Or:
On purple-pill addicts
This post is a response to Arch Stanton: Pay attention to what I said today in the hatnote of the 60th entry of Kriminalgeschichte: ‘In a nutshell, any white person who worships the god of the Jews is, ultimately, ethnosuicidal’.
Jesus of Nazareth is considered ‘god’ by Christians, mysteriously the same as the first person of the trinity, the god father: the same Yahweh of the Jews, right? Well, if the hatnote that accompanies the entries of Deschner’s series describes reality, you yourself, by holding Jesus high, are an ethnosuicidal white.
I will be very frank. I do not believe that what you say in your novel about Jesus was historical. It could have been historical, as it could be historical the version of Jesus that appears in Evropa Soberana’s ‘Rome vs. Judea’: two different and irreconcilable visions of the historical Jesus.
I do not believe any. As I let you know in other discussion threads, there are as many Jesuses as New Testament students who fall into the temptation to write a ‘Jesus life’, as if that were possible.
It’s not possible. Already from the times of Albert Schweitzer it was known that it was impossible. The New Testament is a very problematic text because it is a kerygma. It is not a true and objective testimony about biographical facts: it preaches a new doctrine. Wanting to extract history out of such a text is like wanting to extract real history from what the Old Testament says about Moses; what the Buddhist texts initially passed on orally by monks say of Buddha, or what the Qur’an says of Muhammad.
Let’s go to the point regarding your novel. The fight between Jesus and the High Priest that appears in the gospels, which culminated in the expulsion of the merchants from the temple and eventually in the crucifixion of Jesus, is to be understood as a quarrel between Jews. Every Aryan who takes sides in such a quarrel is Judaised.
Even if the story is non-fictional whatever happened between the preacher Yeshu—whose mother Miriam was Jewish—and the temple authorities does not concern us in the least. What concerns us is what the Romans thought: Our people, the representatives of our culture. As Nietzsche said, the only decent character in the entire New Testament was Pilate.
Limestone block discovered in 1961 with Pilate’s
tribute in Latin to Tiberius. The words […]TIVS
PILATVS can be clearly seen on the second line.
But you do not have the white Pilate as the man to admire of the New Testament. You have a fucking Jew. You do not realize that, with that admiration, you, like so many white nationalists who are still clinging to their parents’ religion, are doing something harmful to the white race.
It is this kind of thing that produces a tectonic earthquake, it opens a grand canyon so to speak, between me and the nationalists. The white nationalists who maintain vestiges of Christianity are not aware of the fact that they are as much part of the problem as of the solution.
Very few racists, like Hitler in his after-dinner talks and Pierce on this side of the Atlantic, came to take the red pill. As I said elsewhere, the Alt-Right people prefer the purple.
43 replies on “Pilate or Jesus?”
I have almost no tolerance left for Christians. They are our first and biggest roadblock. We will not find the strength to fight Judea in the world until we exorcise the jew in our heart.
Christianity itself the original sin. I think that being raised Christian is kind of like being born half white. You will never truly feel at home with your native spirituality, but you are also never comfortable with the alien Semitic religion. It is the poison pill that makes you doubt all of your instincts–really doubt yourself. The Christian is the eternal doubter.
“Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought”
Christians are half jews, want to be jews and don’t know how to be themselves because of this childhood brainwashing.
This sounds like the next quotable quote for this blog 🙂
I am glad that I was born in a secular household.
@blake “It is the poison pill that makes you doubt all of your instincts–really doubt yourself.”
Isn’t it applicable to civilization, too? Civilized societies have outlawed such concepts as blood revenge and have turned people into docile sheep who would rather wait for the state to avenge them rather than do it themselves.
For a thousand years, the brave and the cruel were culled in the judicial system. And the White cucks are now proud that their culture is so deeply entrenched in the rule of law!
Giuliani mentions this: in the conflict between Christ and the Pharisees, the Pharisees were the good guys. The Tanakh has over 1,000 laws. As Robert G. Ingersoll stated “to practise the Old Testament, in our Day, is to become a criminal; to practise the New Testament, in our day, is to become insane.”
