The claim I'm seeing a lot is that Christianity is a jewish cult (religion, project, enterprise, emanation, etc. etc.) Simply, to be a Christian means to be beholden to jews in some important sense.
Some have even claimed that Christianity was a jewish invention, a literal conspiracy by a 1st-century jewish intelligentsia (with the help of Roman pawns) to create a "religious golem" that would help Judaism to spread its virus into the gentile "mainframe", infecting our cultures unto the present day.
I have a challenge for you.
(1) Are Christians today being better Christians than they were in the past? (Does Christianity have a more sprawling influence on the white European culture today than it did. . .a hundred years ago, two hundred years ago, or a millennium ago?)
(2) Are all of the pro-jewish things undermining the West escalating in their intensity and reach?
(3) All else being equal, for the most recent decade or two, has Christianity strengthened in the west at the same time as the pro-jewish trends have strengthened?
If jews created Christianity to promote values in a target (host) society, why does it appear as if Christianity requires being undermined at the same time as the pro-jewish values are being inoculated?
If Christianity is a jewish virus for destroying a target society from within, wouldn't we expect jews to be promoting Christianity in the west?
If we were approaching a theoretical maximum in the west for the pro-jewish degeneracy trends, wouldn't we expect Christianity to also be at a theoretical maximum?
At what point does the golem become an enemy to those who created it, and at that point, how does it continue to be a boon for the jews? Either it is opposed to jews or it isn't. You don't get it both ways.
1. Depends on what you mean by being a good christian. If christianity is defined as golemhood, then mainstream christianity today is just as good at being a golem as it ever was. If christianity is defined as living according to the moral code from the bible, then you're going to have a lot of disagreement over what that really means, even among christians - does it mean following the ten commandments from the jewish torah, or does it mean being forgiving, generous, and non-judgmental as jesus mostly preached? Does it mean letting jews get away with usury because the old testament tells them to? The bible is so full of contradictory ideas, it's hard to pin down what being a good christian even means.
For much of christian history, the vast majority of "christians" didn't even have access to a bible - the bible was used to control the priesthood and nobility who could read, and that was all it needed to do. From there, the priestly and noble class could direct the masses, whether that be mass worship of a jewish god to channel spiritual energy to the jews, or whether that be kings and nobles going to war with non-christians to impose their jewish control scheme on them.
Once the printing press was invented, the bible spread, and christianity changed massively soon afterwards with the protestant reformation. Was protestantism superior to catholocism or orthodoxy? It's far less spiritual and far more materialist, a step closer to deism which is a step closer to atheism. It also divided Europe, but then again, jesus said he came to divide "father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother" (matt 10:34-36, luke 12:52-53). Is dividing Europe against itself being better christians?
But you seem to be specifically asking whether christianity has a stronger hold over Europe and the European diaspora today than it did 100-1000 years ago, rather than whether christians today are better or worse at being christian. I would say it has a stronger hold over the portion that is christian than it did prior to the widespread availability of bibles by the public, but its hold has waned over the past century. But its hold was still strong as of WWI-II when Europeans were still being pitted against each other in massively deadly wars.
2. Currently yes, but you also have to compare this to prior times in history. As Rome neared collapse, degeneracy reached its peak despite christianity being more widespread than it had ever been up til that point. In the Weimar era, Germans were still very christian despite all the degeneracy that was allowed to grow. There are also plenty of mainline churches that are helping accelerate the degeneracy in many ways, from lgbt acceptance to mass immigration.
You also need to be careful not to pigeonhole jews as pushers of one particular set of behaviors. The jews are not just usury, globohomo, feminism, and mass immigration. The same jews who push lgbt and feminism here also created theocratic islamic extremist groups like isis, al qaida, and hamas that throw gays off tall buildings and treat women as property. The same jews that control the banks here created and spread communism which is anti-banking and anti-usury. The jews are not synonymous with a particular belief system or behavior pattern being pushed onto us today; they don't care whether they rule you through feminism and degeneracy or female enslavement and sexual repression.
We can also see plenty of times throughout history when christians allowed jews to convert, only for those jews to undermine their host society - opening the gates to invaders, pushing for more acceptance of jews who didn't convert, infiltrating governments, etc. karl marx' father, for example, converted to christianity so he could get a job in government - but do you really think a guy who was descended from 10 generations of rabbis in a row converted sincerely? Or is it more likely he "converted" because the jews needed him to infiltrate the government?
3. The issue here is that christianity is far from the only jewish golem. Being the oldest and biggest, it definitely has certain strengths, but as our society has changed significantly over the past two centuries, it is also showing its age significantly. As flexible as christianity is - you can use it to promote sexual repression and male dominance or you can use it to promote tolerance of degeneracy and egalitarianism, for example - it doesn't give them answers (let alone flexible answers that they can change as necessary) to many of the big questions of the modern era. If the jews are trying to replace christianity, it's not because it isn't jewish, but because they have dozens of new jewish control schemes that are better suited for the modern era, each of which has some group of jews that would like to see their chosen control scheme rise and replace christianity.
Either it is opposed to jews or it isn't. You don't get it both ways.
You are so incredibly wrong here.
How do you explain communism? A big part of the basis of communism is opposing usury, which jews have always used as a tool, and opposing the banker/capitalist class which is extremely jewish. Are you going to argue that communism is anti-jewish because it opposes a significant tool for jewish power? Because it targets a class that is disproportionately jewish and responsible for jewish control of the west? Because marx said some mean things about his own people the same way jesus did? Or is communism pro-jewish because almost every key figure behind its creation and spread was ethnically jewish and the first thing the soviets did when they took power was outlaw anti-semitism?
Clearly the golem can be "anti-jewish" on the surface and still jewish under the hood, and communism is the perfect example of that.
The bible is so full of contradictory ideas, it's hard to pin down what being a good christian even means.
Forget whether or not the typical Christian meets a theological standard, internal to Christianity, that is supposed to satisfy its own criteria for salvation. The other sense in which you used "good" in this paragraph is irrelevant given the spirit of the question I posed. Instead, we're targeting something like committment, and to the extent that greater levels of commitment correspond with cultural unification, what is really being asked is whether it is appropriate to say that western people today are "more or less" Christian than they were in the past. Put another way, we're asking whether Christianity is better today at describing the dominant ethos and worldview of western people than it was in the past; to the extent that exemplifying a Christian worldview means being committed to a Christian ethic, then we could establish some criteria for empirically verifying this. I don't plan on doing this research for the sake of a debate on a forum, but I can probably also rely on research that has already been performed, e.g., research by Pew or some other organization who studies prevailing religious attitudes for large populations.
Consider the difference in worldviews between people in the high middle ages versus the typical American today, even a church-going one. Intuitively, the west is less Christian today than it was in the past, given the usage I described above.
For much of christian history, the vast majority of "christians" didn't even have access to a bible - the bible was used to control the priesthood and nobility who could read, and that was all it needed to do. From there, the priestly and noble class could direct the masses, whether that be mass worship of a jewish god to channel spiritual energy to the jews, or whether that be kings and nobles going to war with non-christians to impose their jewish control scheme on them.
This is irrelevant. All that is relevant is the ubiquity and influence of the Christian worldview on the society. It doesn't matter how it is promulgated. Every single person could have believed they had an encounter with Jesus, or it could have been spread by a central authority. It doesn't matter for this debate.
Once the printing press was invented, the bible spread, and christianity changed massively soon afterwards with the protestant reformation.
This is relevant theologically, politically, and sociologically. Schism impacts the viability of Christianity to have a ubiquitous political, unifying authority over the non-jewish population. Since Protestantism was a radical break with tradition, then it is arguable that two Christianities result from the schism. The question is how we should think about this development. Why did the schism occur? What resulted? As I said before, Protestantism is fraught with dissonance. On the one hand, Luther was critical of the jews. On the other hand, Luther's theology was a massive judaizing force. Catholicism's strength against the judaizing trend until that point had been its enforcement of tradition, as opposed to leaning on a literal text/book as a rule of faith. The Protestant change was a move in Christianity back toward antecedent jewish roots.
Question: has Protestantism represented a boon for jews in terms of exploiting Christianity in the west? If so, then it looks like this required compromising Christianity in order to make jewish inroads into it. There is a lot to be said about the corruption of the papacy in the Renaissance and the influence of the jewish merchant class and masonic forces on the Rennaissance Church. Given that freemasonry is thoroughgoingly jewish, this looks more like evidence that jews undermined a legitimate enemy from within in order to shatter it. But that's not a good case for the pre-schismatic Church being a jewish golem.
It's far less spiritual and far more materialist, a step closer to deism which is a step closer to atheism.
Yes and no. I say "yes" in terms of their belief in the material and formal sufficiency of scripture (alone) to rule their faith. I say "no" in terms of history. You need only look at the history of Christianity in the US, specifically the movement of spiritual revivals and the birth of th evanegelical strain to see that spiritualism was far more potent in the west after the schism. That is probably because they decoupled themselves from their original historical tradition.
It also divided Europe, but then again, jesus said he came to divide "father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother" (matt 10:34-36, luke 12:52-53). Is dividing Europe against itself being better christians?
If it divided Europe, then I think you're giving me better evidence that jewish subversion explains the schism, as opposed to better explaining the origins of Christianity, i.e., Catholicism.
No, it is not being better Christians because it seriously harmed their overall unity. But that detail makes it sound like jewish subversion.
I would say it has a stronger hold over the portion that is christian than it did prior to the widespread availability of bibles by the public, but its hold has waned over the past century.
I would vehemently disagree. We need to be clear that what we're talking about is not the presence or absence of beliefs in people's heads primarily. We're talking about the sustained influence of a worldview and the personal, social, and political commitments that flow from it. It just isn't correct to say that the US in 2024 is a "more Christian society" than any western European nation was in the last two-thousand years. All I need for the argument is that Christianity has been a weaker national and racial unifying force today than in times past.
As Rome neared collapse, degeneracy reached its peak despite christianity being more widespread than it had ever been up til that point.
The problems leading to Rome's collapse were entrenched long before Constantine declared Christianity the national religion, and the historical facts bear out that this was mostly a nominal declaration anyway. The idea that Christianity toppled Rome is non-serious. More likely, Christianity became popular among a Roman military class that was spread far too thin over a sprawling territory. Given the vulnerabilities that Rome had failed to address, but only worsened over time, it became strategically necessary for Constantine to appease and galvanize his soldiers, given that the heart of Rome was exposed. Constantine was prudent. He just stood in front of a wave that had already begun to form in his troops. Rather than oppose it, he used it to concentrate them.
In the Weimar era, Germans were still very christian despite all the degeneracy that was allowed to grow. There are also plenty of mainline churches that are helping accelerate the degeneracy in many ways, from lgbt acceptance to mass immigration.
I wonder if you arent' being intentionally dull to these observations you're making. Christianity had been on a decline (in the sense I discussed in the first section) for quite a long time before the Weimar period. Nietzsche is clear about this. Kant was a band-aid that made the wound worse. If there was a counter-revolution in the German people against jewish degeneracy, it had a Christian underpinning, at least in spirit, which is evident from the historical facts even if it was laced with esotericism. This does nothing to discount my argument. Christianity was still a place from which an anti-jewish spirit was mounted. And regarding your comment about churches pushing LGBT stuff in the States today, they're all Protestant evangelicals. Note that the jewish "bible belt" influence in the US is almost exclusively over republican evangelicals; now return to the earlier comments about schism. This evidence seems to support the theory that jews subverted Christianity from within and made their golem from the shattered pieces (Protestant fractures); but that suggests that original Christianity was a legitimate enemy of jews, which I would also argue is evident from history.
We can also see plenty of times throughout history when christians allowed jews to convert, only for those jews to undermine their host society - opening the gates to invaders, pushing for more acceptance of jews who didn't convert, infiltrating governments, etc.
When was this converso trend most significant? In the Rennaissance. Yes, Christianity was weakened from within, and this had continental impacts from that time unto the present day. I just think this is better explained by jewish subversion through secrecy and cunning, rather than the explanation that jews invented Christianity from the beginning.
Or is it more likely he "converted" because the jews needed him to infiltrate the government?
I think the jews are parasitic opportunists. They put food on their table, so to speak, by fracturing existing structures and siphoning the blood that emanates from the wound. I think it is almost certain that Marx's father converted because he recognized it would lead to greater opportunities, and I think it is just as certain that he had no intention of being a Christian other than a nominal one.
If the jews are trying to replace christianity, it's not because it isn't jewish, but because they have dozens of new jewish control schemes that are better suited for the modern era, each of which has some group of jews that would like to see their chosen control scheme rise and replace christianity.
So it's a story of upgrading to a more fashionable model, then? Last millennium's golem has been replaced with fancy new secular ones?
If successful Christianity is making westerners beholden to the Zionist movement, your view makes no sense at all. To destroy Christianity would be to remove a pillar for Zionist support, just to replace it with a secular revolution that undermines Zionism's theological basis. Not only that, but these socialist worldviews actually leach support from global Zionism. A Marxist narrative is undermining Israel's theocratic efforts presently, i.e., to remove an oppressed class out of their homelands.
Now one jewish golem is having a head-on collission with another! What a stage the jews have made of the entire world!
How do you explain communism? A big part of the basis of communism is opposing usury, which jews have always used as a tool, and opposing the banker/capitalist class which is extremely jewish. Are you going to argue that communism is anti-jewish because it opposes a significant tool for jewish power?
Communism isn't a worldview. It is not a prescription for anything stable. It is a form of process metaphysics. In effect, it is just a method for revolution that uses a moral overlay in order to radically steal and concentrate the wealth of a society into the hands of a few. Communism isn't a permanent thing. It ends when the revolution is successful, and then there is a return to totalitarianism. It's a fucking ruse. It just shifts the capital around until it is situated in jewish hands, and then when they are successful, it will disappear.
Further, Karl Marx was a student of Christianity. He sought to understand its underlying emotive and psychological force. The Marxist revolutionary method was developed from studying Christianity. Marx attempted to do an analytic reduction of the Jesus movement to a smaller and manipulable set of concepts, e.g., that the revolutionary target would be the underclass, and that the movement should be grassroots and anti-cosmopolitan, and that this movement could be united by their shared suffering at the hands of the bourgeois.
He wanted to know how a secular formalism of Christianity could be effective in creating revolution. He was mimicking. But what he created was counterfeit. It was a fraud. But this is what evil is. An inversion of truth. A counterfeit.
So, let's try to figure out what the jews are always inverting. For, they are NOT A FUNDAMENTALLY CREATIVE RACE. But your theory makes them the most creative human force to ever live! Bollocks! Complete nonsense! The jew parasitizes. It does not create. It steals and inverts.
The jew copied and inverted Christianity, but this is perhaps the best evidence for the original truth and authenticity of Christianity. Note how every attempt at installing their faux-secular-Christianity never succeeds. Because it cannot create a kingdom of heaven. It is only a means for shuffling the deck of power and wealth, a recipe for revolution. But authentic Christianity is not a recipe for revolution merely, but for the arrival of stable truth. Christianity was a fundamental force against judaizing forces, including usury, for a very long time, until it was weakened from within by jewish parasites (disease, infection) that had added an even more concealing layer, under the guise of secret lay fraternal orders, to make themselves even more cryptic.
All that is relevant is the ubiquity and influence of the Christian worldview on the society.
Let's be clear here that you're no longer talking about christianity as a religion or belief system, but christianity as a socio-political movement. You're doing this to sidestep questions of "was christianity created by jews?" and "was the bible entirely written by jews?" and "is the god of christianity jewish?" to simply ask whether or not christianity is uniting or dividing Europe. Uniting Europe on behalf of the jews is not an improvement, and thus the questions of whether christianity is jewish cannot be sidestepped.
On the one hand, Luther was critical of the jews. On the other hand, Luther's theology was a massive judaizing force.
This is a microcosm of the way jews use their golems - Luther did what the jews wanted but grew to hate them for it, as golems always do. Any anti-jewish sentiment that comes from following an inherently jewish movement does not negate the jewishness of the movement in the same way that Luther growing to hate the jews did not negate the judaizing effect his theological split may have had. Any negativity by christians towards the jews who used christianity as a tool to control them does not negate the jewishness of christianity.
Catholicism's strength against the judaizing trend until that point had been its enforcement of tradition, as opposed to leaning on a literal text/book as a rule of faith.
In other words, catholicism's strength was that it clung to many Pagan traditions and did not enforce the jewish holy book that was supposed to provide its theological foundations. You're not arguing (at this point of the post) for going back to christianity for religious reasons, but purely for socio-political reasons in the hope that christianity can unite a sufficiently large segment of the population in favor of traditionalism and against the jews, but the traditionalism you support is not inherently christian, as you basically admit here.
The problems leading to Rome's collapse were entrenched long before Constantine declared Christianity the national religion, and the historical facts bear out that this was mostly a nominal declaration anyway.
The last half of this sentence acknowledges that Rome was christianizing prior to Constantine's declaration. Thus the question is, did christianization correlate with the degeneration of Rome? That's a clear yes. Then we must ask, was there a causal link? The christians were destroying the ancestral traditions and culture of Rome, including toppling statues and attacking temples as antifa is doing today. That was a contributing factor to Roman degeneration. Rome had also been infiltrated by jews prior to the creation of christianity, and thus the growth of both degeneracy and christianity may have had the same cause: jews. Even if you want to make the argument that christianity was not the prime contributor to the fall of Rome, it's only because christianity was a creation of the people who were the prime contributors to the fall of Rome.
If there was a counter-revolution in the German people against jewish degeneracy, it had a Christian underpinning, at least in spirit, which is evident from the historical facts even if it was laced with esotericism.
The biggest counter-revolution in the German people was led by the Natsocs who were the biggest Pagan revivalists of the 20th century. Hitler rejected most of the bible, only clung to jesus in a gnostic sense, and replaced all the jewish theology he was throwing away with Pagan theology. Many Natsoc leaders openly practiced Pagan ceremonies, used Pagan iconography (including the swastika which predates christianity by a lot), and openly discussed the judaizing influence the church had had on Europe.
This evidence seems to support the theory that jews subverted Christianity from within and made their golem from the shattered pieces (Protestant fractures); but that suggests that original Christianity was a legitimate enemy of jews, which I would also argue is evident from history.
