At the time the Jesus myth was concocted by Josephus, there were many jewish cults competing with each other - pharisees, sadduccees, and zealots, just to name a few. Criticizing one jewish cult does not make Jesus anti-jewish, especially when the surface level of the myth by Josephus was supposed to appear to be a new branch of judaism to pacify the jews. It would need to oppose some branches of judaism without being anti-jewish on the whole, and it was written that way.
Taking a myth and using it to change the planet is something the jews have done multiple times since. 9/11 and covid are both clear recent examples - everything we were told in real time about those events was a lie, and yet they animated the planet. When Josephus was spreading the myth with the backing of the Flavians - one of the first popes was a member of the Flavian royal family, even - it absolutely did have enough power backing it to spread whether it was based on historical fact or created from scratch. Get enough people talking about it and they will start to treat the myth as true even if it never was.
The cross has been a symbol in tons of Pagan religions separate from christianity. Celts worshipped the cross long before they converted. The Nords had a solar cross that was similar to the Celtic cross. The Egyptian ankh is similar to the cross. The Romans built shrines at crossroads dedicated to the ruling class as much as to their Gods. As for the specific link from the cult of Caesar to the cross symbolism and the origins of the Jesus myth, this article summarizes half a dozen books from different scholars and historians that show the links, which go far beyond just the cross thing.
https://enigmose.com/theology/Julius_Caesar.html
[ + ] TheYiddler
[ - ] TheYiddler 1 point 6 monthsNov 6, 2023 13:35:41 ago (+1/-0)*
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 6 monthsNov 8, 2023 11:42:34 ago (+1/-0)*
They don’t do this consciously. I think the best way to understand them is to realize they were bred as hereditary priests. Priests generally use ideology to control the population and aggrandize themselves. If you breed that into a closed priestly caste for a few hundred years, you will obtain a group of adapted parasites. Do they know they are parasites? No.
Theoretically jews can live off of and be proponents of any ideology as long as that ideology provides a cushy position of privilege for its priests/politicians/academics who are its ideological leaders— housed, clothed and fed by the gentile workers. The ideology is almost incidental.
From their point of view, the world was made for priests (or other bureacrats). Why dont gentiles accept that this is the nature of the world? I assume the wolf wonders why sheep insist on running from him for similar reasons. But beefs between wolves are real, not simply a show for sheep.
To believe that josephus or paul developed a 2000 year long conspiracy plan to control gentiles is to attribute an absurd amount of patience and intelligence (not to mention solidarity) to the jews which neither they nor any other human group could achieve. The jews are not paying 27D chess. If they were that smart and patient we would be royally fucked with no chance against their strategy. They are simply a group of humans who were bred to exploit cultural institutions, like gentiles were bred to build buildings and exploit wheat fields.
@Chiro puts it very well here. In some jewish circles there may be conscious conspiracies (in fact they are far more conspiratorial than us) but they are not all united in a conspriatorial plan that was hatched 2000 years ago through Christianity. Jewishness is an instinct to parasitize when certain opportunities appear. Its genetic, not a conscious plan. From our POV, jews look like they are taking orders from a scheming “main jew” but that is an illusion.
Why do niggers steal bicycles? Is it a plan? Do the niggers get together and say “let the nigging begin?” No, its not a conspiracy. Its a genetic program they are running. It’s the same with the jews. Theres no conscious plan. They behave in comparable ways under many different environments, including (arguably) the Hebrews in Egypt, the Christian takeover of Rome, the Islamic expansion, and Communism.
I believe that as a Hanif, Mohammed was something lke a jew (i.e. a genetic and religious schism of the israelites) . The Saudi royal family doesn’t know they are genetic jews. They just find themselves to be copacetic wth Israel, whereas the Iranians are genetically, culturally more comparable to the christianized gentiles.