The Tanakh has over 1,000 laws. The Talmud has but 613, as this is a magic number in Qaballah. The Talmud is less murderous, insane and criminal than Torah.
Christ rebukes the Pharisees for not wanting to stone disobedient children, as per the Torah. Christ rebukes the Pharisees for washing their hands before they eat. (This is one of the reasons why Jews rarely got the black death: their superior standards of diet and personal hygiene.)
As Aryans, we shouldn’t have to care, at all, about the rivalries of 1st-century Jewish sects.
And the Yeschu Nazorea, whom the Jews boil in excrement and semen does not appear to be our Jesus, but an earlier Jesus who invaded the “Holy” Land from Egypt so as to overthrow the Pharisees. This Jesus the Nazorite, who lived in the reign of Alexander Janneus is a type of those who would disobey the Rabbis.
You say this because you’re a Roman Catholic living in a very Catholic country in Europe.
I think different. We should set aside the Bible altogether and reclaim, rehabilitate, and restore Aryan honor.
We’ll have to start from the beginning. We have to ask ourselves who we are.
As Manu Rodríguez wrote, instead of the Bible we must study the hymns of the Rig Veda, the Iliad, the Aeneid, the Edda, the Mabinogion… ‘It was us, our blood, our genius, our race, which had generated those texts, those cultures, those worlds’.
I was listening to a woman on Gnostic Radio. She was of German Catholic heritage. She said that in pre-conciliar Catholic Germany, on high pagan feast days, they would sing hymns to Freya and Wotan and even the priest would join in. I despise the Bible as much as you do. It is the Catholic Church that said their masses to Swastikas – this actually happened – that I profess. The Catholicism of Virgil and Hitler and Machiavelli – all devout secularists – that I profess.
One Cardinal wrote to a rabbi in WW2, “there is no such thing as an innocent Jew: the Jews must die…”
I see Catholicism as strategically important. The SS thought so too, and would have taken it over had in Germany not been defeated. It was Catholicism that taught me Latin and Greek and Hebrew and philosophy and Geometry and history… so I have no interest in destroying her. She is my holy mother: the mother of my intellect.
@C.T.
I doubt it. In an SS pamphlet, under the heading ‘The enemies of the National Socialist worldview and their doctrine of the equality of humanity’ the first on the list are ‘The Churches’ and the pamphlet continues: ‘The Christian Church taught the equality of humanity from the beginning… The clearest expression of this comes in Pope Pius XI’s statement on 29 July 1938: “One forgets today that the human race is a single, large and catholic race”.’
That should be Dante. Obviously Virgil wasn’t Catholic. Virgil once wrote “everyone knows that we the Latins are Saturn’s people.” I think that Latin confers upon someone a Saturnine ruthlessness; a Saturnine ability to mock all things that are untrue regardless of how taboo and sacred (satire). There is a reason why the Jews removed Latin and Greek from white schools. Goyim with Romanitas are dangerous to Jews.
Recently I have mentioned a couple of times an old man who, with a friend, visited me at home: a man so learned that I’ve seen him talking fluent Latin with the younger friend who visited me.
Both are Catholics and exchange books in Latin every time they see each other. And both are complete goners: they believe in equality and the older guy, who taught at Harvard, parrots Holocaustianity when I dare to mention important subjects.
It is not the first time that I met a ‘Latin man’ who’s completely ignorant of elemental realities. Back in the late 1980s and early 1990s I also witnessed the phenomenon in the Mitra, a sort of Vatican embassy in Mexico City, that I used to visit while researching the Turin Shroud.
Personal anecdotes aside, of what use is the Latin language in Mestizo America after the Spaniards and the Portuguese fucked thousands of Indian women and even black slaves? The continent is gone. Latin is a dead language precisely because the Roman Empire indulged in miscegenation since the first days of Christianity.