The first absolutely does not suggest the second. You simply don't understand the nature of jewish golems. The jews do not see any one golem as being the ultimate tool to control you. Rather, they see the need for a variety of tools that can control you in different ways. Once a particular golem has become big enough and powerful enough, it is in their best interest to fracture it into different golems that are more adaptable overall because each golem has different ways it can be manipulated. If the protestant left pushing lgbt and mass immigration and the protestant right pushing endless war for israel were united, they would have trouble pushing both sets of issues at the same time and a new resistance would rise up against that set of issues. Because there are two different golems, people opposed to the first golem sign up with the second, and people opposed to the second golem sign up with the first golem, and in fighting each other the jews get both sets of issues passed while keeping the masses controlled.
I just think this is better explained by jewish subversion through secrecy and cunning, rather than the explanation that jews invented Christianity from the beginning.
Those two theories are not mutually exclusive. Just because the jews created christianity from the beginning does not mean they would not also continue subverting it as needed.
If successful Christianity is making westerners beholden to the Zionist movement, your view makes no sense at all. To destroy Christianity would be to remove a pillar for Zionist support, just to replace it with a secular revolution that undermines Zionism's theological basis.
You're looking at just one of their new creations; they have many. You're also assuming that zionism is their end goal - zionism is no more their end goal than global communism. Their end goal is the survival of their people as a distinct race who rule over the masses of other races, and that is something they need zionism, communism, and many other golems to achieve. The fact that each golem is only responsible for its piece of the plan, and that those golems go out of their way to recruit people who are opposed to other golems and their pieces of the plan to put them to use on whichever part of the plan they can be manipulated into helping with is not a bug, it's a feature that controls the opposition.
Now one jewish golem is having a head-on collission with another! What a stage the jews have made of the entire world!
You're almost getting it, but you're being sarcastic about the truth. Go watch the Star Wars prequel trilogy. Was Dooku against Sidious? Was Sidious against Dooku? Did their opposition to each other prevent them from working together to control both sides of a conflict they created? Their golems - the droids (artificial men) and clones (artificial men) - had a head on collision with each other, and it was all theater put on for the sake of moving the galaxy towards a pre-determined goal that was bigger than either golem. The golems themselves were merely tools, not the end goal. Neither Dooku not Sidious cared about the loss of their golems, or even the loss of real people dragged into their golem war, provided their end goal was achieved.
Further, Karl Marx was a student of Christianity. He sought to understand its underlying emotive and psychological force. The Marxist revolutionary method was developed from studying Christianity.
Making my argument for me here, huh?
that the revolutionary target would be the underclass, and that the movement should be grassroots and anti-cosmopolitan
Interesting that this really does parallel what jesus said, and yet christianity and communism both succeeded in the cities and failed to attract the rural underclass. Pagan originally meant "rural" because the rural poor just didn't give a shit about the church and mostly kept their old Pagan traditions alive for hundreds of years after the cities converted. The parallels between christianity and communism, which you fully admit to, should make you question christianity.
For, they are NOT A FUNDAMENTALLY CREATIVE RACE.
You and too many others in the movement are too quick to dismiss the capabilities of our most formidable enemy. If jews did not have the ability to be creative, they would not have taken over hollywood from the start. The current crop of rehashes and reboots may seem to support your claim, but many of the things hollywood is rehashing and rebooting were created by jews in the first place. The jews create media narratives out of thin air. The jews came up with false flags and psyops galore that have directed political action in the west for over a century. You think it took zero creativity to come up with covid? To come up with 9/11? To come up with the holocaust? If anything, I see an excess of imagination when I look at the holocaust - the jews went too far in coming up with creative ways the Natsocs could have killed them. Holocoasters, masturbation machines, electric floors, bears and eagles - they really are creative storytellers who can come up with all sorts of wild ideas that the rest of us would never think to try. The fact that most of the things they come up with are terrible, evil, and dishonest does not change the fact that the jews come up with all sorts of horrible things.
Christianity was a fundamental force against judaizing forces, including usury, for a very long time
Completely false, jewish usury was commonplace in Europe for many centuries before the reformation, tolerated and excused by the catholic church more often than not. I do find it interesting how you began your post trying to ignore the theological basis of christianity to make your argument, but then at the end try to use theology to claim christian superiority over communism as that is the only thing that really separates the two movements. I realize that your heart is in the right place. You want to find something that we can use to unite against the jews. You would like christianity to be that thing, whether because you were raised in it and became attached to it, or have invested in it (sunken cost fallacy), or it simply seems convenient to turn the world's biggest social control scheme against our enemies. But I don't think you have any idea how to go about doing that (if it's even possible) because you misunderstand the nature of jewish control. I really recommend you watch that video I linked you to and the golem video on the same channel. If you really want to turn the golem against its master, you should see how the golem myth has been used allegorically by people who experience spiritual reality more deeply than anyone praying in church today. Then you can decide whether you want to be the golem that dies overthrowing its master, or whether you want to build the post-jewish systems that will make the golems realize that they no longer need their master and can afford to overthrow the jews.
Let's be clear here that you're no longer talking about christianity as a religion or belief system, but christianity as a socio-political movement.
I'm thinking this is a distinction without a difference if we consider religion through a traditionalist or perennialist lens.
That's the thing. My philosophy of religion is very advanced. I'm not saying that to boast - who would I be boasting for? - but to just state a matter of fact that makes conversations in this format (Voat) difficult. It's just not the right medium for discussions of this kind. There's too much going on.
You're doing this to sidestep questions of "was christianity created by jews?" and "was the bible entirely written by jews?" and "is the god of christianity jewish?" to simply ask whether or not christianity is uniting or dividing Europe.
I have no intention of side-stepping these questions. The answers are "no" and "no", flatly. Whether a religion successfully grounds the existence of a church, conceived the right way (including as a socio-political, unifying movement), is the entire question. I believe Christianity fundamentally redefines what the term jew means. Prior to Christianity, jew had an ethno-theological significance. After Christianity, it has a political-theological significance. To be a jew in the world post-incarnation is to reject Christ. That's what it is most fundamentally; and the notion that the term jew designates a particular ethncicity is now a defunct idea. What we tend to call jews today is biologically meaningless. They're a scattered miscegenation of genetic data that have simultaneously exploited Christianity and ancient Israelite theology to larp as the inheritors of something that was never there to inherit. Christianity is the inheritance, and its parents are not only jewish, but Roman. I would argue that their father is Roman, and he has separated them from the mother completely.
At least, that is what happened in the past and needs to happen again.
I'm talking about Roman Christianity. I think nothing critical of the jewish lineage survived the application to Rome. In fact, you'll find that many orthodox Jews levy this exact criticism against Christians. Tovia Singer leans on this argument heavily. The idea is that Christianity didn't take over Rome, rather Rome absorbed Christianity and Romanized it. I believe this is true.
To begin with, the dying and rising savior deity was a concept that antedated most of the Jewish biblical lore, which came about largely as a result of both the Babylonian captivity, and later occupation under Rome. Jewish intellectuals were exposed in the latter to the great corpus of Greco-Roman literature, from Homer to Plato. I would like to say that the pre-Christian encounter with God, in a real sense, was happening in places like Rome. For me, the Christ, qua Jesus, in being assimialted to the Roman rite, was just coming back home and being consummated in the Catholic tradition that would occupy the formal station of the imperial cult.
Many gods were in the process of becoming one. Even the notion that pre-Christian jews were monotheists is incorrect. Monotheism is born of Roman Catholicism in so far as it was inherently drawing on Plato, Aristotle, and the neoplatonic tradition. It is the consummation of man's encounter with God until that point, as scattered and diverse as it had been until then: but make no mistake, it was consummated in Rome, unfortunately and fortunately at a time when Rome was in its twilight. Politically this seems suspect, but theologically it is opportune. There is a reason that we were moving away from paganism, and I am just fine thinking that this is a matter of divine providence that as the imperial, material center is dying, it is giving birth to the spiritual center, which being unshackled from a physical temple, if you will, was then free to spread across Europe, unifying Europa in Christendom. It couldn't have done this if there was still a physical temple, so to speak. It was able to unify us intellectually and spiritually, in a way that transcends mere political authority.
For many reasons, paganism (in large part defined by Catholics) is dead. If we view this strictly in terms of historical traditions, I will grant why and how that seems like a kind of unfortunate destruction. But in terms of the theology and the intellectual edifice, it is far easier to see why it is this way. The way that God relates to a people, to blood, and soil as a singular power is far different than a menagerie of local deities that people mostly pick from according to their own sense of fortune and luck. If this one doesn't work, try another. The unifying capacity of Christinaity in the Roman rite is like a "theological imperialism."
All that needs to be done is to do away with the utterly false idea that being a Christian today means reserving some special place for ethnic jews. This is just a flat misunderstanding of the significance of Christianity. Many people have lost a true sense of the tradition and its wisdom and its power to unite. The failure of the Church has to do with jewish infiltration, but also a weakening of the people who would otherwise make up the Church Militant. The Church herself is to blame, but the story as to why is very complicated. You know, the reasons for establishing a pedagogical and authoritative hierarchy in the Church is about more than maintaining strict control and disuading questions/challenges to it. It has to do with the fact that scriptures in the hands of the lay tends to lead to a judaizing tendency, of worshipping words. And Christian truth is remarkably, remarkably hard to grasp. It's just a brute fact that a majority of people will not have the cognitive power to grasp it. You need only look to the Scholastic tradition beginning in late antiquity to see how under Roman Christianity, our doctrines and philosophy of God took off at an insane pace. In its wake, rabbinical judaism and later islam were simply taking cues. (Granted, Islam would see an intellectual heyday in which some of their thinkers contributed heavily to systematic theology.)
The point is that Christainity properly understood, de-fucked from the corruption that fooled it into thinking there was such a thing as a biblical jew any longer, and returned to the Roman way, with a full understanding of its provenance (including its seminal time in the form of Greco-Roman mythos), is a way of unifying the white race against the jewish enemy. It is there. It is live. It is available. It is resurrected. This is not true of pagan forms of religion that have to be held up on crutches by romantic hearts seeking a heathen revival. We aren't heathens anymore. Not only that, but a good deal of the Norse stuff we know about post-dates Christianity anyway (Yes, I understand that their claims will be that the Norse goes back further, but critical reflection on the sacrifice of Odin, for example, isn't really popping up in things like Codex Regius until the middle ages. To me, these are reflections on Christianity, even if they aren't framed that way due to a native desire for originality. Sharp minds can see through to the truth.)
This is what I mean. The truth of Christ isn't just an ethnic truth. It's a universal truth. It is for the white man to be universal. It is for him to transcend the material world and touch heaven like no other race has been able to do. And the evil rats of the world, like Cain, who hate this about him, will strike at his heels, attempting to subvert him at all times. Unfortunately, I think jews have done this successfully, and that explains why we have this half-a-millennium decline leading us to today. A battle between Christ and those who reject him.
We can extricate Christianity from jews. I would even say it is relatively easy to do, if people could just give up the fearful way they cling to most of the contemporary arguments for why God exists and why it is the God conceived by Christianity. They want to rely on historical arguments, and it's killing us. Faith is a choice, and it should be made to think of God in the most beautiful way possible. Forget anything jewish for a moment, and the Christ is the most beautiful thought that any human mind can have about God. It doesn't belong to anyone, but Roman Christianity took it up and lifted it higher than anybody. It's our flag to carry and our cross to bear.
I believe Christianity fundamentally redefines what the term jew means. Prior to Christianity, jew had an ethno-theological significance. After Christianity, it has a political-theological significance. To be a jew in the world post-incarnation is to reject Christ. That's what it is most fundamentally; and the notion that the term jew designates a particular ethncicity is now a defunct idea. What we tend to call jews today is biologically meaningless.
Holy shit bro. Did you seriously write that? I'm gonna have to lose a little bit of the significant amount of respect I had developed for you. Like, you're seriously saying there's nothing racial about the jews, that someone who is racially descended from the ancient hebrew tribes that were accused of doing the same shit 2000+ years ago that their descendants are accused of doing today isn't really a jew and that all they have to do is accept jesus and they'll be accepted into your christianity. Would you seriously let a modern jew convert to christianity? Or respect the christian identity of someone ethnically jewish whose family converted a few centuries ago? If the answer to either of those is yes, WHAT THE LITERAL ACTUAL FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? And how can you not see why people think christians are race traitors who side with jews when you say that there is nothing racial about the jews and that christianity is non-ethnic and must accept racial jews who convert?
Of course jewishness is racial. It was always racial, as their claim to the abrahamic blessing is entirely based on the idea that they are descended from abraham whose descendants were promised they would rule many nations, with the addition that they would rule through debt slavery added by moses. Even today, there are genes that clearly identify someone as jewish, and jews whose ancestors have lived in Europe for over 1000 years are more closely related to jews from north Africa and the middle east than they are to Europeans. There are even jewish genes that make them more prone to a variety of mental disorders that coincide with their disgustingly evil behavior.
To throw that out the window and declare that jewishness is based entirely on the rejection of christ is absurd. That would make a Jap who pracitces Shinto and whose race and religion have no connection whatsoever to the ancient judeans/israelites/hebrews a "jew" because he doesn't accept christ. That would make Pagans who didn't convert to christianity "jews". Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but when you're explicitly stating that race is not a factor in what makes someone a jew, and that jewishness is entirely defined by rejecting jesus, that's how it sounds.
Even more absurd is that you don't realize the threat this poses to our people. If all a jewish shapeshifter has to do is declare himself a christian who accepts jesus to be accepted into your christian society, then every jew who wants to infiltrate you will do that. We even just talked about a jew who did exactly that to gain a position of power in government, Marx' father. Perhaps you think he didn't sincerly convert - but that's exactly the problem! There is no such thing as a jew who's sincere in their dealings with non-jews. As long as you think there's a possibility for sincere conversion, you will keep giving jews a way in, and they will keep fucking you over by pretending to convert as a way to infiltrate.
Christianity is the inheritance, and its parents are not only jewish, but Roman.
So are you gonna worship the Roman Gods in place of yahweh? Are you going to throw out the old testament and replace it with Greco-Roman spirituality and then tack jesus on to that? Of course you don't actually mean that, or you'd be a Pagan with jesus added on rather than a christian.
I would argue that their father is Roman, and he has separated them from the mother completely.
Do you know what someone with a jewish mother is? A jew.
To begin with, the dying and rising savior deity was a concept that antedated most of the Jewish biblical lore, which came about largely as a result of both the Babylonian captivity, and later occupation under Rome.
So why not cut out all the jewish parts of the bible (ie. 100% of it) and follow a spirituality based on the death and resurrection myths that were common among all Aryan descended cultures? The real, serious question that you absolutely need to ask yourself here is: If this resurrection myth is so common in so many different Pagan faiths, why are you getting your version of it from a holy book written entirely by jews, rather than from your own ancestors or from a meta-level analysis of the many resurrection myths minus the jewishness of christianity? Why are you getting it from a religion that you've already admitted is at least partly jewish (no matter how desperately you want to separate it from its jewish roots) rather than from a bunch of other sources that are 0% jewish? Why do you keep the jewish baggage of the bible and the version of the myth that's set outside of Europe in the land jews called home for over 1000 years, when you could just as easily get the same (or vastly better) religious experience without the jewish baggage?
Yes, I understand that their claims will be that the Norse goes back further, but critical reflection on the sacrifice of Odin, for example, isn't really popping up in things like Codex Regius until the middle ages. To me, these are reflections on Christianity, even if they aren't framed that way due to a native desire for originality. Sharp minds can see through to the truth.
You've already acknowledged that the theological framework of death and resurrection predates christianity significantly in a variety of Pagan faiths. So too does the idea of sacrifice, even of sacrificing the base self to the higher self. Basically nothing about Odin's sacrifice or Baldur's resurrection is any more similar to christianity than to dozens of other Pagan faiths with similar themes. If anything, christianity ripped Paganism off, which you more or less already acknowledged. Whether the Odinic tradition specifically is 2000+ years old or whether it is a newer version of an older Aryan mythos is irrelevant as it is still Pagan and not in any way christian.
Basically the entire rest of your post is a ridiculous cope to attempt to separate christianity from the people who wrote 100% of the bible. The entire old testament was written by racial jews. The writers of the original gospels, acts, and the letters of the new testament were all racial jews. You're taking a book that is completely, totally, undeniably jewish and writing paragraph after paragraph of nonsensical word salad to try to justify ignoring that fact. To do so, you're asking me to consider only one tiny little section of the bible that loosely mirrors Pagan traditions because it had to incorporate some Pagan and Roman symbolism in order for Roman Pagans to accept it, but then still rejecting Paganism and clinging to a whole bunch of jewishness. If the only part of christianity that matters to you is jesus' death and resurrection, then you can throw away your bible and replace it with something that has 0 jews in it with 0 jews involved in writing it.
The only parts of the gospels that are arguably non-jewish (but still written by jews for jewish reasons) are all allegories taken from Rome and/or Paganism generally. The parallels between jesus christ and Julius Caesar (jc/JC, ic/IC in Latin) are that both were the supposed ruler and savior of their people, both had a significant crossing (the Rubicon for JC, the cross for jc), both were betrayed by a close friend (Brutus for JC, judas/jew-brutus for jc), and both were killed in the month that begins spring (the ides of March for JC, passover which is in the first month of spring in the jewish calendar). There are parallels between jesus' life and the military campaign by the Vespasians that resulted in the destruction of the temple (which occurred after jesus' death but is referenced when he said he would return during the lifetimes of those he was speaking to), I'll let you check out Caesar's Messiah if you want more info on that. This does not absolve the religion of its jewishness, it is simply a part of the religion made necessary by the need to include Roman allegory and symbolism in a religion that was meant to subvert Rome.