Its not intentional. Their mosaic of ideological bullshit—which lacks any real world practicality— is their bread and butter. They have lived of bullshitting for thousands of years. Therefore they believe in bullshit. As in mother nature, the decievers dont know they are deceiving. I came to this conclusion after reading about mafia hypothesis in the context of brood parasitism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brood_parasitism The cuckoo feels “justified” in attacking the host bird which rejects its eggs. Ive had several close jewish friends. None were privy to a conspiracy to vanquish gentiles. They all believed the holocaust was real and Christian morality was unfair and backward and that their people were arbitrarily oppressed historically by ours. They are predisposed to believe they are the victims which is a key trait in their arsenal.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 6 monthsNov 8, 2023 12:24:35 ago (+0/-0)*
I was glad to see you bring up the priestly social order. One other thing to consider with the Jews historically is their broadly ethnic animosity toward the developed world at large, which in context meant the various empires who subjugated them and together demonstrated an ability to "get on" in the world - that is, to get on with God's natural law - in a way that the Jews were unable to (hence, a particular covenantal law between the Jews and God is not surprising to find: a special one of their own). The Biblical stories of Cain and of Job are the most trenchant Jewish self-reflection you'll find in the written record. "But God. . .we gave up X. Why was X not good enough? Why is it never good enough? Then the gentiles give up Y, and you favor them. Now I will kill them out of animosity." With Job, you get the long-suffering, yet perfectly obedient and penitent man, who can't understand his suffering. Job's a Jew. He won't analyze his real-world behaviors. He must think that his suffering is caused by a God with a special plan for him.
By and large, Jews have assembled the public aspects of their cultural identity through outright theft. Even their priest class and their God concept came from the Egyptians. Also, the Assyrians and the Babylonians. The constant binary with the historical Jew is the relation between parasitization versus assimilation. This "A-word" is the Jewish nightmare. But their dependence on the host has turned into a theology and a worldview that puts them at odds with everyone else. They are humanity's "special boy", who has never direclty encountered God on their own, but rather through the auspices of successful civilizations who later (and ubiquitously) turn on the Jew for being a parasite. This history of "persecution" is central to their identity. They are always "strangers in a strange land". Go and listen to today's Kabbalists in the Lurianic strain: they are spiritual foreigners cast away in a hostile world they weren't meant for. Sound like every Communist-leaning 20-something today who can't get on in the world and so convinces himself he is special? It should.
Yes. A good archetype for understanding the Jewish strategy is to think of the home-wrecking male rake. This man never quite grows up. Never becomes an actualized adult. He can't build a family by creating the necessary pre-conditions for it. Instead, he skates about looking for problems to occur in existing relationships between other people - because. . .well, life is hard, and "getting on" is mostly about learning to live in tension without breaking. This rakish male then goes to the troubled female spouse when she is alone, and he exploits her weakness and isolation. He creates distinctions of animosity between she and her husband, like miniature Marxist narratives. If a gardener doesn't sow his plot properly, like seeds these distinctions will take root.
At the social level, this is just what Jews do. They create dissension within a society and opposing ranks by actuating the soft spots where it already occurs. Look for disatisfaction wherever it can be found and convince the disatisfied folks that their problem is to blame on whatever the central scaffolding of the society is, be it the government, or a differentially successful founder race, or what have you.
For very natural reasons, these layers of disatisfaction in any society tend to be nearest to the outside, where occurs the boundary between self-and-other - I'm pointing out a direct correlation between a society's physical boundaries and its cognitive boundaries. That's a society's skin. Jews exploit soft spots to gain entry, and then they create divergences of energy flow within the society (to themselves) that are fed by internal tensions. Consider how much financial flow has been created by the opposition between wokeness and conservatism. You'll find Jews controlling the money-receiving entities on both sides of the aisle because they recognize "voltage flows across the gap". They exploit ideological wounds to a host's unity.
The immature male I mentioned often isn't aware of what he is. He doesn't have to write a plan down on paper to pursue women the way he does. It is just in his nature, an adaptation to the qualities he lacks. A strategy. He just is this way. If you pile pride on top of that ("I am this way because I am superior"), together with divine privilege ("I am this way because I am superior and God decrees it"), you have a pattern that can't be changed discursively. It's difficult enough to talk an individual person out of a cancerous behavioral pattern that is well-fixed (say, by a certain age); it's practically impossible to "talk" the Jew out of Jew-ing. When things are sanctioned by God, you can't change them.
I'll bump NSW here. @NaturalSelectionistWorker
I'm quite familiar with the astrotheological take on world religions. The "Zeitgeist gambit" has been a figment of internet theology discussions for a long while now. To be fair, I think it does explain many things. For example, why did Jesus have 12 disiciples? Chances are quite good this particular enumeration is chosen because of its affinity with existing cosmological frameworks that were long present in a society's belief system. Also, facts like: precisely three days between death and resurrection, or the form a particular saying takes (which may be edited to accord with a long-revered saying that pre-dated it). Things like that.