Even Alex Linder – who has few kind words to say about Catholicism – says that he received an education from reading E. Michael Jones. Bob from D.C. said the same. Yes they will passionately disagree with Jones and condemn a lot of what he says – I never actually read him, myself – and yet they consider themselves richer for reading him.
The term, ‘dogma,’ in Greek simply means ‘thought,’ ‘logical fiction.’ Catholic dogma is what the Pope says it is. Can you imagine if an Antiochus Epiphanes, or an Adolf Hitler became Pope? They could proclaim as dogma ‘extra gentem nulla salus.’ Outside of the race, no salvation.
The Catholic Church defected to the left at Vatican II. This proves that the Catholic God is not safeguarding its deposit of Faith. But this means that it can also defect rightward.
But isn’t Jones the guy who spares Christianity while attacking the Jews? Linder is monolingual. He reads good books but is largely ignorant of the criminal history of Xtianity that I’ve been gathering here with the series of Deschner (and the overview by Evropa Soberana). I doubt that Jones mentions such criminal history…
…and I also doubt that you have read it! Otherwise, you’d know that the problem started two thousand years ago!
I do. I was listening to Robert G. Ingersoll. He said that the sons of the Roman Catholic Church would not be expiated until either Saint Peter’s Basilica was either destroyed or renamed “Saint Giardano Bruno’s.” Make me Pope, and I will gladly reconsecrate this basilica to Saint Giardano and his holy companion, Saint Hypatia.
Maybe Latin is useless in South America, however in Europe it seems to Augment Racial feeling. The Latin word ‘Sanctus’ and ‘Sanguis’ have the same root: SANK- The blood of our race is holy.
I meant that I doubt you have considered properly what Evropa Soberana said in ‘Rome vs. Judea; Judea vs. Rome’ (the Kriminalgeschichte series only supports those facts with thousands of scholarly footnotes).
*sins. I really hate autocorrect!
@Gaedhal
What you’re saying is we should worship at the altar of a Jewish religion simply because of a Language which not many really have any use for.
I cannot speak Latin, yet I have Racial feeling and pride. I don’t understand how Latin can increase Racial feeling. You ignore the millions of Aryan nations that did not speak Latin and still had Racial pride.
You also ignore your own country’s history. How many died at the hands of the Catholics because they were Protestants and vice versa?
Stop nit picking small parts from Catholic culture which have no meaning. Stop twisting it to make it “really Aryan”. Just throw it away like the Jewish sect that it is.
“Make me Pope, and I will gladly reconsecrate this basilica to Saint Giardano and his holy companion, Saint Hypatia.”
Wake me up when that happens.
Jack,
There was a saying in the middle ages:
“As Latin increases, piety decreases.”
The more Latin one knows, the less likely he is to take the Bible seriously. Most traditional Catholics, by the way, have zero interest in learning Latin.
I believe that Catholicism predates Christianity. The office of Pontifex Maximus, certainly does. The sedia gestatoria certainly does, the flabella, or ostrach feathers certainly do.
Rabbi Jesus condemns the use of Long Robes… and yet the pre-conciliar Catholic Church bedecks itself with lace and cappa magnas.
Rabbi Jesus – the judeobolshevist and Social Marxist – says “call no man thy father upon the earth.” The Catholic Church is a patriarchy.
Catholicism runs counter to the Bible in a lot of places.
In Germany, Latin and Greek grew to an extremely high standard. In ‘the Time Traveller’ HG Welles jokes that the Germans were better at Latin and Greek than the Ancient Greeks and Romans. In my opinion, this German Renaissance led to the Occult Revival in Germany and eventually the rise of Hitler.
“In my opinion..”
That is all this crap will ever be. You have no evidence to support the fact that Latin increases Racial feeling.
And I don’t care much for the cherry picking. It is the marking of a conflicted mind. It is hard to respect such a thing, you see?
You are still worshiping a Jewish invention. The only Aryan parts of Catholicism are rooted within Asatru. If you see that as a good thing, then I suppose you listen to Jazz, because that has Aryan roots, as well as metal.