But the most important thing it took from Paganism, something it had to include to capture the hearts of our people while also corrupting and obscuring it to destroy our people, is that very death and resurrection myth you're so enamored with that didn't come from the jewish bible at all. The symbolism of the tomb as a womb that grants rebirth to the ancestor is present in many Pagan myths from the Egyptian book of the dead to the runic poetry of ancient Germany. Most of those other myths have tons of symbolism focused around pregnancy, birth, and the passing down of wisdom from ancestors to children (an example is the dwarves, who have the body of a child but the head of an adult to represent ancestral wisdom passed down to the child), but the bible downplays most of that and does a far worse job of allegorically describing the cycle of reproduction and child rearing. It also replaces the idea of reincarnation of ancestral spirits through their descendants with the idea that only a jew can be resurrected from death, and you don't have to worry about it because jesus did it for you.
Is there a truth in there that is universal? Yes, but it is also simultaneously ethnic. The ancestral wisdom being passed down and, if you believe the more spiritual/mystical side of things, the ancestral spirit being reincarnated in its descendants is very ethnic. It is the continuation of your own ethnic group, not just of the whole, but also of the bloodline and tribe as microcosms of the whole that need their own specific traditions tailored to their own specific ancestors. Robbing Europe of those traditions has been the single most spiritually destructive thing done to our people in history.
But the good news is that all things die and make room for new growth, and christianity is dying. In its place will be the resurrection of the ancestors. You cannot stop this, no matter how long you cling to your jewish corpse of a religion. You have even admitted that christianity is on the wane, you simply don't want to admit that any healthy resurrection of the one part of it that is good must inherently strip away the jewish baggage of the religion and replace it with Paganism.
Did you seriously write that? I'm gonna have to lose a little bit of the significant amount of respect I had developed for you.
Fair enough. I accept the criticism. Probably, I got a little carried away at points, but I'm retiscent to withdraw my comments. Instead, I want to concede they lacked clarity or important details.
Like, you're seriously saying there's nothing racial about the jews. . .
Of course there is something racial about jews. There is something racial about all people.
that someone who is racially descended from the ancient hebrew tribes that were accused of doing the same shit 2000+ years ago that their descendants are accused of doing today isn't really a jew
I'm fine with a behavioral theory grounded, at least in part, on something physiological and inherited, like genes. I'm not endorsing a "we're all one species, bro" sort of theory. I believe there are different levels for description here, only one of which is genetic, and I deny the complete reducibility of the higher levels to the genetic level. Put another way, I'm not going to accept biological determinism, and I think there are many reasons to reject it. For example, you have a leg. Your leg is made up of many smaller parts; we could fine-grain a description of your leg to the level of individual atoms. At that level, what you'd be describing is no longer your leg (if you had the entire set of atomic facts, this wouldn't explain why the whole set of atoms was moving in the way that your leg is seen to move as a unit). So, on the one hand, it is true that your leg is constituted by those particles, and there is no further reduction that is meaningful to do, while on the other hand, it is somehow more than those atoms. Irreducibility. Similarly, whatever the jew is - whatever "race" means, for that matter - is not completely reducible to a genetic description of individuals.
But this will also depend on how we want to use the word "race." If race is just a synonym for the intersection of genes shared by people who are similar to each other, then fine, you've made it a genetic concept. But this is trivial. I think race refers to something more like the leg, rather than the atoms that constitute it.
Would you seriously let a modern jew convert to christianity?
This has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. I'm not a fatalist or absolutist who thinks that someone with jewish genetics (to whatever degree) is damnable for that reason exclusively (that is, in the absence of any other reasons). But you may be missing the point. A modern jew won't convert to Christianity.
You raise a good point about the possiblity for duplicity and deceit. The answer is complicated. I'll do my best. I believe the Church has it within herself (when she is healthy, so to speak) to "wash the blackmoor white". Critically, this is a notion that operates at the individual level. What the Church cannot withstand, even at her best, is a concerted, unified effort by her enemy to overrun her ranks, to quantitatively flood her with "blackmoors" she cannot possibly have the resources to wash. Practically, these activities occur at the ground-level, at the local level of individual parishes in the Church network. Any such network has vulnerabilities. Do I think that it is possible for a jew to restore himself or herself, to change, to authentically convert? Yes. The question has to be what this looks like when it is true, not false. A large movement of jewish migrants (insurgents) converting en masse? No, that is not within the purview of the Church to determine, and for that reason, it should be something the Church rejects. Conversions that happen at the local, individual level, say, a handful of converts a year for a given parish? Sure. We need to look at the empirical evidence and ask ourselves what the evidence indicates and ask what theory best explains it. A massive conversion of migrant jews doesn't suggest authenticity, but strategy. I think the Church can determine with prudence how to protect herself (again, if she is healthy).
This touches again on the idea that we can talk at different levels. To use a different example, we'll talk about blacks. I know individual black people who I like and get along with. At the very same time, I would say that, all else equal, I don't want to live in a black neighborhood, or a majority black neighborhood, and I think that the influx of blacks in such a way as to shift demographics in a community is universally a bad thing. Yet, those individuals I mentioned aren't (as individuals) exemplifying the same effect on the world as the group. And still, there is no contradiction here. I'm saying things that are true at different levels. Hierarchically, the group-lvl phenomenon needs to inform how we approach individuals of that group. If a single black person comes to the community in the span of five years, and that person assimilates without disturbance (perhaps even enriches things to whatever extent), this is a much different situation than busloads of blacks moving in down the street.
If some kind of strict purity is what you're after, the answer is to make the standard for inclusion in your community such a high bar that you exclude any undesirables. This is challenging, though, because it forces you not to be a hypocrite. Why? Because this is the kind of thing you have to enforce, yet nobody will trust the enforcer who does not meet the standard himself. A healthy community, from the top-down, which includes its leadership, will naturally exclude undesirables. If your demographics are shifting, it's because of an internal problem, either at the level of your personal culture or leadership which is undermining you (for all intents and puropses, making war on you).
Or respect the christian identity of someone ethnically jewish whose family converted a few centuries ago?
A great deal depends on whether this person is already a Christian or not, at least nominally. If we know this person has jewish heritage, and we observe that he or she is undermining the Church, then he or she can be excommunicated. At the end of the day, when we're talking about group membership, there is a basic epistemic problem. You can never know whether someone is true. This is true at the level of personal relationships. We marry people without any concrete certainty that they are true. But, we wouldn't throw away marriage for that reason alone. Much of this has to do with the impossiblity for someone to prove their intentional states (the so-called 'problem of other minds') through anything other than behavior. But that always makes detecting duplicity and deceit an a posteriori affair. So, if we set some strict rule (e.g., "You can only be a member of this Church if your skin is white), you've really only pushed the jew away by one degree. Now, all the jew needs to do is pay off a white individual to do the subverting for him. Your problem remains the same: identifying things that are subversive to the Church.
I think that a priori we do have to apply different levels of scrutiny to individuals who are members of an outgroup. If we saw this, say, Christian of ten years (with jewish ancestry) doing subversive things, our response should be different to that person than if we'd observed a white person doing the exact same behaviors.
And how can you not see why people think christians are race traitors who side with jews when you say that there is nothing racial about the jews and that christianity is non-ethnic and must accept racial jews who convert?
As I've said, every instance of "accepting a jew" into Christianity is different. You can't possibly legislate the right way to do this centrally, except in cases where the degree of "motion" (demographic change, let's say) is sufficient to alert the group-level immune system. If 30,000 jews from Iberia are suddenly claiming they want to convert to Catholicism, that should trip the alarms at the core (the heart, the brain) of the Church. But smaller-scale events, like a single jew approaching a single parish has to be something policed by the clerics at that local level.
This is the difference between being approached by a bear, versus a single bacterium approaching our endothelial tissue. We need a brain to register the fact of the bear for the whole body. But your brain never registers the encounter with a single bacterium, which is instead handled "locally". The key for that innate immunity to work is equivalent with culture. A unified identity and scrutiny and protectionism that is ubiquitous at all levels of your group.
from abraham whose descendants were promised they would rule many nations, with the addition that they would rule through debt slavery added by moses.
Will you clarify this a bit? You keep making this point, and I'm not sure how you're coming to this interpretation. Where is it prophesied that the descendants of Abraham will rule the world through debt slavery?
Even today, there are genes that clearly identify someone as jewish, and jews whose ancestors have lived in Europe for over 1000 years are more closely related to jews from north Africa and the middle east than they are to Europeans. There are even jewish genes that make them more prone to a variety of mental disorders that coincide with their disgustingly evil behavior.
I'm not denying this, and it's a good thing we have these ways of identifying members of outgroups.
That would make Pagans who didn't convert to christianity "jews". Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but when you're explicitly stating that race is not a factor in what makes someone a jew, and that jewishness is entirely defined by rejecting jesus, that's how it sounds.
At a certain level, I believe that is true. Members of those non-jewish outgroups (pagans, for all intents and purposes) do represent a priori threats. For, lacking identificaiton with you, they are more prone to being influenced by jewish outgroups. This doesn't mean that we are unable to identify jews as the particular threat they represent. We could also frame this in terms of the distinction between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. It may not be sufficient to be a jew that you reject Christ, but it is necessary for being a jew. Not all of those who reject Christ are jews, but all jews reject Christ. Any jew who is your enemy, regardless of whether he pretends to be a Christian, will reveal his rejection of Christ. If he never does reveal this, then you lack any evidence he is not a Christian. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then if you lack any evidence it is not being a duck, you should not act as if it something else. Though, you are probably going to be justified to apply differential scrutiny to individuals based on their outgroup ethnic membership. And again, severe movements of tens of thousands that alert the Church's entire immune system need to be viewed differently.
The events that led to the Catholic Inquisition are exemplary. By the time we have reached that level, i.e., of realizing there is an infection, there have been multiple tiers of sequentially worse failures, beginning at the local level, to address small-scale adversity to the Church, in this case being the introduction of heterodox ideas and interpretations of doctrine. All the more reason for supposing that it is critical for any group to maintain a strict, top-down set of standards for how things are done.
There is no such thing as a jew who's sincere in their dealings with non-jews. As long as you think there's a possibility for sincere conversion, you will keep giving jews a way in, and they will keep fucking you over by pretending to convert as a way to infiltrate.
So, you establish stricter criteria. One problem the Church has is that by prioritizing growth at the expense of survival, its "admissions criteria" became abysmally unrestricted. Missionaries were attempting to convert every nigger they found munching reeds on some foreign coast. Thigns go through expansions and retractions. I wouldn't deny that the Church, probably in attempting to self-fulfill prophecies, together with being hijacked by political rather than spiritual/cultural goals, expanded too far, too quickly. I would even say there is a parallel here between the folly of Rome and her Catholic offspring. The answer is always greater exclusivity.
For a somewhat extreme example, you might imagine an iniatic process that is something quite stronger than baptism. Imagine that being a Christian required you to take a blood oath, to swear off any allegiance or love for false gods, to give up a certain degree of privacy with respect to how you associate outside of specific litrugical gatherings, and even to have the symbol of the cross burned into your skin like a brand. In times of danger, greater sacrifice is required for membership. It's all hands on deck, as it were. As membership criteria slacken in times of perceived peace, this leads again to hard times. The Church does need to retreat, to shrink back and push out the splinter.
So are you gonna worship the Roman Gods in place of yahweh? Are you going to throw out the old testament and replace it with Greco-Roman spirituality and then tack jesus on to that? Of course you don't actually mean that, or you'd be a Pagan with jesus added on rather than a christian.
Jupiter and Yahweh were names, associated with particular conceptions, of the One God. I do not attach YHWH to the Father as if it were a proper name by which I could address him. Proper names refer; titles signify. Rather, this title, YHWH, is understood in Catholicism through a metaphysical lens ("I will be what I will be.") This is not a name like Jack that I would use to identify a human individual.
I am going to worship God the Trinity, specifically in the image of Christ.
Do you know what someone with a jewish mother is? A jew.
It was just a sexual metaphor, to hint at the idea of something "seminal" being Greco-Roman that was injected into the jewish world which was occupied by Rome at that time, resulting in a Hellenized hybrid of concepts, emanating not just from the Roman center but also Alexandria, and taking in bits and bops of what the hebrews had historically assimilated from Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. You could think of what I'm after here being something like a land claim. The land is there. It's for us to claim it, tend it, protect it. Europe lifted the image of God on high in Christianity. This is like claiming a territory. It is Europe's, to keep or lose.
So why not cut out all the jewish parts of the bible (ie. 100% of it) and follow a spirituality based on the death and resurrection myths that were common among all Aryan descended cultures?
Because there is something particular and historically unique going on here. If that weren't the case, then the Christian choice would be completely arbitrary. I think one good explanation for the Church (as phenomenon) is this uniqueness. It isn't that we are just getting a Roman cut-out cookie frosted with jew. This is why I used the sexual metaphor above.
Jesus Christ is not a carbon copy of savior gods from the national myths of surrounding or preceding states. All of the arguments that attempt to make this claim are ridiculous. Christ is neither a mere copy, nor wholly original, with respect to these preceding savior deities. The particular conception of sacrifice enshrined in Christianity is represented nowhere else, and no other tradition conceived of God in this precise way, and no other tradition saw its Church unify a continent.
The forerunning "aryan" religions did no such thing, and there is no reason to think that they would have, or even that they could. If you want to make the claim that some form of heathenry could do this, I need to see it. It's something for which the proof is in the pudding. It either does it, or it doesn't. But given that what you're up against is no less than secular modernity and the spirit of anti-Christ (if you will), you're going to be going it alone to establish an intellectual edifice that should convince anybody that your gods are real. This, while there exists two-thousand years of intellectual tradition in Catholicism that has, from its inception, battled to make belief justifiable, even against its harshest critics in modernity.
If this resurrection myth is so common in so many different Pagan faiths, why are you getting your version of it from a holy book written entirely by jews, rather than from your own ancestors or from a meta-level analysis of the many resurrection myths minus the jewishness of christianity?
I'm not sure if you keep up on much of the latest biblical scholarship, but it's becoming increasingly common to think (more weakly) that we have no idea who the authors of the gospels were, and (more strongly) they were probably Greek-speaking, Greek-educated, and (even more strongly) completely Hellenized. There is clear disagreement between the gospel authors themselves about the extent to which it should even be understood as having distinct continuity with jewish phariseism rather than being a sui generis covenantal formation. This was a primary reason for the jewish rejection of Christianity, i.e., that it was breaking down the exclusivity that previous jewish religion had built up, that it was sui generis, a great correction and revocation of exclusivity.
Why do you keep the jewish baggage of the bible and the version of the myth that's set outside of Europe in the land jews called home for over 1000 years, when you could just as easily get the same (or vastly better) religious experience without the jewish baggage?
Because what should be gleaned from it is universal. It is not locked to any piece of land. It is as true in the highlands of Scotland as it is in the Mojave desert. The beauty that is possible in Catholicism speaks for itself. It's not jewish. It belongs to Europe. Go and see one of the great cathedrals, listen inside of it, just feel what it is like to be inside.
I will blow the horn of believability all day long. You don't just pick gods. It's not a fucking shopping center. You don't get Tradition by telling people it would be more prudent to do such and such. Nobody in our day and age is going to buy the Norse pantheon as a real explanation for the world. At least, it doesn't seem that way to me.
You're taking a book that is completely, totally, undeniably jewish and writing paragraph after paragraph of nonsensical word salad to try to justify ignoring that fact.
The faith is not grounded in a book. It's a lot more than that. It is fundamentally something much deeper than any written thing.
But the most important thing it took from Paganism, something it had to include to capture the hearts of our people while also corrupting and obscuring it to destroy our people, is that very death and resurrection myth you're so enamored with that didn't come from the jewish bible at all.
I'm running out of time. I don't want to continue quoting your message line-by-line; I'd rather jump off from your quote (above) and ask you something. I'm asking you to reflect on what I'm about to say genuinely.
One thing that a religion (again, keep in mind that I'm viewing a religion in a holistic way, as a tradition that stands to unify a people) needs to do is explain the world. A religion that doesn't explain the world is no good.
So, let's assume you're right. Whatever particular religion you have in mind is what's true.
What does it explain? Where was Odin? Where was Baldur, even as these "aryan religions" were being extinguished? I don't care how you explain their virtual extinction (No, I'm not interested in the objection: "They aren't dead!"; yeah, yeah, I get it, there are hipsters who form clubs in the woods.) You can say to me that these aryan religions were unjustly extinguished through pure subterfuge. It doesn't matter.
Where was Odin and where was Baldur to stop it? Where are they now? If nothing else, I have to assume that these gods care little to nothing about the world or its human inhabitants. Clearly, whether or not humans have a relationship with them is meaningless. Even more clearly, they care not to aid their followers by protecting them against the jewish threat.
Now, you might say, "Okay, well where is Jesus?" And to that I would say that, if God is doing anything like what I said, we would be most likely to find the evidence in the resilience of certain people groups to subversion, to the self-assertion and survival of the relevant people group, to the endurance of their belief system and to its continued ability to explain the way the world is.
In what way does Odin (or Jupiter, or whoever) account for any of this? Their belief systems did not survive in any significant way, they can no longer explain the existing connection members of a race have to each other, and they don't explain the things going on in the world whatsoever.
On the other hand, Christianity does. That's the thing. If we take Christianity as true, we get a pretty good god damned explantaion for the world we actually see and experience.
Furthermore, we might expect some universal deference to show up in other faith systems which recognizes the universality of truth. Every other major, extant religious system on the planet recognizes Jesus Christ, whether it is Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism. Only modern rabbinical judaism rejects Christ, and it certainly doesn't deny his reality; rather, we find in the Talmud that the rabbis hate him. They slander him and the holy mother. It was such a controversy in the middle ages that jews in Europe had to invent a story about a completely different historical figure named Jesus to avoid penalization. It didn't work, anyway. The Catholics still burned the Talmud. (More on that in just a second.)
But if you listen to swamis in the Hindu faith, or Buddhists, or Islamic theologians, every one of them defer to Jesus. None of them can deny him. Find me one instance. I'll wait. Islam deifies him. The others recognize him as a divinity in their respective ways of conceiving of divinity (as an avatar, or what have you). Universal respect from world religion, save for rabbincal judaism. Yet, Jesus never once acknowledges them. He never defers, never accepts or admits of shared truth among world religions. He always proclaims that he alone is the way, the truth, and the life. In spite of the strength of that assertion, the other world religions don't deny him. They embrace him, such that the directionality of deference is one way, toward Jesus, not from Jesus toward the others.