What I tend to reject is the notion that these particulars having an astrotheological explanation necessarily refutes the essential claims of the faith. Egyptian religion may have featured a dying and resurrecting deity (Osiris/Horus), but there is a difference between what these terms mean when it comes to Christianity. What Egyptian religion did not have was a precise doctrine of incarnation which says God was wholly unified to a human nature on earth, died, and resurrected from physical death. That is a unique claim. Explaining the appearance of numbers like 12 might be possible to do with astrotheology, even while the essential aspects of the faith are true. Maybe it isn't esential to Christian truth that Jesus has 12 disicples. To see why, imagine that Christianity is true (broadly conceived). Is it essential to salvation for a Christian to think Jesus had 12 disicples? If you instead believed that Jesus only had 9 disicples, is something essential to the faith lost? If you think Jesus went to Jerusalem rather than Galilee after He was resurrected, does this ultimately impact the outcomes of your faith? I don't think it does.
Perennialism has an answer for these things, i.e., God's revelation to mankind has been a process in which greater and greater clarity is achieve with time. Aspects of fundamental truth became clearer to mankind over the eons. Under this view, Christianity is understood as the culmination of the revelation, not just the latest kid on the block. Not one competitor among others. Rather, it is the Revelation that the others have anticipated, hence, you shouldn't be surprised to find that what had been true in a whisper in previous belief systems finds it's consummate, concrete fixation in the Christian tradition.
I'm not saying that's an answer that ought to satisfy you; I'm pointing out that it's the answer you're likeliest to get from a Christian with at least a little sophistication.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 6 monthsNov 8, 2023 14:29:13 ago (+0/-0)
Priests tend to pander to their laity. “You’re better than those other people, because you worship through us. Our God is better than those other gods. Because we are his chosen people” — circular reasoning from a childish morality. Primitive cultures have similar moralities. “Us” is good. “Them” is evil. IMO this is on full display for most of the old testament. We know now they invaded Egypt as the “Hyksos” but they leave that bit out of their righteous struggle to overcome the tyrranical Pharoah by killing the first born of those filthy Egyptians who had it coming.
Im lately trying to resist calling the Hebrews and Israelites Jews. Modern jewish groups are only about 50% levantine. Other people such as the palestinians are at least as or more likely to be descended from people from those groups. The theological legacy is also not as solid as the jews would like to think. Bronze age polygynous monaltrists worshipping El did not follow the same religion as modern rabbinical jews. We should stop giving them that mantle of Hebrewism == Judaism. Modern judaism is one of many schisms of the cult of El. These schisms were theologically diverse and influenced/syncretized with Egyptian, Assyrian religions and also Persian and Greek religions and include many forms of “judaism” as well as islam and christianity.
So what makes them special?
I think there is an element within modern jews that is the legacy of these ancient priests. And it is parastitic. And it can be characterized as resisting assimilation. The ethnic jews within christianity assimilated with gentiles so christianity is a false path from judaism according to jews. Many european jews assimilated into the larger gentile population over the centuries, defecting from rabbinical judaism and its associated parasitic economic model. What is left? Those most resistant to assimilation and most suited for parasitism. I feel some of the traits of these early priests of El (ideological manipulation, public performance, exploitation of workers, a facility for creating narratives, bureacracy, politics) may have proved to be useful adaptations for an itinerant jewish subculture living parasitically amongst the goyim. I feel ther legacy is more strongly characterized as an economic mode than a genetic one.
Its a core myth in their religion. Anyone who suggest that they are especially persecuted gets that answer from me. An objective review of history dosent support it. Its a jewish belief and Im not jewish. No non-jew should accept that jewish precept. Hundreds of different societies just let them live amongst them until one day they just decided big noses suck? Big fuckin coincidence. Likeliest explanation is that jews acted against the interests of the people of their host nations. For some reason atheists seem to have as big a problem seeing this as christians. They dont understand that is is just a jewish religious tenet.
I have noticed that other social parasites like gypsies and blacks always play up their victimhood and espouse that their reputations for crime and deception are just false accusations and conspiracies propagated by a racist host society. They inculcate themselves with these beliefs and it actually encourages them to commit more crime upon the host society by justifying it. I think this is how “mafia hypothesis” works. Radical feminism has similar underpinnings. Jewish dominated psycho-analysis focuses on victimhood of the individual (usually by parents) as justification (or causation) of dysfunctional modes of behavior for similar reasons. Its a very attractive explanation for people who lack self awareness and are unhappy, dissatisfied with their lives.