The Catholic religion has proven itself time and time again to be against Race: The minting of the Mestizo Racial element, constant attempts to convert Bushmen and Eskimos, and the intra-Racial wars between White Protestants and White Catholics. My Father named me after a man who was a Protestant Orangeman within the Republic whom supposedly hacked to death with a machete Catholics whom had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (my father was friends with this man).
And your talk of Catholicism doesn’t interest me. You ignore the fact that Islam did more to keep European antiquity alive than your Judaic sect. Why are you not a Muslim then? Answer: Because you were raised a Catholic and have not the courage to leave all that behind. What evidence is there that without Catholicism there would be no renaissance? Answer: There is none. There is nothing inherently Catholic about the renaissance.
Listen, after reading Apocalypse for Whites, I have come to the (correct) conclusion that all people like you are doing is condoning the atrocities committed by the Christians. The fact that you hate Jesus is not impressive to me. You still worship at the altar of the religion which caused the death of a world which – despite its many flaws – I would much rather be living in right now.
We argue the same point from different perspectives. You essentially say, “deny Jesus and reject Christianity.” Yet people have tried this approach since the first century without success. So what good has this approach accomplished in the rejection of Christianity, a religion whose believers are as strong in their beliefs today as they were in the first century?
I say this cannot happen until Jesus is demythologized as a divine figure by explaining gospel events in a logical manner Christians can understand from a real world perspective. It’s easy for Christians to reject your argument with the simple statement, “your problem is that you do not believe. Just ask Jesus into your heart . . . etc” They have far more difficulty when I say, “I did ask Jesus into my heart and this is the story he told me,” addressing the story in a human manner that details the life of their “divine savior.”
If you think we go round and round here, you ought to hear me talk with Christians; yet, for the most part, they do listen. Especially the more intelligent Christians sects, like Mormons. How many listen to you and those who maintain your position? The proof is in the Matzo.
Although Christians might reject the premise of my story, I establish common ground with them because typically, I know their “savior” far more intimately than they do. What’s more, I like and respect Jesus and revere his message about the Temple Jews’ greed and materialism. While Christian apologists like John Dominic Crossan and Bart Ehrman obliquely discredit Jesus, they do so within the traditional Jewish framework, e.g. Jesus was a rebel opposed to Roman rule.
Christians I talk to have never met anyone who challenges their beliefs in such an nontraditional manner. The difference is in the Jew. Traditional discrediting attempts completely ignores the overwhelmingly Jewish aspect of the story that in fact frames the story. For believers, “no Jew” equals “divine godhood.” This is why “Christian Identity” attempts to separate Jesus from his Jewish heritage.
I have personal experience that it’s difficult for Christians to summarily reject what I say about the man, because I present detailed facts and ideas that are problematical to reconciling their knowledge of the Gospel narration. The classic example is “the raising of Lazarus” that rationally explains why Jesus performed this “miracle.” In fact, the very word “miracle” is interesting in that to first century Jews it meant “an unintentional outcome to the law.”
By definition, healing was not a miracle anymore than it is with today’s doctors, however when and where can be a legal matter. While Jesus demonstrated what might be considered amazing healing powers, others have done so as well. Walking on water is no more “miraculous” than Buddhist monks going into the mountains to wrap themselves in wet sheets in sub zero weather to dry out the sheets with their body heat, or others who leave footprints in the rocks. Inexplicable by traditional physics yes, but not a demonstration of divine powers. Fish into loaves, water into wine, raising the dead, were all legal issues rebuking sacred Temple law.
Reading the fish into loaves story carefully, one finds the “clean” (blessed) loaves were divided, but not the “unclean” fish that were outside sacrificial law and therefore did not require a blessing. What happened is when Jesus spoke about sharing with one’s neighbors, the crowd responded by bringing out food they had been hiding from each other.