Where shall I find the Buddhist monks or the Hindu swamis through the centuries heaping their respect and adoration on Baldur? Every other world religion has had to find a way, by making some kind of space within itself, to acknowledge Jesus. No other religion has had to make this space for Odin.
Catholicism, for centuries, was the only entity that sustained a resistance to jews. As I mentioned above, Catholics destroyed the Talmud. Yes, I grant (I've admitted it multiple times) that the Church was infiltrated. This does not diminish the fact that it did resist for a long time, and that it has all of the tools available to take up that resistance once more. And by accepting Catholicism, I gain for myself a coherent worldview that explains the human experience, including the things we are witnessing take place today. If I adopt some brand of heathenism, I have nothing but an appeal to "white people used to do this". I have costumes. I have fictitious stories that don't even pretend to be historical. I have gods who are nowhere to be found, who did nothing to prevent their own worshippers from being overtaken.
And to re-emphasize the point I made earlier about understanding and "levels", the Church was resisting jews without having any concept of a genetic basis for race, or even a distinct race concept. Necessarily, the level at which they were thinking about the jewish question was distinct from the way the biological determinists today are doing it. And what with all of the modern scientific understanding? Have molecular genetics and phylogenetics combined to cause us to be better at resisting the jew? Are we doing better because of it? It seems we aren't.
Do I think that it is possible for a jew to restore himself or herself, to change, to authentically convert? Yes.
This is where we're gonna have to part ways.
When it comes to the east Asians, I'll mostly agree with you - they can build functional civilizations, they can behave themselves in our communities, they can be integrated. It's still not a good idea to import a huge number of them that will have a major effect on our DNA over the course of the following generations, but a little bit of mixing here and there with quality people isn't the end of the world.
I'll even agree to a lesser extent when it comes to the blacks, arabs, indians, hispanics, native Americans, aboriginals, etc. While it's more rare to find someone from each of those races who can successfully integrate, the occasional person from those races isn't going to end European civilization as we know it, though a large scale influx would end it faster than a large scale influx of east Asians.
But the jew is another animal entirely. The Asians didn't create the three biggest social control schemes in human history. Neither did the blacks. Neither did the indians, aboriginals, etc. Maybe the arabs if you lump all semites together, but since one specific tribe of people create all three of the three biggest social control schemes in human history, I think that would be a mistake. As massive a thing as creating the biggest social control schemes in history is, even that doesn't fully encapsulate how different and dangerous the jew is.
The jews raped our nation's daughters to blackmail our nation's leaders into sending our nation's sons to fight and die in their wars while they brainwashed our people, poisoned our food supply and medical system, and stole so much of our money that most of us can't even afford to create another generation of children for them to rob, rape, poison, brainwash, enslave, and kill. That is not something any other race of people has ever accomplished. But even that does not fully encapsulate how different and dangerous the jew is.
The jews orchestrated major world events from covid to 9/11 to the sinking of the titanic to the black plague to opening the gates in Spain and Byzantium and beyond. They orchestrated many of these events while telling the public ahead of time that they were going to do them by placing symbolic allegories about the events in plain sight - sometimes very obviously, such as the Trump campaign episode of the Simpsons, sometimes less obviously, such as the pandemic dance at the 2012 Olympics. Sometimes they are done with so much detail included that it is impossible to deny once you see it all laid out, such as in Back to the Future. Other times it's a mention here, a mention there, a pattern that's easy enough to spot when you know to look for it but hard to notice if you're just passively consuming media. In most cases, they also inserted significant spiritual allegorical symbolism alongside their predictions. You will only begin to understand the jew when you have seen this, and as far as I know you still have not watched the videos I linked you.
Despite your religiosity, you are still looking at the jews as if they are a primarily material, biological thing, a race of people that is a little different from you and I genetically but who are still mostly the same, just a bit different on average like any race. The jews do not see themselves this way. They see their race as distinct in a spiritual sense, not just a material sense, and they see the material differences as downstream from the spiritual differences. Until you realize that the jews see themselves as spiritually separated from and above the rest of humanity, you will not understand the jew.
Where is it prophesied that the descendants of Abraham will rule the world through debt slavery?
deuteronomy 15:6 is the clearest example, but there are many. In deuteronomy 15:6, moses is talking to the chosen tribes and tells them that they will lend to many nations and put them into debt but never accept loans or debt themselves, and in doing so they will rule many nations but be ruled by none. This is expanding on the abrahamic blessing of genesis 17:6 where abraham is told that not only will he father many tribes (the tribes of israel and edom) but also that he will father a multitude of kings. While many bible scholars consider the line about fathering many kings to be a reference to the kings of the tribes of israel, the verse in deuteronomy makes it clear that they will rule not only their own tribes, but many nations whose people are not descended from abraham.
When god promised abraham that he'd father many rulers, it had not yet been decided whether the jews would rule through deception or the sword. jacob answered that by claiming the blessing for the trickster and stealing it from his warrior brother. joseph then followed that up by taking over the Egyptian economy and becoming the de facto ruler of Egypt which allowed him to invite his entire tribe in to feed off the fat of the land. So this is not just a few cherry picked verses (not that something as fundamental as the abrahamic blessing is cherry picked), but a concept confirmed through narrative as well as being stated directly in multiple places.
It also makes little sense for abraham to father the kings of his own people since the tribes didn't even have kings until david many centuries later, and before david became kingsamuel warned the chosenites that god did not want them to have kings in 1 samuel 8:10-18. Why would god not want his chosen tribes to have a king ruling their nation after having promised abraham that he'd father many kings? Because the point was never to give the jews kings to rule their own people, but to make the jews rulers of other nations.
So, you establish stricter criteria. One problem the Church has is that by prioritizing growth at the expense of survival, its "admissions criteria" became abysmally unrestricted. Missionaries were attempting to convert every nigger they found munching reeds on some foreign coast. Thigns go through expansions and retractions.
From the perspective of the jews who created it, this is not a bug, but a feature. The narrative of tolerance and inclusivity, that jew and greek are one in jesus, that none of us is perfect and thus we must not throw stones to punish criminals but leave that up to god, these are all elements of the new testament that strip away the ethnic tribalism of the old testament and replace it with evangelical egalitarianism.
Jesus Christ is not a carbon copy of savior gods from the national myths of surrounding or preceding states. All of the arguments that attempt to make this claim are ridiculous.
Here we agree, but for very different reasons. You believe the difference is something uniquely good, I believe the difference is something uniquely jewish and therefore evil. The primary difference between jesus and the other mystery cults, resurrection/reincarnation myths, and demigod saviors is that jesus is jewish, and there is something uniquely sinister about the jews who corrupt everything they touch in a way that differs significantly from all other races.
no other tradition saw its Church unify a continent.
Is that really a good thing, in an ethno-nationalist context? Greater unity with outgroups brings with it greater challenges. The very problems you were describing with the church being too accepting of outgroups grow exponentially with a church that attempts to unify entire continents and beyond. Ethnic faiths may have been more limited in their scope, but they were also more tailored to the spiritual needs of their specific tribe, and avoided the problem of subversive outgroups pretending to convert in order to subvert the host nation. The accomplishment you see as the pinnacle of christian achievement is also the source of its corruption and one of the flaws that makes it so easy for jews to infiltrate and subvert it.
I'm not sure if you keep up on much of the latest biblical scholarship, but it's becoming increasingly common to think (more weakly) that we have no idea who the authors of the gospels were, and (more strongly) they were probably Greek-speaking, Greek-educated, and (even more strongly) completely Hellenized.
Were the people described in the bible as jesus' close associates hellenized jews? Did they seem like the type of people who spoke Greek? This lends credence to the idea that christianity is a fiction, that the gospels were created not by witnesses to a man working miracles but by a conspiracy to subvert Rome. josephus spoke and wrote in Greek, saul probably spoke and wrote in Greek, but the random assortment of judean fishermen and laborers who followed jesus around were no scholars of Greek. If you're right, that's evidence that supports the theories that jews invented christianity to subvert Rome or that Romans invented christianity to subvert jews, but it is not evidence that the bible is an authentic document about a real messiah.
The beauty that is possible in Catholicism speaks for itself. It's not jewish. It belongs to Europe. Go and see one of the great cathedrals, listen inside of it, just feel what it is like to be inside.
The cathedrals were built by European hands, but that does not make the book preached inside the cathedrals European, especially when almost none of the story takes place in Europe. You're also contradicting yourself by first saying it's universal and then saying it belongs to Europe.
The faith is not grounded in a book. It's a lot more than that. It is fundamentally something much deeper than any written thing.
And yet it is defined largely by the book. The biggest thing that separates the abrahamic faiths from non-abrahamic faiths is how reliant they are upon scripture. They've been repeatedly called the religion of the book for this reason. Most Pagan faiths were defined more by practice than by scripture, but christianity has always placed scripture in a higher position than other faiths.
A religion that doesn't explain the world is no good.
A religion that explains the world inaccurately is no good.
Are you expecting Paganism to give you a clear explanation of the origins of the universe? None of us were there, none of us will be able to prove what happened. Neither were the jews, and their holy book's claims about the origins of the universe are as silly as any Pagan creation myth if taken literally rather than allegorically. You are trying to hold Paganism to a standard that Paganism doesn't claim to meet, but christianity claims to meet while failing to actually meet.
Are you expecting ethnic faiths to give you a clear explanation of the origins of people besides the ethnic group that created them? Again, this is a ridiculous thing to expect, and the bible only gives you the origin story of one single ethnic group, so it is not any better. Again you are trying to hold Paganism to a standard that Paganism doesn't claim that christianity claims but fails to meet.
You ask why Odin and Baldur did not prevent their religion from being replaced through jewish subterfuge; and yet in their spiritual allegories, they predict their own demise at the hands of the god of lies and deception, and their eventual resurrection after his defeat. Were they supposed to prevent an event that they themselves predicted would happen?
You also keep looking at those Pagan Gods and expecting them to be the one true god, something that doesn't exist no matter how desperately you want it to. There are spiritual forces in the world, but those spiritual foces are not a single monopole of power that exerts itself on everything. Those spiritual forces are billions of different points that are not all working in perfect harmony, and in some cases working in dissonance against one another. You desperately want the spiritual world to all be united as one singular force, but reality is not united as one singular force, so why would the spiritual world be?
Every person has a spark of the divine in them. Every person's belief and spiritual practices affect the world around them. Not all people have an equal amount of spiritual power and not all people develop their spiritual power to the same extent; some people have more power than others and spirituality is not egalitarian any more than it's fully centralized around a single axis. In addition to each person's own spiritual contribution to the world, there are spiritual entities that have developed due to the belief, ritual worship, and action of their followers (and possibly for a variety of other reasons that are hard to ascertain or prove). Those entities and the power they have last far longer than any human lifetime, and thus the Gods can plan for events in their competition with other Gods that may require us to wait many lifetimes to see them come to fruition.
Our people's Gods are our Gods. The jewish god is the jewish god. Our worship of our ancestral Gods empowered our Gods. The jews' worship of their god empowered their god, and our people's worship of their god is also empowering their god. Our Gods and their god battled in the spiritual realm, and as predicted our Gods died but in doing so paved the way for the eventual defeat of the jewish god and their eventual resurrection, something the Roman Gods failed to do, something the Egyptian Gods failed to do, something all other Gods failed to do. It was Germany under Hitler, seen by Jung and many esotericists as an avatar of Wotan/Odin, that put up the most significant resistance to jewish rule in centuries and paved the way for the next act of resistance against them. When the jews are defeated, it will be at the hands of the next avatar of Wotan, not at the hands of people who worship a jewish conception of god.
Your argument for jesus being the one true faith basically boils down to "a bunch of people follow him, and the religion is spreading, so therefore it must be true." But the fact that his religion has spread like a disease does not make it any more true in a literal sense than any other religion. Has the spread of christianity made people behave the way the bible tells them to? Perhaps in a ritualistic sense, but certainly not in the moral sense that christianity claims as its highest good. It also has not stopped jewish power from spreading. Before christianity, the jews were a nation of merchants who attempted to subvert Pagan nations across the Mediterranean and southern Asia but repeatedly got their asses kicked for it, eventually getting their temple burned and their home base decimated by Pagans. Under christianity, jews became a subversive subculture of merchants and bankers in every christian nation who occasionally got run out of town, unless they pretended to convert and laid low for a few generations. Pagans treated them as a known external threat that was never to be fully trusted. christians treated them as a special class of people with special rights that the nobles and church leaders occasionally kicked out when they didn't want to pay their debts, only to let them back in again the next time they needed a loan.
Your example of islam as respecting jesus doesn't really count for much since it is another abrahamic faith created by the same jews who created jesus. Your examples of hinduism and buddhism are a little better, but to rebut them I'd have to get into a lengthy discussion of the parallels between krishna, buddha, and jesus and the fact that buddhism and the krishna variety of hinduism both spread after jewish merchants had established regular trade with India long enough to learn their language and study their customs and religions, and I don't want to take the time when this is already getting to be a hella long post (it would also bring us from about 80% of the world following a jewish control scheme to about 98% of the world following a jewish control scheme, but oh well). Since you haven't watched the other videos I linked yet I won't link you to yet more hour plus videos that you don't have time for.
Catholicism, for centuries, was the only entity that sustained a resistance to jews.
This is a bold faced lie as Paganism still existed in Europe until about 100 years before the reformation. Pagan nations were putting up resistance to jews on all fronts while catholics were giving jews exclusive rights to control the banks and loan money at interest and letting them infiltrate the priesthood. It is because European nations that converted to christianity that Pagan nations that did not give jews special financial privileges were eventually defeated and forced or pressured into converting.
Gonna expand a bit one something that's been on my mind since seeing your post yesterday but which I don't think I articulated well enough in my last reply.
When you look at the nature of the universe, you do not see singular centralized phenomena, but dispersed and emergent phenomena. For example, gravity is not one single central point pulling the entire universe in the same direction, but a force which every individual particle in the universe has a little bit of that it exerts on the universe around it individually. Large numbers of particles may join together to exert a larger total gravitational force, multiple large bodies may even exert competing forces on other bodies, but there is no one central gratitational pole of the universe.
Similarly, there is no singular electromagnetic field that exerts force on the entire universe. Rather, there are protons and electrons that each have their own electromagnetic field that they exert on the universe around them. Many protons and electrons may move together to create a particular electromagnetic field or exert a force on other particles around them, but as with gravity, they may cooperate or compete as groups but they are still distinct discrete particles with their own force and energy.
Similarly, life did not begin with one big centralized biological entity that then created all the smaller discrete forms of life from it. Rather, life emerged as protein chains that evolved into single celled organisms that evolved into multi celled organisms. Life was an emergent phenomenon, not an absolute created in its current form by a single centralized creator.
So why would you expect spirituality to be a single centralized entity that affects the entire universe at once, rather than an emergence of spiritual forces created by a coalescence of individual spiritual sources? The idea that each particle has spiritual energy in the same way that each electron or proton has electromagnetic charge and each subatomic particle has gravitational mass, and that those particles then coalesced into biological organisms that have a stronger spiritual energy, and then into humans who have a greater overall spiritual energy because we have evolved to harness and channel that energy, some of us moreso than others, and then into spiritual entities beyond humanity that have been built by the focusing of spiritual energy into those particular entities.
The problem with christianity is it is a focus that was created primarily by jews who are focusing your spiritual energy into a spiritual entity that pretends to be universal but originated from jews and still primarily serves them. Even with a majority of the world worshiping jews, their spiritual entities are not completely dominant or unipolar over the entire world, but as long as enough people continue to spiritually empower them, they will continue to dominate the world.
The first step in the jewish takeover was religions like christianity (and arguably atenism and other ancient attempts at such a unified religion) which directed our spiritual energy to them but didn't neuter it, so while they could receive and direct our spiritual energy through their entities, there was still a bit of a struggle to keep our faith directed towards their entity in ways that empower their goals. That helped them take power, but left them with the risk that we would turn our spiritual energy away from them or relearn to harness it in a way that threatened them.
Now that their power is great enough, they are changing their old religions and creating new non-religious movements, partly to capture those who are leaving their control schemes, and partly - in the case of the atheistic movements they foster - to strip us of our spirituality and cause our spiritual side to stagnate and decay. Over a long enough time period, our greater ability to channel spiritual energy relative to the rest of life (and other races) will wither and decay and we will lose that ability, leaving the jew as the supreme spiritual masters of the world.
The unipolar religions of abrahamism are a lie, but they are a very useful lie to whoever the singular, central focus of that spiritual energy is working with/for. The Pagan multipolar religions are more accurate, but because they are tribal, they have the weakness that each entity or group of entities can be targeted alone by a large and powerful centralized spiritual force. Our Gods saw this coming and prepared for their defeat, laying the groundwork for their eventual resurrection after the destruction of the jewish spiritual power structure, and we are heading towards a planned clash of spiritual forces that both abrahamics and Asatru know is coming.
Will you continue to fight for the jews as their golem, hoping in vain to overthrow your masters even as you serve them? Or will you overthrow your master, abandoning their golem religion to die with them?
I will be replying to both of these comments. I have just taken a little time to consider them.
If you would, please send me the best video or videos you have re: norse/germanic gods and religion. I am not as interested in modern practice at this point as I am in philosophy and history, specifically the relationship between norse and christianity. I don't want gimmicky stuff, not that I would imagine you personally endorse or enjoy that stuff anyway. Treat it as if you had one chance to convince someone you were a great chef. I want the best meal in your repertoire.
I wasn't converted by watching videos and most of my research into the subject is done by reading rather than watching videos. Honestly, though, sending you a video about ancient myths and religious practices probably won't really do much for your actual understanding of the religion until you've gone through a paradigm shift in how you think about reality. The video I linked you to a few days ago and the golem video from the same channel will do more than random videos about Germanic Pagan beliefs and practices to open your mind to a different way of understanding spirituality.
Something I will say if you haven't yet watched those is that there are things that have been shoved in your face constantly for your entire life, things that have been shoved in the general public's face constantly for our entire lives, that 99% of people have not noticed despite the fact that they've been repeated to us over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. That's not an exaggeration, there are clear patterns and references and code words/phrases that are repeated constantly through both entertainment and news media for a reason. Until you understand that reason, until you go through that paradigm shift in how you think about the things you see, you won't even be able to understand the christian religion you've been given, let alone the ancestral spirituality that's been taken from you.