In 19th cent Russia is was serfs. Now its BLM and absolute foreigners with no claim to any of our national prosperity other than some jew said they were American.
Jewishness is likely to be along something like a normal distribution. Traits we see as really jewy maybe weak in some jews, and perhaps strong in some gentiles. If we can screen for what makes a jew jewy, perhaps there are some we can convince. But Id settle for convincing the gentiles to resist jewing in the first place.
Yeah I do not think elements in christianity common to other religions is evidence of a jewish mastermind single handedly engineering an irresistable religion to ensnare the goyyim. Not in any sort of conscious way. Why do many religions have comparable themes and symbols? I tend to think its usually because of cognitive similarities extant across all or most human groups. We are talking about artifacts of the way our symbolic thought is accomplished. Comparative religion examines these trends all over the world— they dont all originate from jewish schemes. Also jews are subject to the appeal of syncretism to pander to their audience as much as anyone. This is not necessarily a conscious deception.
I think Christianity is a little better than judaism because it is was more informed by a greco-roman influenced faction of judaism competing with the predecessor of rabbinic judaism and then it was taken over and shaped by white gentiles for thousands of years. Sure it was utilized by some of the most corrupt whites in europe to legitimize theft and conquest, but the average European is just simply more just rational and egalitarian than the average middle-easterner, and Christianity has been shaped by them. Christianity is more than what a bunch of jews or even romans decided 2000 years ago. Christians have decided what Christianity is more than anyone and that is more often than not, white people. I dont have to tell you that much has been said on the nature of good and evil and what must be accomplished to justify salvation among Europeans over the millenia which did not come literally from the bible.
Whites have an instinct to behave less corruptly and parasitically, and like jews and everyone else they adopt a narrative which fits that instinct. In our case, the adapt a hebrew/ jewish narrative to their values.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 6 monthsNov 8, 2023 12:36:34 ago (+0/-0)
I never said they planned for the modern era 2000 years ago, stop making up ridiculous strawmen. I said they hatched a conspiracy to take over Rome from within, which is entirely reasonable based on your other assertions about jews. If the priestly jews needed a population to parasitize, and their people were conquered and fracturing, parasitizing the conquerors is a logical step creating a religion that would fool the Roman Emperor into spreading it and enabling jews to become priests over gentiles was entirely within Josephus' abilities.
That said, you likely underestimate the degree to which elite occult jews plan things decades in advance. They were inserting covid and 9/11 predictive symbolism into our media decades before each event. That means they already had a general idea of the psyops they were going to use to control millions of people decades before implementing them. Underestimating your enemies is a fatal mistake. Don't make it.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 6 monthsNov 8, 2023 14:52:23 ago (+0/-0)
Like the spread of commmunism . Was it a secret plot by Marx to rule over gentiles? No. It was just a bureacracy-centric ideology which appealed to jews and pandered to the working class white man (at least initially, until the jews pivoted to niggers and women) No reason to believe they did it intentionally to shit up the world. They truly believe they are doing everyone a great big favor by brainwashing everyone into changing the countries they did not build.
I dont. I simply dont entertain explanations that require massive improbable conspiracies by a super intelligent superhuman race which has none of the foibles or weaknesses that all other human groups have. I think jewish agendas are accomplished in a far more spontaneous manner than you believe. And that they are largely unaware that they are doing anything wrong or parastiic. I seek to understand why a group of highly parasitic humans can arise (knowing it can happen to any group of people under the right conditions.) This helps me to look at jewish behavior objectively although I hate them. I know they are not all twirling their mustaches and plotting against us. Yet even very friendly ones are our enemies and I understand why. I think expecting a cartoon villain is a fatal mistake.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 6 monthsNov 8, 2023 20:30:27 ago (+0/-0)
Race is real and different races are different. Nigger brains can plan for a day or so but can't plan for a year because they have no need to. White brains can plan for a year but only the best of us can plan for a century, but we have pulled off things that required a century of planning - there were castles, cathedrals, and many other great architectural projects that required 100+ years of planning and labor. The kikes are merchants, so rather than planning their year to get through winter (as whites had to do to survive), they had to plan out long journeys by land and sea where it would be a month from one stop to the next and multiple years before they'd return home. Because of their history as merchants who were located at the meeting point between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, between Europe, north Africa, and Asia, they had to plan land and sea trade routes to the ends of the known world. That required a level of planning that was beyond what even whites had to do to survive. It came with plenty of side effects, like an aversion to real work and a manipulative nature which make them intolerable in any significant quantity in other nations, but it does give them the advantage of being able to plan long term to a greater degree than almost anyone else.