Jesus took, blessed, broke, and gave bread to the disciples, who then passed it to the people. The key here is in the blessing, an act required by a Temple priest for legal purposes. If there was a “miracle” in the traditional sense, it was not in the multiplication of loaves, but the fact Jesus was able to convince selfish Jews to share their food.
Three of the Gospel writers say, “Send the crowd away, that they may go into the surrounding villages and countryside and find lodging and get something to eat; for here we are in a desolate place.”
As for the “multitude,” traditionally held to be 5000, this flies in the face of first century population numbers and their mobility. The inflation of these numbers is much like the hyperbole about the “million man march” estimated by a firm hired by CBS News to be between 78,000 and 96,000. 5000 people at a gathering in first century Galil? Get real!
If a Christian researches the facts to disprove what I have said, they find I am correct, but even if they think otherwise it still opens the door to questioning their religious dogma. While Christians are familiar with the story I tell, they have never heard a version anywhere close to what I have written.
The first step is to fully assign the story to Jews. Jesus was a Jew, The Temple was Jewish, Saul/Paul was a Temple Jew and both the Torah/Old Testament, as well as the Gospels were originally written by, for, and about Jews. Understanding that, where is the “gentile” in the picture? Jesus himself rejects the need for addressing the “gentiles.”
As I have previously written, Saul/Paul’s “Christianity” has nothing to do with Jesus outside stealing his name and reputation to fulfill his own greed for power in the very worst Jewish tradition. While Jesus fought against the Temple Jews, Saul/Paul tried co-opting them into his new religion, largely without success. Once more, the story of Jesus has nothing to do with non-Jews. It’s a Jewish story beginning to end. Put in that perspective, nothing remains in which traditional Christians can “believe.”
Essentially, I’m doing what Jesus did with second Temple Judaism by working within the confines of the traditional religious narration to deconstruct it. The larger problem is that people desperately need a religious belief. They need to believe in a divine power beyond themselves The Jews tried using the state as a replacement, but it did not work. Today the traditional concepts presented by ancient polytheism are too complex for the majority of humanity to embrace, so if traditional monotheistic religion is removed, what can be offered as a replacement?
There is a power, a creative force that exists in various forms throughout the universe. One might think of the material universe as a painting or sculpture. While the artist may not be physically present, the work itself is evidence of the artist. This creative force is found in every living organism and not limited to a “chosen” few.
This power isn’t found in the form of a simplistic, Jewish god that creates worlds as a kindergarten toddler might create mud pies. It does not micromanage our lives. It does not favor certain portions of creation. It does not provide man “dominion” over his minuscule portion of the universe. It does not answer prayers for a new bike.
One only needs view the relative size of celestial bodies to see this creative force is beyond all human comprehension, yet it is closer than one’s jugular. It needs not be addressed, nor worshiped, but the wise man recognizes and respects it.
The question is how does one define the indefinable? How does one explain to the egotistical human that the creative force holds them no more, or less, important than a worm and that on the grand scale of creation, their lifespan is no longer than the mayfly’s?
Therein lies the religious conundrum.
…if traditional monotheistic religion is removed, what can be offered as a replacement?
Once it’s removed, what do you replace cancer with?
There are actually quite a number of cultures that either have no gods or reject the notion of gods altogether. Read up on them here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism
While the artist may not be physically present, the work itself is evidence of the artist.
This is deism, which leads inexorably to atheism. If God can’t or won’t intervene in the universe, then for all practical purposes in this life, he may as well not exist. Having the laws of physics for your God is the same as having no God at all. The only way to save a personal God is to invent an afterlife in which he does interact with humans.
[The creative force] needs not be addressed, nor worshiped, but the wise man recognizes and respects it.
Even atheists like Richard Dawkins or Albert Einstein claim that they are in awe of the natural order of the world as embodied in the laws of physics. But that awe is not religion, just scientific wonderment and curiosity.
@Jack,
I am not trying to convert anyone to Catholicism: as I said to Alex Linder: you are better off out of it. This is simply my path. I see no point in alienating myself from a Catholic populace. There are enough people resisting Catholicism from without. I remain within.