I watched the Back to the Future (BTF) commentary. It's interesting. It's plausible. I enjoyed watching them (you) give the argument, but it is far from a watertight conclusion. Honestly, I'm just going to assume it's (The Natural Order) your channel or you appeared on someone else's channel. I say this because the channel is small, and its content is published on Odyssee, making it unlikely you stumbled on these videos rather than created them yourself.
To begin with, you point out a possible link with an ancient myth involving Pluto, Neptune, and Jupiter. If your theory is that this film is embedding clues about future events that conspirators are planning (at the time of the film's release), e.g., the demolishing of the Twin Towers, then we can ask whether this datum (the inclusion of an ancient mythical framework) is evidence for your theory or not. Perhaps it is, if there is also a clear link between films that utilize mythic tropes/patterns of story-telling and films that encode future events. But is it not the case that, if you randomly selected 50 films from every film made in the US since the 20th century, that you'd have fairly good odds that a large number of them would be comparable to at least one mythical narrative? Isn't that supposed by the archetypal nature of myth itself, i.e., that these are rudimentary patterns for creating stories? So, I think this point you made about the mythical connection in BTF is reasonable, I just don't know why I should infer that it makes your thesis more likely. The point would be: this datum is also going to be evidence someone can adduce for a different, competing theory: Zemeckis and many others rework existing, ancient stories that the public will be unlikely to know about in order to concoct modernized versions for profit. Or, the theory that includes the fact that writing a movie is hard, and aside from the main premise and plot, there are a lot of details that require filling in, so to speak, and creatives who are lazy may use mythical stories as a way of conveniently gathering details to fill in the gaps of their present stories. Oh, you need some event at the school to be taking place? Well, this myth is about Neptune, so why not go with a sea theme?
Keep in mind, what I'm saying is in no way refuting your thesis. I can't refute it. One issue with this is that it's impossible to demonstrate what someone's intentions are. We cannot definitively prove that Zemeckis et. al. had the intention of pre-programming 9/11 into their film. What I'm suggesting is that, given competing hypotheses, the evidence you're adducing to convince us that yours is right is the same evidence another theorist can take into making a different case. Then, when the whole analysis is finished, and all of the evidence is on the table, we ask ourselves (a) which theory best explains the data and (b) which theory requires the fewest commitments to low-probability things/events (simplicity, Ockham's razor).
From there, it seems like your argument relies mostly on the conjunction of three facts: (i) "twin" reference (Twin Pines), (ii) the fact that the things Marty and Doc change in the past cause the terrorists to crash their van into a booth in the parking lot, and (iii) the jump back in time is supposed to happen at exactly 1:16 am (or whatever), which read upside-down and backwards is 91:1.
But what about the detail that, in the past, Marty drives over one of Peabody's "twin pines" so that, when he goes back to the future, the mall is now called "Lone Pine Mall"? Here's the thing. Even ignoring this detail, your theory could still be right. The numbered facts above might still represent a "nod" to 9/11. But this would also require you to now tell me that the new fact (about the lone pine) is irrelevant to the signal. In other words, you have to determine which facts of the story represent the sign and which don't, including that the lone pine detail is not meant to be significant. But who gets to determine the criteria for establishing any given fact's significance? You?
So, overall it isn't that I totally disregard this stuff. I even find it interesting. There were moments where I went "huh" as a response to the video. I even find it plausible. You could be right. But I'm very concerned about verification. I don't think it is a theory we can ultimately be confident about, and it is hard to say what the significance of this should be for the average person. In the year BTF came out, no viewer of the film could have used the film's contents to make a prediction about the year 2001. It fully requires that we have already experienced 9/11 to make these connections. Prior to 2001, what should the average viewer have been looking out for? Should they have known a priori to turn all clock values upside-down and backward to establish future dates for terrorist attacks (or other big events)? Or that the word "twin" is going to refer to two-part architectural designs as the targets for attacks? Even if Zemeckis had been predicting 9/11, it would be mostly useless to the average bloke for the primary reason that a million different predictions could be made using the BTF data (at the time it is released), and nobody is going to know the truth until the so-called predicted event occurs.
Suppose you and I are talking in 1985 and BTF has just been released. What should you and I take away? Furthermore, supposing I come to you with a theory that the film is predicting some future event, and even if you believed in the phenomenon of predictive programming, what would justify you in believing any particular theory I came up with? What if I'd said that the future event was going to take place at Deutsche Bank Center (formerly Time Warner Center)? After all, those are "twin buildings."
It just seems to me that you are possibly doing what you (and guys like Adam Green) accuse the Jews of doing religiously, namely, reading prophecy backward into past events. You require the insight of the present in order to see the significance in the past details. We find the Jews doing this throughout their religious history, yet, by the time we get to 1985 (more roughly the 20th century), the Jews are now forecasting the future and successfuly executing it? What if you're just doing what the ancient Jews were always doing, i.e., using the benefit of the present to re-explain the past?
Please don't be offended by any of this. This is not personal whatsoever, man. Instead, it's more like I am obligated (sometimes to my detriment) to being really careful about how I form beliefs and the epistemology I'm working with. I understand that your argument is supposed to work more like a cumulative case. There were details I excluded. For example, I ignored the fact that in BTF2 the projected tv image in their living room shows the Twin Towers as Lorraine is flipping through channels. I thought this was interesting. But is it enough to justify me in being committed to your conclusion about BTF? I don't think it is. At the end of the day, it wasn't a picture of the Twin Towers merely. It was the NYC skyline at night, which features the Twin Towers. Saturday Night Live had to alter the intro to their show to remove an image of the Twin Towers subsequent to 2001, the point being that NYC is kind of a visual feature of the United States generally: many people around the world associated it with the US. It wouldn't be an unexpected image, all else being equal, to pop up on a tv screen when randomly flipping channels. Any number of real-life tv programs probably featured that skyline as part of their overall art direction.
I'm not a debunker by nature, man. I'm really not. I tend to get aggravated by people who have that general attitude toward things. I'm very open to theorizing. I just recognize that this sort of theorizing is like a quagmire, and it is a major challenge to justification.
To make one last point about justification, let me note an observation you made about BTF2 (re: "It's about your kids, Marty.") You observe that Doc is "updating" Marty's look for the future. He pulls Marty's pocket liners out so they're visible. He says this is how kids in the future are wearing their jeans. From that, together with your broad assumption that the BTF franchise (incl every installment) is an instrument for predictively programming the future, you say that this is a symbol of the "things in kids's pants" being "reversed" in the future. I found this to be a very strained metaphor. But let me grant it to you.
But what if I say, "No, NaturalSelectionistWorker, you've got it all wrong. By wearing the pocket liners inside-out, what is being exposed is the fact that their pockets are empty. Pockets are a common metaphor used to talk about someone's money, e.g., he had 'deep pockets'. By wearing their pockets inside-out, they're indicating that none of the kids is carrying cash in the future. They're predicting a cashless society. Note how Marty uses a card to process a payment remotely (to Needles) in BTF2. They are predicting digital central currencies."
Or, "See that hat that Doc places on Marty's head? It is covered by a rainbow. This is predictively programming the LGBTQ movement and that it will disproportionately impact kids in the future."
Are you right? Or, am I right? Are we both right? Are we both wrong? The problem is we can't verify it at all.
You are arguing with people that refuse to acknowledge that Someone so incredibly against the Synagogue of Satan was so influential that even Roman rulers wrote in their personal messages about His presence and aura of Righteousness.
Jesus was right about the jews. Their transvestite-inspired language proves they are on the same intellectual level as the LGBLT double-plus cult lol
Answer the question in the post. I'm starting to think your biggest reason for hating jews is that no teacher in their public school system was able to teach you how to read.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 1 point 11 monthsJun 2, 2024 22:01:58 ago (+1/-0)
For much of christian history, the vast majority of "christians" didn't even have access to a bible - the bible was used to control the priesthood and nobility who could read, and that was all it needed to do. From there, the priestly and noble class could direct the masses, whether that be mass worship of a jewish god to channel spiritual energy to the jews, or whether that be kings and nobles going to war with non-christians to impose their jewish control scheme on them.
Once the printing press was invented, the bible spread, and christianity changed massively soon afterwards with the protestant reformation. Was protestantism superior to catholocism or orthodoxy? It's far less spiritual and far more materialist, a step closer to deism which is a step closer to atheism. It also divided Europe, but then again, jesus said he came to divide "father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother" (matt 10:34-36, luke 12:52-53). Is dividing Europe against itself being better christians?
But you seem to be specifically asking whether christianity has a stronger hold over Europe and the European diaspora today than it did 100-1000 years ago, rather than whether christians today are better or worse at being christian. I would say it has a stronger hold over the portion that is christian than it did prior to the widespread availability of bibles by the public, but its hold has waned over the past century. But its hold was still strong as of WWI-II when Europeans were still being pitted against each other in massively deadly wars.
2. Currently yes, but you also have to compare this to prior times in history. As Rome neared collapse, degeneracy reached its peak despite christianity being more widespread than it had ever been up til that point. In the Weimar era, Germans were still very christian despite all the degeneracy that was allowed to grow. There are also plenty of mainline churches that are helping accelerate the degeneracy in many ways, from lgbt acceptance to mass immigration.
You also need to be careful not to pigeonhole jews as pushers of one particular set of behaviors. The jews are not just usury, globohomo, feminism, and mass immigration. The same jews who push lgbt and feminism here also created theocratic islamic extremist groups like isis, al qaida, and hamas that throw gays off tall buildings and treat women as property. The same jews that control the banks here created and spread communism which is anti-banking and anti-usury. The jews are not synonymous with a particular belief system or behavior pattern being pushed onto us today; they don't care whether they rule you through feminism and degeneracy or female enslavement and sexual repression.
We can also see plenty of times throughout history when christians allowed jews to convert, only for those jews to undermine their host society - opening the gates to invaders, pushing for more acceptance of jews who didn't convert, infiltrating governments, etc. karl marx' father, for example, converted to christianity so he could get a job in government - but do you really think a guy who was descended from 10 generations of rabbis in a row converted sincerely? Or is it more likely he "converted" because the jews needed him to infiltrate the government?
3. The issue here is that christianity is far from the only jewish golem. Being the oldest and biggest, it definitely has certain strengths, but as our society has changed significantly over the past two centuries, it is also showing its age significantly. As flexible as christianity is - you can use it to promote sexual repression and male dominance or you can use it to promote tolerance of degeneracy and egalitarianism, for example - it doesn't give them answers (let alone flexible answers that they can change as necessary) to many of the big questions of the modern era. If the jews are trying to replace christianity, it's not because it isn't jewish, but because they have dozens of new jewish control schemes that are better suited for the modern era, each of which has some group of jews that would like to see their chosen control scheme rise and replace christianity.
You are so incredibly wrong here.
How do you explain communism? A big part of the basis of communism is opposing usury, which jews have always used as a tool, and opposing the banker/capitalist class which is extremely jewish. Are you going to argue that communism is anti-jewish because it opposes a significant tool for jewish power? Because it targets a class that is disproportionately jewish and responsible for jewish control of the west? Because marx said some mean things about his own people the same way jesus did? Or is communism pro-jewish because almost every key figure behind its creation and spread was ethnically jewish and the first thing the soviets did when they took power was outlaw anti-semitism?
Clearly the golem can be "anti-jewish" on the surface and still jewish under the hood, and communism is the perfect example of that.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 11 monthsJun 3, 2024 11:28:38 ago (+0/-0)*
Forget whether or not the typical Christian meets a theological standard, internal to Christianity, that is supposed to satisfy its own criteria for salvation. The other sense in which you used "good" in this paragraph is irrelevant given the spirit of the question I posed. Instead, we're targeting something like committment, and to the extent that greater levels of commitment correspond with cultural unification, what is really being asked is whether it is appropriate to say that western people today are "more or less" Christian than they were in the past. Put another way, we're asking whether Christianity is better today at describing the dominant ethos and worldview of western people than it was in the past; to the extent that exemplifying a Christian worldview means being committed to a Christian ethic, then we could establish some criteria for empirically verifying this. I don't plan on doing this research for the sake of a debate on a forum, but I can probably also rely on research that has already been performed, e.g., research by Pew or some other organization who studies prevailing religious attitudes for large populations.
Consider the difference in worldviews between people in the high middle ages versus the typical American today, even a church-going one. Intuitively, the west is less Christian today than it was in the past, given the usage I described above.
This is irrelevant. All that is relevant is the ubiquity and influence of the Christian worldview on the society. It doesn't matter how it is promulgated. Every single person could have believed they had an encounter with Jesus, or it could have been spread by a central authority. It doesn't matter for this debate.
This is relevant theologically, politically, and sociologically. Schism impacts the viability of Christianity to have a ubiquitous political, unifying authority over the non-jewish population. Since Protestantism was a radical break with tradition, then it is arguable that two Christianities result from the schism. The question is how we should think about this development. Why did the schism occur? What resulted? As I said before, Protestantism is fraught with dissonance. On the one hand, Luther was critical of the jews. On the other hand, Luther's theology was a massive judaizing force. Catholicism's strength against the judaizing trend until that point had been its enforcement of tradition, as opposed to leaning on a literal text/book as a rule of faith. The Protestant change was a move in Christianity back toward antecedent jewish roots.
Question: has Protestantism represented a boon for jews in terms of exploiting Christianity in the west? If so, then it looks like this required compromising Christianity in order to make jewish inroads into it. There is a lot to be said about the corruption of the papacy in the Renaissance and the influence of the jewish merchant class and masonic forces on the Rennaissance Church. Given that freemasonry is thoroughgoingly jewish, this looks more like evidence that jews undermined a legitimate enemy from within in order to shatter it. But that's not a good case for the pre-schismatic Church being a jewish golem.
Yes and no. I say "yes" in terms of their belief in the material and formal sufficiency of scripture (alone) to rule their faith. I say "no" in terms of history. You need only look at the history of Christianity in the US, specifically the movement of spiritual revivals and the birth of th evanegelical strain to see that spiritualism was far more potent in the west after the schism. That is probably because they decoupled themselves from their original historical tradition.
If it divided Europe, then I think you're giving me better evidence that jewish subversion explains the schism, as opposed to better explaining the origins of Christianity, i.e., Catholicism.
No, it is not being better Christians because it seriously harmed their overall unity. But that detail makes it sound like jewish subversion.
I would vehemently disagree. We need to be clear that what we're talking about is not the presence or absence of beliefs in people's heads primarily. We're talking about the sustained influence of a worldview and the personal, social, and political commitments that flow from it. It just isn't correct to say that the US in 2024 is a "more Christian society" than any western European nation was in the last two-thousand years. All I need for the argument is that Christianity has been a weaker national and racial unifying force today than in times past.
The problems leading to Rome's collapse were entrenched long before Constantine declared Christianity the national religion, and the historical facts bear out that this was mostly a nominal declaration anyway. The idea that Christianity toppled Rome is non-serious. More likely, Christianity became popular among a Roman military class that was spread far too thin over a sprawling territory. Given the vulnerabilities that Rome had failed to address, but only worsened over time, it became strategically necessary for Constantine to appease and galvanize his soldiers, given that the heart of Rome was exposed. Constantine was prudent. He just stood in front of a wave that had already begun to form in his troops. Rather than oppose it, he used it to concentrate them.
I wonder if you arent' being intentionally dull to these observations you're making. Christianity had been on a decline (in the sense I discussed in the first section) for quite a long time before the Weimar period. Nietzsche is clear about this. Kant was a band-aid that made the wound worse. If there was a counter-revolution in the German people against jewish degeneracy, it had a Christian underpinning, at least in spirit, which is evident from the historical facts even if it was laced with esotericism. This does nothing to discount my argument. Christianity was still a place from which an anti-jewish spirit was mounted. And regarding your comment about churches pushing LGBT stuff in the States today, they're all Protestant evangelicals. Note that the jewish "bible belt" influence in the US is almost exclusively over republican evangelicals; now return to the earlier comments about schism. This evidence seems to support the theory that jews subverted Christianity from within and made their golem from the shattered pieces (Protestant fractures); but that suggests that original Christianity was a legitimate enemy of jews, which I would also argue is evident from history.
When was this converso trend most significant? In the Rennaissance. Yes, Christianity was weakened from within, and this had continental impacts from that time unto the present day. I just think this is better explained by jewish subversion through secrecy and cunning, rather than the explanation that jews invented Christianity from the beginning.
I think the jews are parasitic opportunists. They put food on their table, so to speak, by fracturing existing structures and siphoning the blood that emanates from the wound. I think it is almost certain that Marx's father converted because he recognized it would lead to greater opportunities, and I think it is just as certain that he had no intention of being a Christian other than a nominal one.
So it's a story of upgrading to a more fashionable model, then? Last millennium's golem has been replaced with fancy new secular ones?
If successful Christianity is making westerners beholden to the Zionist movement, your view makes no sense at all. To destroy Christianity would be to remove a pillar for Zionist support, just to replace it with a secular revolution that undermines Zionism's theological basis. Not only that, but these socialist worldviews actually leach support from global Zionism. A Marxist narrative is undermining Israel's theocratic efforts presently, i.e., to remove an oppressed class out of their homelands.
Now one jewish golem is having a head-on collission with another! What a stage the jews have made of the entire world!
Communism isn't a worldview. It is not a prescription for anything stable. It is a form of process metaphysics. In effect, it is just a method for revolution that uses a moral overlay in order to radically steal and concentrate the wealth of a society into the hands of a few. Communism isn't a permanent thing. It ends when the revolution is successful, and then there is a return to totalitarianism. It's a fucking ruse. It just shifts the capital around until it is situated in jewish hands, and then when they are successful, it will disappear.
Further, Karl Marx was a student of Christianity. He sought to understand its underlying emotive and psychological force. The Marxist revolutionary method was developed from studying Christianity. Marx attempted to do an analytic reduction of the Jesus movement to a smaller and manipulable set of concepts, e.g., that the revolutionary target would be the underclass, and that the movement should be grassroots and anti-cosmopolitan, and that this movement could be united by their shared suffering at the hands of the bourgeois.