But you're also underestimating just how fucking WEIRD the jews are. Watch this and get back to me. It's not just that the jews planned 9/11 decades in advance, it's not just that they inserted that symbolism into mass media decades in advance, it's not just that they told us ahead of time what they were going to do - they've done it dozens of times in dozens of different forms of media with fucktons of occult symbolism wrapped around their predictions, and they brag about it.
https://odysee.com/@TheNaturalOrder:5/2023-10-08-13-02-27:7
[ + ] Bonlio99
[ - ] Bonlio99 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 12:11:08 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:11:01 ago (+2/-1)
https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-War-of-the-Sons-of-Light-Against-the-Sons-of-Darkness
It was a jewish affair that was brought to the gentiles by Saul the Pharisee. So while I don't think it was invented by jews to take over Rome, that is, in effect, what happened.
The author makes much ado about how the Bible condemns "Talmudic" jews, but there's nothing new about "righteous" jews railing against other misbehaving jews.
But regardless, the end result is still the same: gentiles worship the god of Israel, Yawheh/Rabbi Jebus, and as a result Christians are the biggest supporters of Israel and jews today.
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 0 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:20:06 ago (+2/-2)*
Also calling Jesus Rabbi makes no sense and shows how little you know about his teachings because he himself said don't call me Rabbi.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:30:36 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:34:13 ago (+2/-1)
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 2 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:38:42 ago (+2/-0)
Why would I want to get my heart circumcised? I don't even want to get my dick circumcused. What a disgusting religion. "Accept cutting off of the tip of your dick into your heart. Get the tip of your dick cut off on the inside." Um, no. How can you even write something like "circumcised heart" with a straight face?
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony -1 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:24:13 ago (+2/-3)
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:31:31 ago (+2/-1)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
[ + ] Name
[ - ] Name [op] 0 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 18:37:17 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 18:44:32 ago (+0/-0)
Just read the (((Bible))), dude. Saul the Pharisee. Rabbi Jebus. The Chosen People with a Promised Land.
"25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[d] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27
“and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."
[ + ] Name
[ - ] Name [op] 0 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 19:06:48 ago (+0/-0)
Perhaps some of the other Bibles were jewed in different ways or at different times than the Roman Bibles you are familiar with?
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 23:39:48 ago (+0/-0)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11&version=ESV
I use English Standard Version because that was the one recommended when I did some research as being the most authentic. I know lots of Christians have a fetish for KJV, but it's hard to read:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+11&version=KJV
If you think it's just a versioning problem, tell me what you're preferred version is. But the basic facts of the (((Bible))) as I laid them out are not a versioning problem. It's a fundamental one.
[ + ] Name
[ - ] Name [op] 0 points 6 monthsNov 6, 2023 05:12:38 ago (+0/-0)
Chapter 11
v.1 But I say, Hath Aloha put away his people? Not so. For I also am of Israel, of
the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benyamen.
v.2 Aloha hath not put away his people whom from before he knew. Or know
you not what he saith in the scripture concerning Elia, when he cried unto Aloha against Israel, saying,
v.3 My Lord, thy prophets have they killed, and thy altars overthrown, and I alone am left, and they seek my soul?
v.4 And it was said to him by revelation, Behold, I have left to myself seven thousand men, who upon their knees have not kneeled nor worshipped Baal.
v.5 So also, at this time, a residue is left by the election of grace.
v.6 But if by grace, it is not of works; otherwise grace is not grace. But if by works, it is not of grace; otherwise work is not work.
v.7 What then, That which Israel sought he hath not found; but the election hath found: but the rest of them are blinded in their hearts.
v.8 As it is written, Aloha hath given them the spirit of trouble, And eyes that see not, and ears that hear not, until the present day.
v.9 And David again saith, Let their table become a snare before them, And their reward be for a stumbling-block:
v.10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, And their back at all times be bowed;
v.11 But I say, Have they stumbled so as to fall? Not so: but, by their stumbling was salvation to the Gentiles, unto [the stirring up of] their zeal.