“I am not trying to convert anyone to Catholicism”
I respect that. And please try not to focus on the smaller details of things I say, for example: “Because you were raised a Catholic and have not the courage to leave all that behind.”
My words tend to have a vitriolic layer to them. A lot of the time I just think aloud. Whatever sentence is in my prefrontal cortex at a certain moment will usually find its way out not long after. Try not to take it the wrong way.
Also, when I speak of the Modern German Classical Rennaisance, and the SS trying to take over the Catholic Church, I am drawing this from druids and Gnostics and Freemasons and Satanists who hate the Catholic Church.
Traditional Catholics generally despise Hitler and the 3rd Reich. They buy into Hitler being a Rothschild.
Which is why I hate Catholicism…
@arch,
The larger problem is that people desperately need a religious belief. They need to believe in a divine power beyond themselves. sez who? certainly not a rational mind. rather, folks desperately need to respect themselves and accept ownership of their personal trek through this life.
i very much like your description of the unknowable creative force behind the universe, that chooses to remain unknown to us humans. the profanity, hubris, fools rush in were angels fear to tread of those greatly insecure religionists, too afraid to accept ownership of their lives, and instead choosing the evil way. the lie of saying they know this unknowable.
One only needs view the relative size of celestial bodies to see this creative force is beyond all human comprehension, yet it is closer than one’s jugular. It needs not be addressed, nor worshiped, but the wise man recognizes and respects it. and why i respect the man adolf hitler. he owned his life. and honored nature. and tossed xtianity aside. the closest we humans can come the unknowable power that is the creative force is to hold nature in awe and not profane it.
It reminds me of a debate between some dykey-looking Atheist female and Oprah Winfrey.
The dykey-looking Atheist spoke of the beauty of nature and the pretty little flowers and bunny rabbits. Oprah just said “but that is God!” And that was the end of the debate, pretty much. The argument of the beauty of nature looking composed or crafted is not an argument at all. I can easily just reply with “if God is so powerful, why would It create things in such a complex manner? Why isn’t everything so simply made?”
I can easily see a world where people have no need even to see a God at all. In fact, Neanderthals were the first Hominids ever to show signs of practising any sort of religion. This either suggests that alternate hominid types were religious in an abstract way, or they were Atheists, like the rest of animals.
And that’s another thing: Why do only Humans have need for Belief? Where is the Faith of pigs and cows? Or am I to believe that Mantises are literally praying?
I remember a part of a novel called The Big Sky. In this, the mountain man Jim Deakins thinks of how the primitive, hunter-gatherer lifestyle he and his comrade Boone Caudill have been living cause them to forget about the concept of God. He no longer cares about the existence of such a thing. He simply cared about whatever came to him.
I don’t know if this is an accurate portrayal of what would happen to a White man if he left civilisation. I suppose Ted Kaczynski thought with similar patterns. I think that Injuns had animistic beliefs because they were a primitive Race, subject to primitive thoughts. And the potential of the Aryan psychoclass has come a long way since the times of drowning and burning red haired girls (my favourite) for being witches.
Typical of the animal man, the lowest, basest form of humanity. This is how the mud races surviving on low “hanging fruit” look at the world. Of course the modern “successful” author would have to attribute such characteristics to the white man before any Jewish publisher would think about publishing his work. Or perhaps the author was Jewish.
And the potential of the Aryan psychoclass has come a long way since
“My favorite?” Yes the “potential” of the Aryan “psychoclass” certainly has dropped precipitously by allowing Jews and mud races to torture, murder and eviscerate their women with virtual impunity.
I have no clue what you are talking about.
AB Guthrie was not condemning this behaviour – Quite the opposite. A description is not a condemnation. Plus, you don’t have to put successful in quotations – Guthrie was extremely successful for his time.
Unfounded bollocks.
I was not celebrating the fact that red haired girls were being mass murdered. I was speaking of my preference for girls with red hair, hence “my favourite”. Though I am not too picky hair colour wise.