He wanted to know how a secular formalism of Christianity could be effective in creating revolution. He was mimicking. But what he created was counterfeit. It was a fraud. But this is what evil is. An inversion of truth. A counterfeit.
So, let's try to figure out what the jews are always inverting. For, they are NOT A FUNDAMENTALLY CREATIVE RACE. But your theory makes them the most creative human force to ever live! Bollocks! Complete nonsense! The jew parasitizes. It does not create. It steals and inverts.
The jew copied and inverted Christianity, but this is perhaps the best evidence for the original truth and authenticity of Christianity. Note how every attempt at installing their faux-secular-Christianity never succeeds. Because it cannot create a kingdom of heaven. It is only a means for shuffling the deck of power and wealth, a recipe for revolution. But authentic Christianity is not a recipe for revolution merely, but for the arrival of stable truth. Christianity was a fundamental force against judaizing forces, including usury, for a very long time, until it was weakened from within by jewish parasites (disease, infection) that had added an even more concealing layer, under the guise of secret lay fraternal orders, to make themselves even more cryptic.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 11 monthsJun 3, 2024 12:49:23 ago (+0/-0)
I do find it interesting how you began your post trying to ignore the theological basis of christianity to make your argument, but then at the end try to use theology to claim christian superiority over communism as that is the only thing that really separates the two movements.
I realize that your heart is in the right place. You want to find something that we can use to unite against the jews. You would like christianity to be that thing, whether because you were raised in it and became attached to it, or have invested in it (sunken cost fallacy), or it simply seems convenient to turn the world's biggest social control scheme against our enemies. But I don't think you have any idea how to go about doing that (if it's even possible) because you misunderstand the nature of jewish control.
I really recommend you watch that video I linked you to and the golem video on the same channel. If you really want to turn the golem against its master, you should see how the golem myth has been used allegorically by people who experience spiritual reality more deeply than anyone praying in church today. Then you can decide whether you want to be the golem that dies overthrowing its master, or whether you want to build the post-jewish systems that will make the golems realize that they no longer need their master and can afford to overthrow the jews.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 11 monthsJun 3, 2024 14:12:04 ago (+0/-0)
I'm thinking this is a distinction without a difference if we consider religion through a traditionalist or perennialist lens.
That's the thing. My philosophy of religion is very advanced. I'm not saying that to boast - who would I be boasting for? - but to just state a matter of fact that makes conversations in this format (Voat) difficult. It's just not the right medium for discussions of this kind. There's too much going on.
I have no intention of side-stepping these questions. The answers are "no" and "no", flatly. Whether a religion successfully grounds the existence of a church, conceived the right way (including as a socio-political, unifying movement), is the entire question. I believe Christianity fundamentally redefines what the term jew means. Prior to Christianity, jew had an ethno-theological significance. After Christianity, it has a political-theological significance. To be a jew in the world post-incarnation is to reject Christ. That's what it is most fundamentally; and the notion that the term jew designates a particular ethncicity is now a defunct idea. What we tend to call jews today is biologically meaningless. They're a scattered miscegenation of genetic data that have simultaneously exploited Christianity and ancient Israelite theology to larp as the inheritors of something that was never there to inherit. Christianity is the inheritance, and its parents are not only jewish, but Roman. I would argue that their father is Roman, and he has separated them from the mother completely.
At least, that is what happened in the past and needs to happen again.
I'm talking about Roman Christianity. I think nothing critical of the jewish lineage survived the application to Rome. In fact, you'll find that many orthodox Jews levy this exact criticism against Christians. Tovia Singer leans on this argument heavily. The idea is that Christianity didn't take over Rome, rather Rome absorbed Christianity and Romanized it. I believe this is true.
To begin with, the dying and rising savior deity was a concept that antedated most of the Jewish biblical lore, which came about largely as a result of both the Babylonian captivity, and later occupation under Rome. Jewish intellectuals were exposed in the latter to the great corpus of Greco-Roman literature, from Homer to Plato. I would like to say that the pre-Christian encounter with God, in a real sense, was happening in places like Rome. For me, the Christ, qua Jesus, in being assimialted to the Roman rite, was just coming back home and being consummated in the Catholic tradition that would occupy the formal station of the imperial cult.
Many gods were in the process of becoming one. Even the notion that pre-Christian jews were monotheists is incorrect. Monotheism is born of Roman Catholicism in so far as it was inherently drawing on Plato, Aristotle, and the neoplatonic tradition. It is the consummation of man's encounter with God until that point, as scattered and diverse as it had been until then: but make no mistake, it was consummated in Rome, unfortunately and fortunately at a time when Rome was in its twilight. Politically this seems suspect, but theologically it is opportune. There is a reason that we were moving away from paganism, and I am just fine thinking that this is a matter of divine providence that as the imperial, material center is dying, it is giving birth to the spiritual center, which being unshackled from a physical temple, if you will, was then free to spread across Europe, unifying Europa in Christendom. It couldn't have done this if there was still a physical temple, so to speak. It was able to unify us intellectually and spiritually, in a way that transcends mere political authority.
For many reasons, paganism (in large part defined by Catholics) is dead. If we view this strictly in terms of historical traditions, I will grant why and how that seems like a kind of unfortunate destruction. But in terms of the theology and the intellectual edifice, it is far easier to see why it is this way. The way that God relates to a people, to blood, and soil as a singular power is far different than a menagerie of local deities that people mostly pick from according to their own sense of fortune and luck. If this one doesn't work, try another. The unifying capacity of Christinaity in the Roman rite is like a "theological imperialism."
All that needs to be done is to do away with the utterly false idea that being a Christian today means reserving some special place for ethnic jews. This is just a flat misunderstanding of the significance of Christianity. Many people have lost a true sense of the tradition and its wisdom and its power to unite. The failure of the Church has to do with jewish infiltration, but also a weakening of the people who would otherwise make up the Church Militant. The Church herself is to blame, but the story as to why is very complicated. You know, the reasons for establishing a pedagogical and authoritative hierarchy in the Church is about more than maintaining strict control and disuading questions/challenges to it. It has to do with the fact that scriptures in the hands of the lay tends to lead to a judaizing tendency, of worshipping words. And Christian truth is remarkably, remarkably hard to grasp. It's just a brute fact that a majority of people will not have the cognitive power to grasp it. You need only look to the Scholastic tradition beginning in late antiquity to see how under Roman Christianity, our doctrines and philosophy of God took off at an insane pace. In its wake, rabbinical judaism and later islam were simply taking cues. (Granted, Islam would see an intellectual heyday in which some of their thinkers contributed heavily to systematic theology.)
The point is that Christainity properly understood, de-fucked from the corruption that fooled it into thinking there was such a thing as a biblical jew any longer, and returned to the Roman way, with a full understanding of its provenance (including its seminal time in the form of Greco-Roman mythos), is a way of unifying the white race against the jewish enemy. It is there. It is live. It is available. It is resurrected. This is not true of pagan forms of religion that have to be held up on crutches by romantic hearts seeking a heathen revival. We aren't heathens anymore. Not only that, but a good deal of the Norse stuff we know about post-dates Christianity anyway (Yes, I understand that their claims will be that the Norse goes back further, but critical reflection on the sacrifice of Odin, for example, isn't really popping up in things like Codex Regius until the middle ages. To me, these are reflections on Christianity, even if they aren't framed that way due to a native desire for originality. Sharp minds can see through to the truth.)
This is what I mean. The truth of Christ isn't just an ethnic truth. It's a universal truth. It is for the white man to be universal. It is for him to transcend the material world and touch heaven like no other race has been able to do. And the evil rats of the world, like Cain, who hate this about him, will strike at his heels, attempting to subvert him at all times. Unfortunately, I think jews have done this successfully, and that explains why we have this half-a-millennium decline leading us to today. A battle between Christ and those who reject him.
We can extricate Christianity from jews. I would even say it is relatively easy to do, if people could just give up the fearful way they cling to most of the contemporary arguments for why God exists and why it is the God conceived by Christianity. They want to rely on historical arguments, and it's killing us. Faith is a choice, and it should be made to think of God in the most beautiful way possible. Forget anything jewish for a moment, and the Christ is the most beautiful thought that any human mind can have about God. It doesn't belong to anyone, but Roman Christianity took it up and lifted it higher than anybody. It's our flag to carry and our cross to bear.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 11 monthsJun 4, 2024 02:03:14 ago (+0/-0)*
Holy shit bro. Did you seriously write that? I'm gonna have to lose a little bit of the significant amount of respect I had developed for you. Like, you're seriously saying there's nothing racial about the jews, that someone who is racially descended from the ancient hebrew tribes that were accused of doing the same shit 2000+ years ago that their descendants are accused of doing today isn't really a jew and that all they have to do is accept jesus and they'll be accepted into your christianity. Would you seriously let a modern jew convert to christianity? Or respect the christian identity of someone ethnically jewish whose family converted a few centuries ago? If the answer to either of those is yes, WHAT THE LITERAL ACTUAL FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU? And how can you not see why people think christians are race traitors who side with jews when you say that there is nothing racial about the jews and that christianity is non-ethnic and must accept racial jews who convert?
Of course jewishness is racial. It was always racial, as their claim to the abrahamic blessing is entirely based on the idea that they are descended from abraham whose descendants were promised they would rule many nations, with the addition that they would rule through debt slavery added by moses. Even today, there are genes that clearly identify someone as jewish, and jews whose ancestors have lived in Europe for over 1000 years are more closely related to jews from north Africa and the middle east than they are to Europeans. There are even jewish genes that make them more prone to a variety of mental disorders that coincide with their disgustingly evil behavior.
To throw that out the window and declare that jewishness is based entirely on the rejection of christ is absurd. That would make a Jap who pracitces Shinto and whose race and religion have no connection whatsoever to the ancient judeans/israelites/hebrews a "jew" because he doesn't accept christ. That would make Pagans who didn't convert to christianity "jews". Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but when you're explicitly stating that race is not a factor in what makes someone a jew, and that jewishness is entirely defined by rejecting jesus, that's how it sounds.
Even more absurd is that you don't realize the threat this poses to our people. If all a jewish shapeshifter has to do is declare himself a christian who accepts jesus to be accepted into your christian society, then every jew who wants to infiltrate you will do that. We even just talked about a jew who did exactly that to gain a position of power in government, Marx' father. Perhaps you think he didn't sincerly convert - but that's exactly the problem! There is no such thing as a jew who's sincere in their dealings with non-jews. As long as you think there's a possibility for sincere conversion, you will keep giving jews a way in, and they will keep fucking you over by pretending to convert as a way to infiltrate.
So are you gonna worship the Roman Gods in place of yahweh? Are you going to throw out the old testament and replace it with Greco-Roman spirituality and then tack jesus on to that? Of course you don't actually mean that, or you'd be a Pagan with jesus added on rather than a christian.
Do you know what someone with a jewish mother is? A jew.
So why not cut out all the jewish parts of the bible (ie. 100% of it) and follow a spirituality based on the death and resurrection myths that were common among all Aryan descended cultures? The real, serious question that you absolutely need to ask yourself here is: If this resurrection myth is so common in so many different Pagan faiths, why are you getting your version of it from a holy book written entirely by jews, rather than from your own ancestors or from a meta-level analysis of the many resurrection myths minus the jewishness of christianity? Why are you getting it from a religion that you've already admitted is at least partly jewish (no matter how desperately you want to separate it from its jewish roots) rather than from a bunch of other sources that are 0% jewish? Why do you keep the jewish baggage of the bible and the version of the myth that's set outside of Europe in the land jews called home for over 1000 years, when you could just as easily get the same (or vastly better) religious experience without the jewish baggage?
You've already acknowledged that the theological framework of death and resurrection predates christianity significantly in a variety of Pagan faiths. So too does the idea of sacrifice, even of sacrificing the base self to the higher self. Basically nothing about Odin's sacrifice or Baldur's resurrection is any more similar to christianity than to dozens of other Pagan faiths with similar themes. If anything, christianity ripped Paganism off, which you more or less already acknowledged. Whether the Odinic tradition specifically is 2000+ years old or whether it is a newer version of an older Aryan mythos is irrelevant as it is still Pagan and not in any way christian.
Basically the entire rest of your post is a ridiculous cope to attempt to separate christianity from the people who wrote 100% of the bible. The entire old testament was written by racial jews. The writers of the original gospels, acts, and the letters of the new testament were all racial jews. You're taking a book that is completely, totally, undeniably jewish and writing paragraph after paragraph of nonsensical word salad to try to justify ignoring that fact. To do so, you're asking me to consider only one tiny little section of the bible that loosely mirrors Pagan traditions because it had to incorporate some Pagan and Roman symbolism in order for Roman Pagans to accept it, but then still rejecting Paganism and clinging to a whole bunch of jewishness. If the only part of christianity that matters to you is jesus' death and resurrection, then you can throw away your bible and replace it with something that has 0 jews in it with 0 jews involved in writing it.
The only parts of the gospels that are arguably non-jewish (but still written by jews for jewish reasons) are all allegories taken from Rome and/or Paganism generally. The parallels between jesus christ and Julius Caesar (jc/JC, ic/IC in Latin) are that both were the supposed ruler and savior of their people, both had a significant crossing (the Rubicon for JC, the cross for jc), both were betrayed by a close friend (Brutus for JC, judas/jew-brutus for jc), and both were killed in the month that begins spring (the ides of March for JC, passover which is in the first month of spring in the jewish calendar). There are parallels between jesus' life and the military campaign by the Vespasians that resulted in the destruction of the temple (which occurred after jesus' death but is referenced when he said he would return during the lifetimes of those he was speaking to), I'll let you check out Caesar's Messiah if you want more info on that. This does not absolve the religion of its jewishness, it is simply a part of the religion made necessary by the need to include Roman allegory and symbolism in a religion that was meant to subvert Rome.
But the most important thing it took from Paganism, something it had to include to capture the hearts of our people while also corrupting and obscuring it to destroy our people, is that very death and resurrection myth you're so enamored with that didn't come from the jewish bible at all. The symbolism of the tomb as a womb that grants rebirth to the ancestor is present in many Pagan myths from the Egyptian book of the dead to the runic poetry of ancient Germany. Most of those other myths have tons of symbolism focused around pregnancy, birth, and the passing down of wisdom from ancestors to children (an example is the dwarves, who have the body of a child but the head of an adult to represent ancestral wisdom passed down to the child), but the bible downplays most of that and does a far worse job of allegorically describing the cycle of reproduction and child rearing. It also replaces the idea of reincarnation of ancestral spirits through their descendants with the idea that only a jew can be resurrected from death, and you don't have to worry about it because jesus did it for you.
Is there a truth in there that is universal? Yes, but it is also simultaneously ethnic. The ancestral wisdom being passed down and, if you believe the more spiritual/mystical side of things, the ancestral spirit being reincarnated in its descendants is very ethnic. It is the continuation of your own ethnic group, not just of the whole, but also of the bloodline and tribe as microcosms of the whole that need their own specific traditions tailored to their own specific ancestors. Robbing Europe of those traditions has been the single most spiritually destructive thing done to our people in history.
But the good news is that all things die and make room for new growth, and christianity is dying. In its place will be the resurrection of the ancestors. You cannot stop this, no matter how long you cling to your jewish corpse of a religion. You have even admitted that christianity is on the wane, you simply don't want to admit that any healthy resurrection of the one part of it that is good must inherently strip away the jewish baggage of the religion and replace it with Paganism.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 11 monthsJun 4, 2024 13:12:33 ago (+0/-0)*
Fair enough. I accept the criticism. Probably, I got a little carried away at points, but I'm retiscent to withdraw my comments. Instead, I want to concede they lacked clarity or important details.
Of course there is something racial about jews. There is something racial about all people.
I'm fine with a behavioral theory grounded, at least in part, on something physiological and inherited, like genes. I'm not endorsing a "we're all one species, bro" sort of theory. I believe there are different levels for description here, only one of which is genetic, and I deny the complete reducibility of the higher levels to the genetic level. Put another way, I'm not going to accept biological determinism, and I think there are many reasons to reject it. For example, you have a leg. Your leg is made up of many smaller parts; we could fine-grain a description of your leg to the level of individual atoms. At that level, what you'd be describing is no longer your leg (if you had the entire set of atomic facts, this wouldn't explain why the whole set of atoms was moving in the way that your leg is seen to move as a unit). So, on the one hand, it is true that your leg is constituted by those particles, and there is no further reduction that is meaningful to do, while on the other hand, it is somehow more than those atoms. Irreducibility. Similarly, whatever the jew is - whatever "race" means, for that matter - is not completely reducible to a genetic description of individuals.
But this will also depend on how we want to use the word "race." If race is just a synonym for the intersection of genes shared by people who are similar to each other, then fine, you've made it a genetic concept. But this is trivial. I think race refers to something more like the leg, rather than the atoms that constitute it.
This has to be determined on a case-by-case basis. I'm not a fatalist or absolutist who thinks that someone with jewish genetics (to whatever degree) is damnable for that reason exclusively (that is, in the absence of any other reasons). But you may be missing the point. A modern jew won't convert to Christianity.
You raise a good point about the possiblity for duplicity and deceit. The answer is complicated. I'll do my best. I believe the Church has it within herself (when she is healthy, so to speak) to "wash the blackmoor white". Critically, this is a notion that operates at the individual level. What the Church cannot withstand, even at her best, is a concerted, unified effort by her enemy to overrun her ranks, to quantitatively flood her with "blackmoors" she cannot possibly have the resources to wash. Practically, these activities occur at the ground-level, at the local level of individual parishes in the Church network. Any such network has vulnerabilities. Do I think that it is possible for a jew to restore himself or herself, to change, to authentically convert? Yes. The question has to be what this looks like when it is true, not false. A large movement of jewish migrants (insurgents) converting en masse? No, that is not within the purview of the Church to determine, and for that reason, it should be something the Church rejects. Conversions that happen at the local, individual level, say, a handful of converts a year for a given parish? Sure. We need to look at the empirical evidence and ask ourselves what the evidence indicates and ask what theory best explains it. A massive conversion of migrant jews doesn't suggest authenticity, but strategy. I think the Church can determine with prudence how to protect herself (again, if she is healthy).