v.12 And if their stumbling were wealth to the world, and their condemnation wealth to the Gentiles, how much then will their fulness be?
v.13 To you, Gentiles, I speak, I, who am apostle of the Gentiles, in my ministry I glory,
v.14 if I may provoke my fleshly kindred, and save some of them.
v.15 For if their rejection was the reconciliation of the world, what (will) their conversion (be) but life from the dead?
v.16 For if the first-fruits be holy, (so) also (will be) the mass; and if the root be holy, (so) also the branches.
v.17 And if the branches were cut off, and thou who art a wild olive art engrafted in their place, and hast a participation of the root and fatness of the olive, v.18 boast not against the branches: but if thou boast, thou bearest not the root,
but the root beareth thee.
v.19 And perhaps thou wilt say, The branches were cut off, and I in their place
am engrafted:
v.20 Well, they on account of unbelief were cut off, and thou by faith standest:
be not exalted in thy mind, but fear.
v.21 If Aloha spared not them who were branches by nature, (take heed) lest he
spare not thee.
v.22 Behold, then, the goodness and the severity of Aloha: towards them who
fell, severity; but towards thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness; if not, thou also wilt be cut off.
v.23 And they, if they continue not in their want of faith, they also shall be engrafted; for Aloha is able again to engraft them.
v.24 For if thou who art of the wild olive which is thy nature, wast cut off, and, which was not thy nature, art engrafted into the good olive, how much more they, if they are engrafted into the olive of their nature?
v.25 But I would have you know, my brethren, this mystery, that you may not be wise in your own mind,---that blindness of heart for a little space is unto Israel until the fulness of the Gentiles be brought in:
v.26 and then all Israel shall be saved. As it is written, The Redeemer shall come from Sion, And turn iniquity from Jakub;
v.27 And then shall be to them my covenant, When I have forgiven them their sins.
218 ETHERIDGE TRANSLATION O F THE ARAMAIC NT
v.28 But, in (regard of) the gospel, they are enemies on your account; and, in the election, they are beloved on account of the fathers.
v.29 For Aloha turneth not in his gift and in his vocation.
v.30 For as you also were not obedient unto Aloha at the first, and now have received mercy, through their disobedience;
v.31 so also these are now disobedient for the mercy that is upon you, that upon them also might be mercy.
v.32 For Aloha hath included them all in disobedience, that upon all he might show mercy.
v.33 O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of Aloha, whose judgments man searcheth not, and whose ways are inscrutable!
v.34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his counsellor?
v.35 Or who hath first giveth to him, that so he should receive from him?
v.36 For all is of him, and all in him, and all by him. To him be praises and benedictions unto the age of ages. Amen.
[ + ] chrimony
[ - ] chrimony 0 points 6 monthsNov 6, 2023 06:09:53 ago (+0/-0)
Why? I mean, the Aloha Snackbar is kinda funny, but other than that it reads like a weird version of KJV, which is already hard enough to read.
I have done so. It's even worse in context. Saul is telling the gentiles that the jews were the original branches of the heeb tree, and having been cut off, the gentiles were wild branches grafted in their place. But if the jews repent, then they will be an even better graft back onto the tree, for they are natural to the tree, unlike the unnatural gentiles. In short, YOU ARE AN UNNATURAL GRAFT.
Do you even read what you post, or do you just choose a hard to read version so you can gloss over it and assume the context fixes what is plainly read in a modern version?
[ + ] Name
[ - ] Name [op] 0 points 6 monthsNov 6, 2023 06:18:02 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] AlexanderMorose13
[ - ] AlexanderMorose13 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:03:43 ago (+1/-0)
The basic sequence of events means that the jews put in a whole lot of work and effort to maintain and start the psyop, but then stopped putting nearly the same level of effort into maintaining the psyop as time progresses, even very nearly admitting their hand in it. The pattern in the middle doesn't fit.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 14:34:14 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] DanielR
[ - ] DanielR 0 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 11:39:55 ago (+2/-2)
[ + ] Name
[ - ] Name [op] 1 point 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 18:41:42 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Tallest_Skil
[ - ] Tallest_Skil -1 points 6 monthsNov 5, 2023 12:20:51 ago (+1/-2)
Kill yourself.