As with screen writers, no modern author is “successful” until measured by the Jew’s sacred, seven cubit yardstick.
Of course you weren’t. https://odinia.org/article/blonde-bashing-box-office/
“As with screen writers, no modern author is “successful” until measured by the Jew’s sacred, seven cubit yardstick.”
Indeed. However, AB Guthrie wrote The Big Sky in 1947. Don’t know about the extent of Jewish power in the literature industry at this time. What Guthrie has to say about the old West is really quite interesting, and seems to be untouched by Judaic influence. Though he does speak quite favourably of the Native Americans (he remains nuanced about this, however).
The article you linked is interesting. You know, I was brought up as a child to believe Blondes were dumb and sluttish, and I believed it for a long time. Imagine actually believing that.
Indeed, many older works published before the Jew’s iron grip on publishing was firmly established, have been embraced because they served the Jew’s agenda. However, by 1947 virtually all the major publishing houses were either owned by Jews or served Jewish interest.
In this case Guthrie was espousing the rapidly emerging postwar trends towards multiculturalism and white guilt. Note that in the early thirties Jews also embraced the goy Woody Guthrie as a tool for their Marxist revolutionary exposure of “working-class oppression.” Later, Guthrie’s son Arlo was used to promote the “Hippie movement” of the 1960s.
It is clear you have not read The Big Sky, or any of Guthrie’s novels. He does not inspire White guilt in the slightest. There is even a part of TBS where the Crows lead an unprovoked attack on Boone’s boat, killing everyone aboard save for him, Jim Deakins and Dick Summers. The female Crows cut off the dead Frenchmen’s penises and kill their cat, tying his pelt to the mast.
The book is not meant to inspire White guilt, but rather, an infatuation with the mountain man archetype.
Nor will I, as I quit reading worthless novels in my youth to concentrate on technical and historical matters.
No doubt circumcised Jews masturbate to this description.
A brief story about my novel, The Conspiracy of Man.
While long loathing the trash novels flooding today’s literary world, I labored over how I might present my work. Originally, I was going to write the book as a scholarly treatise, complete with footnoted references and bibliography, although I knew this would add considerably more labor to the work.
Of more concern however was the idea that few people outside a tiny group of scholars might even read the work. Worse, I would open the door for religious “authorities” to pick the work apart by attacking, discrediting and disputing this reference or that footnote, as is often the case in these matters where almost every claim is open to question and counter-question. I labored incessantly over how I might frame this story of Jesus.
One day, while walking up the dock with my laundry, I stopped at the marina gate to view with disgust the numerous trash novels lying there for anyone that might care to pick them up. It was the usual fare of murder mysteries, romance and adventure novels, sprinkled with Jewed self-help books.
Making my way up to the laundry room, I deposited my clothes in the machine and stopped once again to notice with increasing disgust, the laundry room’s bookcase filled with yet more trash novels. Among the various works were books by Dan Brown, like his fictitious Davinci Code, a novel that, more than once, has been viewed as historical fact. From there I proceeded downstairs to the Marina Deli. When I walked through the Deli door, there, lying on the table were yet more trash novels and Jew periodicals.
“Jesus-fucking-H-Christ!” I thought, “is that all people read these days, garbage novels and magazines?” A nanosecond later, I realized my question had been rhetorical. Instantly, I reformulated my work as a novel, the very venue I despised and thus had never stopped to consider.
Presto! The chance for much wider readership was instantly realized, along with the elimination of scholarly attack, easily countered with the comment, “Hey! It’s a novel!” The novel now presented the best possibility for distribution in the modern literary world.
Thanks Jews!
You know absolutely fuck all about AB Guthrie or his work, yet think you can have a defined opinion on it all. I am not going to read your entire comment – No point. I beginning to see that there is getting to be less and less point talking to you… about anything.