This touches again on the idea that we can talk at different levels. To use a different example, we'll talk about blacks. I know individual black people who I like and get along with. At the very same time, I would say that, all else equal, I don't want to live in a black neighborhood, or a majority black neighborhood, and I think that the influx of blacks in such a way as to shift demographics in a community is universally a bad thing. Yet, those individuals I mentioned aren't (as individuals) exemplifying the same effect on the world as the group. And still, there is no contradiction here. I'm saying things that are true at different levels. Hierarchically, the group-lvl phenomenon needs to inform how we approach individuals of that group. If a single black person comes to the community in the span of five years, and that person assimilates without disturbance (perhaps even enriches things to whatever extent), this is a much different situation than busloads of blacks moving in down the street.
If some kind of strict purity is what you're after, the answer is to make the standard for inclusion in your community such a high bar that you exclude any undesirables. This is challenging, though, because it forces you not to be a hypocrite. Why? Because this is the kind of thing you have to enforce, yet nobody will trust the enforcer who does not meet the standard himself. A healthy community, from the top-down, which includes its leadership, will naturally exclude undesirables. If your demographics are shifting, it's because of an internal problem, either at the level of your personal culture or leadership which is undermining you (for all intents and puropses, making war on you).
A great deal depends on whether this person is already a Christian or not, at least nominally. If we know this person has jewish heritage, and we observe that he or she is undermining the Church, then he or she can be excommunicated. At the end of the day, when we're talking about group membership, there is a basic epistemic problem. You can never know whether someone is true. This is true at the level of personal relationships. We marry people without any concrete certainty that they are true. But, we wouldn't throw away marriage for that reason alone. Much of this has to do with the impossiblity for someone to prove their intentional states (the so-called 'problem of other minds') through anything other than behavior. But that always makes detecting duplicity and deceit an a posteriori affair. So, if we set some strict rule (e.g., "You can only be a member of this Church if your skin is white), you've really only pushed the jew away by one degree. Now, all the jew needs to do is pay off a white individual to do the subverting for him. Your problem remains the same: identifying things that are subversive to the Church.
I think that a priori we do have to apply different levels of scrutiny to individuals who are members of an outgroup. If we saw this, say, Christian of ten years (with jewish ancestry) doing subversive things, our response should be different to that person than if we'd observed a white person doing the exact same behaviors.
As I've said, every instance of "accepting a jew" into Christianity is different. You can't possibly legislate the right way to do this centrally, except in cases where the degree of "motion" (demographic change, let's say) is sufficient to alert the group-level immune system. If 30,000 jews from Iberia are suddenly claiming they want to convert to Catholicism, that should trip the alarms at the core (the heart, the brain) of the Church. But smaller-scale events, like a single jew approaching a single parish has to be something policed by the clerics at that local level.
This is the difference between being approached by a bear, versus a single bacterium approaching our endothelial tissue. We need a brain to register the fact of the bear for the whole body. But your brain never registers the encounter with a single bacterium, which is instead handled "locally". The key for that innate immunity to work is equivalent with culture. A unified identity and scrutiny and protectionism that is ubiquitous at all levels of your group.
Will you clarify this a bit? You keep making this point, and I'm not sure how you're coming to this interpretation. Where is it prophesied that the descendants of Abraham will rule the world through debt slavery?
I'm not denying this, and it's a good thing we have these ways of identifying members of outgroups.
At a certain level, I believe that is true. Members of those non-jewish outgroups (pagans, for all intents and purposes) do represent a priori threats. For, lacking identificaiton with you, they are more prone to being influenced by jewish outgroups. This doesn't mean that we are unable to identify jews as the particular threat they represent. We could also frame this in terms of the distinction between necessary conditions and sufficient conditions. It may not be sufficient to be a jew that you reject Christ, but it is necessary for being a jew. Not all of those who reject Christ are jews, but all jews reject Christ. Any jew who is your enemy, regardless of whether he pretends to be a Christian, will reveal his rejection of Christ. If he never does reveal this, then you lack any evidence he is not a Christian. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then if you lack any evidence it is not being a duck, you should not act as if it something else. Though, you are probably going to be justified to apply differential scrutiny to individuals based on their outgroup ethnic membership. And again, severe movements of tens of thousands that alert the Church's entire immune system need to be viewed differently.
The events that led to the Catholic Inquisition are exemplary. By the time we have reached that level, i.e., of realizing there is an infection, there have been multiple tiers of sequentially worse failures, beginning at the local level, to address small-scale adversity to the Church, in this case being the introduction of heterodox ideas and interpretations of doctrine. All the more reason for supposing that it is critical for any group to maintain a strict, top-down set of standards for how things are done.
So, you establish stricter criteria. One problem the Church has is that by prioritizing growth at the expense of survival, its "admissions criteria" became abysmally unrestricted. Missionaries were attempting to convert every nigger they found munching reeds on some foreign coast. Thigns go through expansions and retractions. I wouldn't deny that the Church, probably in attempting to self-fulfill prophecies, together with being hijacked by political rather than spiritual/cultural goals, expanded too far, too quickly. I would even say there is a parallel here between the folly of Rome and her Catholic offspring. The answer is always greater exclusivity.
For a somewhat extreme example, you might imagine an iniatic process that is something quite stronger than baptism. Imagine that being a Christian required you to take a blood oath, to swear off any allegiance or love for false gods, to give up a certain degree of privacy with respect to how you associate outside of specific litrugical gatherings, and even to have the symbol of the cross burned into your skin like a brand. In times of danger, greater sacrifice is required for membership. It's all hands on deck, as it were. As membership criteria slacken in times of perceived peace, this leads again to hard times. The Church does need to retreat, to shrink back and push out the splinter.
Jupiter and Yahweh were names, associated with particular conceptions, of the One God. I do not attach YHWH to the Father as if it were a proper name by which I could address him. Proper names refer; titles signify. Rather, this title, YHWH, is understood in Catholicism through a metaphysical lens ("I will be what I will be.") This is not a name like Jack that I would use to identify a human individual.
I am going to worship God the Trinity, specifically in the image of Christ.
It was just a sexual metaphor, to hint at the idea of something "seminal" being Greco-Roman that was injected into the jewish world which was occupied by Rome at that time, resulting in a Hellenized hybrid of concepts, emanating not just from the Roman center but also Alexandria, and taking in bits and bops of what the hebrews had historically assimilated from Egypt, Assyria, and Babylon. You could think of what I'm after here being something like a land claim. The land is there. It's for us to claim it, tend it, protect it. Europe lifted the image of God on high in Christianity. This is like claiming a territory. It is Europe's, to keep or lose.
Because there is something particular and historically unique going on here. If that weren't the case, then the Christian choice would be completely arbitrary. I think one good explanation for the Church (as phenomenon) is this uniqueness. It isn't that we are just getting a Roman cut-out cookie frosted with jew. This is why I used the sexual metaphor above.
Jesus Christ is not a carbon copy of savior gods from the national myths of surrounding or preceding states. All of the arguments that attempt to make this claim are ridiculous. Christ is neither a mere copy, nor wholly original, with respect to these preceding savior deities. The particular conception of sacrifice enshrined in Christianity is represented nowhere else, and no other tradition conceived of God in this precise way, and no other tradition saw its Church unify a continent.
The forerunning "aryan" religions did no such thing, and there is no reason to think that they would have, or even that they could. If you want to make the claim that some form of heathenry could do this, I need to see it. It's something for which the proof is in the pudding. It either does it, or it doesn't. But given that what you're up against is no less than secular modernity and the spirit of anti-Christ (if you will), you're going to be going it alone to establish an intellectual edifice that should convince anybody that your gods are real. This, while there exists two-thousand years of intellectual tradition in Catholicism that has, from its inception, battled to make belief justifiable, even against its harshest critics in modernity.
I'm not sure if you keep up on much of the latest biblical scholarship, but it's becoming increasingly common to think (more weakly) that we have no idea who the authors of the gospels were, and (more strongly) they were probably Greek-speaking, Greek-educated, and (even more strongly) completely Hellenized. There is clear disagreement between the gospel authors themselves about the extent to which it should even be understood as having distinct continuity with jewish phariseism rather than being a sui generis covenantal formation. This was a primary reason for the jewish rejection of Christianity, i.e., that it was breaking down the exclusivity that previous jewish religion had built up, that it was sui generis, a great correction and revocation of exclusivity.
Because what should be gleaned from it is universal. It is not locked to any piece of land. It is as true in the highlands of Scotland as it is in the Mojave desert. The beauty that is possible in Catholicism speaks for itself. It's not jewish. It belongs to Europe. Go and see one of the great cathedrals, listen inside of it, just feel what it is like to be inside.
I will blow the horn of believability all day long. You don't just pick gods. It's not a fucking shopping center. You don't get Tradition by telling people it would be more prudent to do such and such. Nobody in our day and age is going to buy the Norse pantheon as a real explanation for the world. At least, it doesn't seem that way to me.
The faith is not grounded in a book. It's a lot more than that. It is fundamentally something much deeper than any written thing.
I'm running out of time. I don't want to continue quoting your message line-by-line; I'd rather jump off from your quote (above) and ask you something. I'm asking you to reflect on what I'm about to say genuinely.
One thing that a religion (again, keep in mind that I'm viewing a religion in a holistic way, as a tradition that stands to unify a people) needs to do is explain the world. A religion that doesn't explain the world is no good.
So, let's assume you're right. Whatever particular religion you have in mind is what's true.
What does it explain? Where was Odin? Where was Baldur, even as these "aryan religions" were being extinguished? I don't care how you explain their virtual extinction (No, I'm not interested in the objection: "They aren't dead!"; yeah, yeah, I get it, there are hipsters who form clubs in the woods.) You can say to me that these aryan religions were unjustly extinguished through pure subterfuge. It doesn't matter.
Where was Odin and where was Baldur to stop it? Where are they now? If nothing else, I have to assume that these gods care little to nothing about the world or its human inhabitants. Clearly, whether or not humans have a relationship with them is meaningless. Even more clearly, they care not to aid their followers by protecting them against the jewish threat.
Now, you might say, "Okay, well where is Jesus?" And to that I would say that, if God is doing anything like what I said, we would be most likely to find the evidence in the resilience of certain people groups to subversion, to the self-assertion and survival of the relevant people group, to the endurance of their belief system and to its continued ability to explain the way the world is.
In what way does Odin (or Jupiter, or whoever) account for any of this? Their belief systems did not survive in any significant way, they can no longer explain the existing connection members of a race have to each other, and they don't explain the things going on in the world whatsoever.
On the other hand, Christianity does. That's the thing. If we take Christianity as true, we get a pretty good god damned explantaion for the world we actually see and experience.
Furthermore, we might expect some universal deference to show up in other faith systems which recognizes the universality of truth. Every other major, extant religious system on the planet recognizes Jesus Christ, whether it is Islam, or Hinduism, or Buddhism. Only modern rabbinical judaism rejects Christ, and it certainly doesn't deny his reality; rather, we find in the Talmud that the rabbis hate him. They slander him and the holy mother. It was such a controversy in the middle ages that jews in Europe had to invent a story about a completely different historical figure named Jesus to avoid penalization. It didn't work, anyway. The Catholics still burned the Talmud. (More on that in just a second.)
But if you listen to swamis in the Hindu faith, or Buddhists, or Islamic theologians, every one of them defer to Jesus. None of them can deny him. Find me one instance. I'll wait. Islam deifies him. The others recognize him as a divinity in their respective ways of conceiving of divinity (as an avatar, or what have you). Universal respect from world religion, save for rabbincal judaism. Yet, Jesus never once acknowledges them. He never defers, never accepts or admits of shared truth among world religions. He always proclaims that he alone is the way, the truth, and the life. In spite of the strength of that assertion, the other world religions don't deny him. They embrace him, such that the directionality of deference is one way, toward Jesus, not from Jesus toward the others.
Where shall I find the Buddhist monks or the Hindu swamis through the centuries heaping their respect and adoration on Baldur? Every other world religion has had to find a way, by making some kind of space within itself, to acknowledge Jesus. No other religion has had to make this space for Odin.
Catholicism, for centuries, was the only entity that sustained a resistance to jews. As I mentioned above, Catholics destroyed the Talmud. Yes, I grant (I've admitted it multiple times) that the Church was infiltrated. This does not diminish the fact that it did resist for a long time, and that it has all of the tools available to take up that resistance once more. And by accepting Catholicism, I gain for myself a coherent worldview that explains the human experience, including the things we are witnessing take place today. If I adopt some brand of heathenism, I have nothing but an appeal to "white people used to do this". I have costumes. I have fictitious stories that don't even pretend to be historical. I have gods who are nowhere to be found, who did nothing to prevent their own worshippers from being overtaken.
And to re-emphasize the point I made earlier about understanding and "levels", the Church was resisting jews without having any concept of a genetic basis for race, or even a distinct race concept. Necessarily, the level at which they were thinking about the jewish question was distinct from the way the biological determinists today are doing it. And what with all of the modern scientific understanding? Have molecular genetics and phylogenetics combined to cause us to be better at resisting the jew? Are we doing better because of it? It seems we aren't.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 11 monthsJun 5, 2024 03:17:20 ago (+0/-0)
This is where we're gonna have to part ways.
When it comes to the east Asians, I'll mostly agree with you - they can build functional civilizations, they can behave themselves in our communities, they can be integrated. It's still not a good idea to import a huge number of them that will have a major effect on our DNA over the course of the following generations, but a little bit of mixing here and there with quality people isn't the end of the world.
I'll even agree to a lesser extent when it comes to the blacks, arabs, indians, hispanics, native Americans, aboriginals, etc. While it's more rare to find someone from each of those races who can successfully integrate, the occasional person from those races isn't going to end European civilization as we know it, though a large scale influx would end it faster than a large scale influx of east Asians.
But the jew is another animal entirely. The Asians didn't create the three biggest social control schemes in human history. Neither did the blacks. Neither did the indians, aboriginals, etc. Maybe the arabs if you lump all semites together, but since one specific tribe of people create all three of the three biggest social control schemes in human history, I think that would be a mistake. As massive a thing as creating the biggest social control schemes in history is, even that doesn't fully encapsulate how different and dangerous the jew is.
The jews raped our nation's daughters to blackmail our nation's leaders into sending our nation's sons to fight and die in their wars while they brainwashed our people, poisoned our food supply and medical system, and stole so much of our money that most of us can't even afford to create another generation of children for them to rob, rape, poison, brainwash, enslave, and kill. That is not something any other race of people has ever accomplished. But even that does not fully encapsulate how different and dangerous the jew is.
The jews orchestrated major world events from covid to 9/11 to the sinking of the titanic to the black plague to opening the gates in Spain and Byzantium and beyond. They orchestrated many of these events while telling the public ahead of time that they were going to do them by placing symbolic allegories about the events in plain sight - sometimes very obviously, such as the Trump campaign episode of the Simpsons, sometimes less obviously, such as the pandemic dance at the 2012 Olympics. Sometimes they are done with so much detail included that it is impossible to deny once you see it all laid out, such as in Back to the Future. Other times it's a mention here, a mention there, a pattern that's easy enough to spot when you know to look for it but hard to notice if you're just passively consuming media. In most cases, they also inserted significant spiritual allegorical symbolism alongside their predictions. You will only begin to understand the jew when you have seen this, and as far as I know you still have not watched the videos I linked you.
Despite your religiosity, you are still looking at the jews as if they are a primarily material, biological thing, a race of people that is a little different from you and I genetically but who are still mostly the same, just a bit different on average like any race. The jews do not see themselves this way. They see their race as distinct in a spiritual sense, not just a material sense, and they see the material differences as downstream from the spiritual differences. Until you realize that the jews see themselves as spiritually separated from and above the rest of humanity, you will not understand the jew.
deuteronomy 15:6 is the clearest example, but there are many. In deuteronomy 15:6, moses is talking to the chosen tribes and tells them that they will lend to many nations and put them into debt but never accept loans or debt themselves, and in doing so they will rule many nations but be ruled by none. This is expanding on the abrahamic blessing of genesis 17:6 where abraham is told that not only will he father many tribes (the tribes of israel and edom) but also that he will father a multitude of kings. While many bible scholars consider the line about fathering many kings to be a reference to the kings of the tribes of israel, the verse in deuteronomy makes it clear that they will rule not only their own tribes, but many nations whose people are not descended from abraham.
When god promised abraham that he'd father many rulers, it had not yet been decided whether the jews would rule through deception or the sword. jacob answered that by claiming the blessing for the trickster and stealing it from his warrior brother. joseph then followed that up by taking over the Egyptian economy and becoming the de facto ruler of Egypt which allowed him to invite his entire tribe in to feed off the fat of the land. So this is not just a few cherry picked verses (not that something as fundamental as the abrahamic blessing is cherry picked), but a concept confirmed through narrative as well as being stated directly in multiple places.
It also makes little sense for abraham to father the kings of his own people since the tribes didn't even have kings until david many centuries later, and before david became kingsamuel warned the chosenites that god did not want them to have kings in 1 samuel 8:10-18. Why would god not want his chosen tribes to have a king ruling their nation after having promised abraham that he'd father many kings? Because the point was never to give the jews kings to rule their own people, but to make the jews rulers of other nations.
From the perspective of the jews who created it, this is not a bug, but a feature. The narrative of tolerance and inclusivity, that jew and greek are one in jesus, that none of us is perfect and thus we must not throw stones to punish criminals but leave that up to god, these are all elements of the new testament that strip away the ethnic tribalism of the old testament and replace it with evangelical egalitarianism.
Here we agree, but for very different reasons. You believe the difference is something uniquely good, I believe the difference is something uniquely jewish and therefore evil. The primary difference between jesus and the other mystery cults, resurrection/reincarnation myths, and demigod saviors is that jesus is jewish, and there is something uniquely sinister about the jews who corrupt everything they touch in a way that differs significantly from all other races.