Sez who? Sez History! Religion has been an integral part of every culture that has ever cursed this planet. Look at the mesoamericans whose civilizations were based on murderous, bloody sacrifice to the gods. Even the terror cultures, like the secular Judaeocommunist Soviets, still had practicing religionist. Note that while destroying every Christian cultural icon they could get their filthy, greasy hands on, the Judaeocommunist never touched a synagogue or burned a Torah scroll.
that existence of religions has stood the test of time does not imply worth. just as the zog of america does not imply worthiness of the tribe. rather, the historicity of religions simply indicates the power of early childhood hypnosis into the belief systems of those in authority. and the validity of psychoclass. (yes, my religion. not science. i’m as guilty and stupid as those i criticize.)
Who said anything about worth? I was addressing the cultural – need – for religion; the question of “worth” is merely one’s subjective viewpoint on the matter.
@Spahn Ranch
People think that “because a painting has a painter, the Universe must have a maker.”
But this is of course ridiculous. Why should the Universe have a maker because a painting has a painter? Just because one thing has a characteristic does not mean another thing must also have the same characteristic.
Arch Stanton will probably just excuse the atheism of other cultures by either calling it Jewish, or saying that they are all regressive societies anyway.
Look at a modern microchip structure. Examine it under magnification. Will you maintain the microchip is just an accident of nature or can you see intelligent design?
Look at the cross section of a leaf under a microscope. Examine the cell structure of this miniature, disposable photosynthesis factory, can one say this is an accident, that it is the product of random molecules joining in a random manner that created this wonder? Is the leaf an accident of nature or the product of intelligent design?
It takes intelligence to design intelligence. If the universe was truly the product of accidental chance, one might find TV sets growing on trees, instead of intelligent men designing them.
What is ironic is that the intelligent design of the human is often too stupid to recognize intelligent design. Of course those grounded in the material world, those who maintain that “he who dies with the most toys wins,” feel they might lose everything by recognizing the existence of something greater than themselves.
That is why Jews created their all too human god. They needed to put the designer on the same scale as their priesthood of greedy cheese mites seeking to own and consume the the whole cheese.
Your comment is the biggest non-sequitur I have ever seen.
It takes intelligence to design intelligence.
Who designed your designer?
The same designer that designed the “accidental” universe from a random conjugation of molecules. From what accident of nature do you attribute intellect? A bunch of cells accidentally conjugating and presto! One suddenly has a brain?
If this is so, then why does it happen repeatedly among all living organisms within well defined limits? Sure looks like organized design to me, the same way passenger jets look similar and function in the same manner to operate within certain physical constraints, with at best, minor variations on the basic design.
If intelligence is merely the product of accident, why do all living organisms display some form of intelligence that serves their capacity to survive? Considering the intellect some people display, one might indeed suspect man’s intelligence is accidental in nature.
However, that is the brain; what about consciousness? What random occurrence explains the sentient being? How can one maintain consciousness is a random occurrence when it’s source can neither be identified or measured?
Once again whatever this force is, whatever intelligence is behind the design of the universe, it is far beyond human comprehension as a survey of the universal scale will confirm.
Thus it useless to conjecture over such matters. If one wants to believe their existence is due to random accident, then so be it. Much the same way if one wants to believe they are the creation of a wrathful, judgemental, vengefully patriarchal, Jewish god that began human life by making little clay dolls and breathing life into them – then so be it.
One can believe whatever they want to believe, or they can weigh the evidence and consider the possibilities while applying Occam’s razor to their observations. As the Sufis maintain, all truth can be tested.
The same designer that designed the “accidental” universe from a random conjugation of molecules.
By your own previous logic, he couldn’t have designed himself, since intelligence requires a designer external to itself. And that designer, too, would require another designer, ad infinitum.
That’s the difference.
Science asserts that matter is self-organizing. For you, matter requires “somebody” to organize it. But not that mysterious “somebody”. In your opinion, he pops up self-organized. But if you can accept self-organization, why not just dispense with God altogether?
…they can weigh the evidence and consider the possibilities while applying Occam’s razor to their observations.
Exactly. Your God has been slashed away with Occam’s razor. He’s an unnecessary hypothesis.