Is that really a good thing, in an ethno-nationalist context? Greater unity with outgroups brings with it greater challenges. The very problems you were describing with the church being too accepting of outgroups grow exponentially with a church that attempts to unify entire continents and beyond. Ethnic faiths may have been more limited in their scope, but they were also more tailored to the spiritual needs of their specific tribe, and avoided the problem of subversive outgroups pretending to convert in order to subvert the host nation. The accomplishment you see as the pinnacle of christian achievement is also the source of its corruption and one of the flaws that makes it so easy for jews to infiltrate and subvert it.
Were the people described in the bible as jesus' close associates hellenized jews? Did they seem like the type of people who spoke Greek? This lends credence to the idea that christianity is a fiction, that the gospels were created not by witnesses to a man working miracles but by a conspiracy to subvert Rome. josephus spoke and wrote in Greek, saul probably spoke and wrote in Greek, but the random assortment of judean fishermen and laborers who followed jesus around were no scholars of Greek. If you're right, that's evidence that supports the theories that jews invented christianity to subvert Rome or that Romans invented christianity to subvert jews, but it is not evidence that the bible is an authentic document about a real messiah.
The cathedrals were built by European hands, but that does not make the book preached inside the cathedrals European, especially when almost none of the story takes place in Europe. You're also contradicting yourself by first saying it's universal and then saying it belongs to Europe.
And yet it is defined largely by the book. The biggest thing that separates the abrahamic faiths from non-abrahamic faiths is how reliant they are upon scripture. They've been repeatedly called the religion of the book for this reason. Most Pagan faiths were defined more by practice than by scripture, but christianity has always placed scripture in a higher position than other faiths.
A religion that explains the world inaccurately is no good.
Are you expecting Paganism to give you a clear explanation of the origins of the universe? None of us were there, none of us will be able to prove what happened. Neither were the jews, and their holy book's claims about the origins of the universe are as silly as any Pagan creation myth if taken literally rather than allegorically. You are trying to hold Paganism to a standard that Paganism doesn't claim to meet, but christianity claims to meet while failing to actually meet.
Are you expecting ethnic faiths to give you a clear explanation of the origins of people besides the ethnic group that created them? Again, this is a ridiculous thing to expect, and the bible only gives you the origin story of one single ethnic group, so it is not any better. Again you are trying to hold Paganism to a standard that Paganism doesn't claim that christianity claims but fails to meet.
You ask why Odin and Baldur did not prevent their religion from being replaced through jewish subterfuge; and yet in their spiritual allegories, they predict their own demise at the hands of the god of lies and deception, and their eventual resurrection after his defeat. Were they supposed to prevent an event that they themselves predicted would happen?
You also keep looking at those Pagan Gods and expecting them to be the one true god, something that doesn't exist no matter how desperately you want it to. There are spiritual forces in the world, but those spiritual foces are not a single monopole of power that exerts itself on everything. Those spiritual forces are billions of different points that are not all working in perfect harmony, and in some cases working in dissonance against one another. You desperately want the spiritual world to all be united as one singular force, but reality is not united as one singular force, so why would the spiritual world be?
Every person has a spark of the divine in them. Every person's belief and spiritual practices affect the world around them. Not all people have an equal amount of spiritual power and not all people develop their spiritual power to the same extent; some people have more power than others and spirituality is not egalitarian any more than it's fully centralized around a single axis. In addition to each person's own spiritual contribution to the world, there are spiritual entities that have developed due to the belief, ritual worship, and action of their followers (and possibly for a variety of other reasons that are hard to ascertain or prove). Those entities and the power they have last far longer than any human lifetime, and thus the Gods can plan for events in their competition with other Gods that may require us to wait many lifetimes to see them come to fruition.
Our people's Gods are our Gods. The jewish god is the jewish god. Our worship of our ancestral Gods empowered our Gods. The jews' worship of their god empowered their god, and our people's worship of their god is also empowering their god. Our Gods and their god battled in the spiritual realm, and as predicted our Gods died but in doing so paved the way for the eventual defeat of the jewish god and their eventual resurrection, something the Roman Gods failed to do, something the Egyptian Gods failed to do, something all other Gods failed to do. It was Germany under Hitler, seen by Jung and many esotericists as an avatar of Wotan/Odin, that put up the most significant resistance to jewish rule in centuries and paved the way for the next act of resistance against them. When the jews are defeated, it will be at the hands of the next avatar of Wotan, not at the hands of people who worship a jewish conception of god.
Your argument for jesus being the one true faith basically boils down to "a bunch of people follow him, and the religion is spreading, so therefore it must be true." But the fact that his religion has spread like a disease does not make it any more true in a literal sense than any other religion. Has the spread of christianity made people behave the way the bible tells them to? Perhaps in a ritualistic sense, but certainly not in the moral sense that christianity claims as its highest good. It also has not stopped jewish power from spreading. Before christianity, the jews were a nation of merchants who attempted to subvert Pagan nations across the Mediterranean and southern Asia but repeatedly got their asses kicked for it, eventually getting their temple burned and their home base decimated by Pagans. Under christianity, jews became a subversive subculture of merchants and bankers in every christian nation who occasionally got run out of town, unless they pretended to convert and laid low for a few generations. Pagans treated them as a known external threat that was never to be fully trusted. christians treated them as a special class of people with special rights that the nobles and church leaders occasionally kicked out when they didn't want to pay their debts, only to let them back in again the next time they needed a loan.
Your example of islam as respecting jesus doesn't really count for much since it is another abrahamic faith created by the same jews who created jesus. Your examples of hinduism and buddhism are a little better, but to rebut them I'd have to get into a lengthy discussion of the parallels between krishna, buddha, and jesus and the fact that buddhism and the krishna variety of hinduism both spread after jewish merchants had established regular trade with India long enough to learn their language and study their customs and religions, and I don't want to take the time when this is already getting to be a hella long post (it would also bring us from about 80% of the world following a jewish control scheme to about 98% of the world following a jewish control scheme, but oh well). Since you haven't watched the other videos I linked yet I won't link you to yet more hour plus videos that you don't have time for.
This is a bold faced lie as Paganism still existed in Europe until about 100 years before the reformation. Pagan nations were putting up resistance to jews on all fronts while catholics were giving jews exclusive rights to control the banks and loan money at interest and letting them infiltrate the priesthood. It is because European nations that converted to christianity that Pagan nations that did not give jews special financial privileges were eventually defeated and forced or pressured into converting.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 11 monthsJun 5, 2024 14:44:07 ago (+0/-0)
When you look at the nature of the universe, you do not see singular centralized phenomena, but dispersed and emergent phenomena. For example, gravity is not one single central point pulling the entire universe in the same direction, but a force which every individual particle in the universe has a little bit of that it exerts on the universe around it individually. Large numbers of particles may join together to exert a larger total gravitational force, multiple large bodies may even exert competing forces on other bodies, but there is no one central gratitational pole of the universe.
Similarly, there is no singular electromagnetic field that exerts force on the entire universe. Rather, there are protons and electrons that each have their own electromagnetic field that they exert on the universe around them. Many protons and electrons may move together to create a particular electromagnetic field or exert a force on other particles around them, but as with gravity, they may cooperate or compete as groups but they are still distinct discrete particles with their own force and energy.
Similarly, life did not begin with one big centralized biological entity that then created all the smaller discrete forms of life from it. Rather, life emerged as protein chains that evolved into single celled organisms that evolved into multi celled organisms. Life was an emergent phenomenon, not an absolute created in its current form by a single centralized creator.
So why would you expect spirituality to be a single centralized entity that affects the entire universe at once, rather than an emergence of spiritual forces created by a coalescence of individual spiritual sources? The idea that each particle has spiritual energy in the same way that each electron or proton has electromagnetic charge and each subatomic particle has gravitational mass, and that those particles then coalesced into biological organisms that have a stronger spiritual energy, and then into humans who have a greater overall spiritual energy because we have evolved to harness and channel that energy, some of us moreso than others, and then into spiritual entities beyond humanity that have been built by the focusing of spiritual energy into those particular entities.
The problem with christianity is it is a focus that was created primarily by jews who are focusing your spiritual energy into a spiritual entity that pretends to be universal but originated from jews and still primarily serves them. Even with a majority of the world worshiping jews, their spiritual entities are not completely dominant or unipolar over the entire world, but as long as enough people continue to spiritually empower them, they will continue to dominate the world.
The first step in the jewish takeover was religions like christianity (and arguably atenism and other ancient attempts at such a unified religion) which directed our spiritual energy to them but didn't neuter it, so while they could receive and direct our spiritual energy through their entities, there was still a bit of a struggle to keep our faith directed towards their entity in ways that empower their goals. That helped them take power, but left them with the risk that we would turn our spiritual energy away from them or relearn to harness it in a way that threatened them.
Now that their power is great enough, they are changing their old religions and creating new non-religious movements, partly to capture those who are leaving their control schemes, and partly - in the case of the atheistic movements they foster - to strip us of our spirituality and cause our spiritual side to stagnate and decay. Over a long enough time period, our greater ability to channel spiritual energy relative to the rest of life (and other races) will wither and decay and we will lose that ability, leaving the jew as the supreme spiritual masters of the world.
The unipolar religions of abrahamism are a lie, but they are a very useful lie to whoever the singular, central focus of that spiritual energy is working with/for. The Pagan multipolar religions are more accurate, but because they are tribal, they have the weakness that each entity or group of entities can be targeted alone by a large and powerful centralized spiritual force. Our Gods saw this coming and prepared for their defeat, laying the groundwork for their eventual resurrection after the destruction of the jewish spiritual power structure, and we are heading towards a planned clash of spiritual forces that both abrahamics and Asatru know is coming.
Will you continue to fight for the jews as their golem, hoping in vain to overthrow your masters even as you serve them? Or will you overthrow your master, abandoning their golem religion to die with them?
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 11 monthsJun 5, 2024 18:14:01 ago (+0/-0)
If you would, please send me the best video or videos you have re: norse/germanic gods and religion. I am not as interested in modern practice at this point as I am in philosophy and history, specifically the relationship between norse and christianity. I don't want gimmicky stuff, not that I would imagine you personally endorse or enjoy that stuff anyway. Treat it as if you had one chance to convince someone you were a great chef. I want the best meal in your repertoire.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 11 monthsJun 6, 2024 03:28:03 ago (+0/-0)
Something I will say if you haven't yet watched those is that there are things that have been shoved in your face constantly for your entire life, things that have been shoved in the general public's face constantly for our entire lives, that 99% of people have not noticed despite the fact that they've been repeated to us over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. That's not an exaggeration, there are clear patterns and references and code words/phrases that are repeated constantly through both entertainment and news media for a reason. Until you understand that reason, until you go through that paradigm shift in how you think about the things you see, you won't even be able to understand the christian religion you've been given, let alone the ancestral spirituality that's been taken from you.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 0 points 10 monthsJun 8, 2024 11:17:36 ago (+0/-0)*
To begin with, you point out a possible link with an ancient myth involving Pluto, Neptune, and Jupiter. If your theory is that this film is embedding clues about future events that conspirators are planning (at the time of the film's release), e.g., the demolishing of the Twin Towers, then we can ask whether this datum (the inclusion of an ancient mythical framework) is evidence for your theory or not. Perhaps it is, if there is also a clear link between films that utilize mythic tropes/patterns of story-telling and films that encode future events. But is it not the case that, if you randomly selected 50 films from every film made in the US since the 20th century, that you'd have fairly good odds that a large number of them would be comparable to at least one mythical narrative? Isn't that supposed by the archetypal nature of myth itself, i.e., that these are rudimentary patterns for creating stories? So, I think this point you made about the mythical connection in BTF is reasonable, I just don't know why I should infer that it makes your thesis more likely. The point would be: this datum is also going to be evidence someone can adduce for a different, competing theory: Zemeckis and many others rework existing, ancient stories that the public will be unlikely to know about in order to concoct modernized versions for profit. Or, the theory that includes the fact that writing a movie is hard, and aside from the main premise and plot, there are a lot of details that require filling in, so to speak, and creatives who are lazy may use mythical stories as a way of conveniently gathering details to fill in the gaps of their present stories. Oh, you need some event at the school to be taking place? Well, this myth is about Neptune, so why not go with a sea theme?
Keep in mind, what I'm saying is in no way refuting your thesis. I can't refute it. One issue with this is that it's impossible to demonstrate what someone's intentions are. We cannot definitively prove that Zemeckis et. al. had the intention of pre-programming 9/11 into their film. What I'm suggesting is that, given competing hypotheses, the evidence you're adducing to convince us that yours is right is the same evidence another theorist can take into making a different case. Then, when the whole analysis is finished, and all of the evidence is on the table, we ask ourselves (a) which theory best explains the data and (b) which theory requires the fewest commitments to low-probability things/events (simplicity, Ockham's razor).
From there, it seems like your argument relies mostly on the conjunction of three facts: (i) "twin" reference (Twin Pines), (ii) the fact that the things Marty and Doc change in the past cause the terrorists to crash their van into a booth in the parking lot, and (iii) the jump back in time is supposed to happen at exactly 1:16 am (or whatever), which read upside-down and backwards is 91:1.
But what about the detail that, in the past, Marty drives over one of Peabody's "twin pines" so that, when he goes back to the future, the mall is now called "Lone Pine Mall"? Here's the thing. Even ignoring this detail, your theory could still be right. The numbered facts above might still represent a "nod" to 9/11. But this would also require you to now tell me that the new fact (about the lone pine) is irrelevant to the signal. In other words, you have to determine which facts of the story represent the sign and which don't, including that the lone pine detail is not meant to be significant. But who gets to determine the criteria for establishing any given fact's significance? You?
So, overall it isn't that I totally disregard this stuff. I even find it interesting. There were moments where I went "huh" as a response to the video. I even find it plausible. You could be right. But I'm very concerned about verification. I don't think it is a theory we can ultimately be confident about, and it is hard to say what the significance of this should be for the average person. In the year BTF came out, no viewer of the film could have used the film's contents to make a prediction about the year 2001. It fully requires that we have already experienced 9/11 to make these connections. Prior to 2001, what should the average viewer have been looking out for? Should they have known a priori to turn all clock values upside-down and backward to establish future dates for terrorist attacks (or other big events)? Or that the word "twin" is going to refer to two-part architectural designs as the targets for attacks? Even if Zemeckis had been predicting 9/11, it would be mostly useless to the average bloke for the primary reason that a million different predictions could be made using the BTF data (at the time it is released), and nobody is going to know the truth until the so-called predicted event occurs.
Suppose you and I are talking in 1985 and BTF has just been released. What should you and I take away? Furthermore, supposing I come to you with a theory that the film is predicting some future event, and even if you believed in the phenomenon of predictive programming, what would justify you in believing any particular theory I came up with? What if I'd said that the future event was going to take place at Deutsche Bank Center (formerly Time Warner Center)? After all, those are "twin buildings."
It just seems to me that you are possibly doing what you (and guys like Adam Green) accuse the Jews of doing religiously, namely, reading prophecy backward into past events. You require the insight of the present in order to see the significance in the past details. We find the Jews doing this throughout their religious history, yet, by the time we get to 1985 (more roughly the 20th century), the Jews are now forecasting the future and successfuly executing it? What if you're just doing what the ancient Jews were always doing, i.e., using the benefit of the present to re-explain the past?
Please don't be offended by any of this. This is not personal whatsoever, man. Instead, it's more like I am obligated (sometimes to my detriment) to being really careful about how I form beliefs and the epistemology I'm working with. I understand that your argument is supposed to work more like a cumulative case. There were details I excluded. For example, I ignored the fact that in BTF2 the projected tv image in their living room shows the Twin Towers as Lorraine is flipping through channels. I thought this was interesting. But is it enough to justify me in being committed to your conclusion about BTF? I don't think it is. At the end of the day, it wasn't a picture of the Twin Towers merely. It was the NYC skyline at night, which features the Twin Towers. Saturday Night Live had to alter the intro to their show to remove an image of the Twin Towers subsequent to 2001, the point being that NYC is kind of a visual feature of the United States generally: many people around the world associated it with the US. It wouldn't be an unexpected image, all else being equal, to pop up on a tv screen when randomly flipping channels. Any number of real-life tv programs probably featured that skyline as part of their overall art direction.
I'm not a debunker by nature, man. I'm really not. I tend to get aggravated by people who have that general attitude toward things. I'm very open to theorizing. I just recognize that this sort of theorizing is like a quagmire, and it is a major challenge to justification.
To make one last point about justification, let me note an observation you made about BTF2 (re: "It's about your kids, Marty.") You observe that Doc is "updating" Marty's look for the future. He pulls Marty's pocket liners out so they're visible. He says this is how kids in the future are wearing their jeans. From that, together with your broad assumption that the BTF franchise (incl every installment) is an instrument for predictively programming the future, you say that this is a symbol of the "things in kids's pants" being "reversed" in the future. I found this to be a very strained metaphor. But let me grant it to you.
But what if I say, "No, NaturalSelectionistWorker, you've got it all wrong. By wearing the pocket liners inside-out, what is being exposed is the fact that their pockets are empty. Pockets are a common metaphor used to talk about someone's money, e.g., he had 'deep pockets'. By wearing their pockets inside-out, they're indicating that none of the kids is carrying cash in the future. They're predicting a cashless society. Note how Marty uses a card to process a payment remotely (to Needles) in BTF2. They are predicting digital central currencies."
Or, "See that hat that Doc places on Marty's head? It is covered by a rainbow. This is predictively programming the LGBTQ movement and that it will disproportionately impact kids in the future."
Are you right? Or, am I right? Are we both right? Are we both wrong? The problem is we can't verify it at all.
[ + ] SumerBreeze
[ - ] SumerBreeze 4 points 11 monthsJun 2, 2024 11:50:17 ago (+5/-1)
Jesus was right about the jews. Their transvestite-inspired language proves they are on the same intellectual level as the LGBLT double-plus cult lol
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 2 points 11 monthsJun 2, 2024 11:41:30 ago (+2/-0)
And you are willing to sell out the future of your own people to do it.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 2 points 11 monthsJun 2, 2024 11:54:43 ago (+2/-0)*
[ + ] Master_Foo
[ - ] Master_Foo 0 points 11 monthsJun 2, 2024 11:57:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO [op] 1 point 11 monthsJun 2, 2024 12:09:27 ago (+1/-0)