All the smart Christians like E. Michael Jones talk about Logos as opposed to a carpenter named Jesus. Take out the New Testament narrative, and what is left is just old fashioned classical Stoicism. St. Paul is indistinguishable from the Stoics of his time and from what I recall literally name checks them.
Christianity appears at the exact same time as Vespasian, Titus, and Domition are conquering the Jewish rebels in Palestine. The Jewish rebels believe in a proto-Zionism where a Messiah will liberate them from the kittim. Josephus, being a modern man, realizes that Vespasian is going to win, switches sides and declares his loyalty to Rome, and declares Vespasian the Messiah and attributes the Star Prophecy from Numbers to Titus. Vespasian becomes the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. The New Testament shows the Romans as the ones who accept “Christ” and the Jews as the ones who reject them. Also the Gospels tell the Jews to submit to Rome and pay their taxes – the very thing the Zionists refused to do.
Take the Cult of Divine Caesar of Julius and Augustus, add in Vespasian becoming the “Messiah of the Jews” per Jospehus and the family of Philo of Alexandria – rich Jews who rejected the rebel Zionists and embraced loyalty to Rome – and after three major Roman-Jewish wars when Rome finally defeats the Zionist Jews and you get the descendant of Vespasian and Titus – Constantine – officially establishing the Church which “just happens” to be a mix of:
1. Stoic philosophy
2. a “Hebrew-ized” version of the Divine Julius cult with themes and history representing the Roman-Jewish war, where the “good Jews” become “Christians” and accept a Hellenized Messiah and pay taxes to Rome.
And what do you know, there’s a bunch of “Christian Flavians” buried under the Vatican.
This might be just interesting history, except we have these “Rightists” like the Social Pathologist telling us we can’t actual take the side of White people until we “restore the West” and “fight modernity” and in order to do that we have to re-embrace Christianity.
But none of these “neo-reactionaries” like Social Patholigist (https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2018/05/a-religious-dissident-right.html) and Social Matter (https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/06/27/week-reaction-2018-06-24/) are actually interested in Hebrew carpenters, virgin births, and literal nail holes in hands.
They are really only interested in Logos and Stoic philosophy.
So, maybe we can stop privileging Jewish superstitions and 2,000 year old Roman war propaganda and just embrace our actual Western heritage – classical Greco-Roman Stoicism.
Sounds like a win-win to me. We get to keep all that art and architecture while getting rid of pedophile priests and religious whack-jobs obsessed with desert real estate in the Levant.
In the very clever and very good “meta-sitcom” “Little Mosque on the Prairie” the White wife says it’s “exciting” that the imam is asking her husband for her daughter’s hand in marriage. Her friend asks, “but isn’t that sexist?” The wife replies, “well, yes it’s sexist. But it’s exciting too. Kind of like Mel Gibson, it’s exciting AND sexist!”
In my continuing series restating the obvious about women and men, here’s another obviously obvious point: women prefer sexist men.
Women are more attracted to men who are sexist because they think they are more willing to protect them, provide for them and commit to a relationship, scientists say.
Men who are considered to be sexist in a well-meaning way – for example if they are chivalrous or think women need a man to protect them – may be more attractive.
Even though women find these men patronising and can feel undermined by them, they are more likely to want to couple up with them than with men who don’t give them special treatment.
Researchers say women may be hard-wired to think the benefits of being with a kind but sexist man outweigh the downsides. …
And even women who consider themselves strong feminists showed the same preferences in the study by British and US researchers.
Note that BDSM is in the top three most common sexual fantasies:
Dr. Lehmiller identified seven major themes of sexual fantasies. Almost all participants said they fantasize about the three most-common ones at one time or another: multi-partner sex (including threesomes and group sex); power, control or rough sex (this includes bondage and runs the gamut from being tied up to full-on sadomasochism); and novelty, adventure and variety (encompassing new activities and new settings).
especially for women:
Men and women reported fantasizing about different things, although there was more overlap than you might expect, and some surprises. Most of the men said their fantasies included an emotional element—they imagined themselves feeling desired, sexually competent and irresistible. (Women did this, too.) And women were more adventurous than Dr. Lehmiller expected they’d be: They [women] fantasized more about bondage and sadomasochism than men did (in both the submissive and the dominant roles), and they fantasized a lot about group sex (although not as much as men) and new activities.
These findings are not in the least bit surprising to a) women, b) women’s romance authors, writers, filmmakers, and pornographers, and c) men who are “successful with women.”
These findings ARE, however, very disconcerting to a) “traditional conservatives” b) “nice guys” c) “feminist men” – in other words, men who are typically not “successful with women.”
One suspects if one were to drill down, the “group sex” fantasies of women tend to involve things like “gang rape” – more grist for the “war brides” trope – and that women’s fantasies about taking on “the dominant role” is likely the exact opposite of what “politically correct feminists” would hope for – i.e., it’s not Dominatrixes dominating youthful pool boys, but what I’ve described “the switch” – really, a “reversal” that is just a slight variation on the basic “woman submitting to a powerful man” theme.
The typical scenario would be, “you’ve been dominating me all weekend, now let me get on top and show you what I can do while you lay back and relax.”
Let’s see. Sexist BDSM spanking manosphere authors, 1. Feminists and traditional social conservatives, 0.
A high IQ mentally ill feminist in the autism “community” in San Francisco committed suicide and in her note explained how desperate she was for a man to “protect” her from all the other men. She even wondered if it was legal for her to “trade sex for protection” while she longed for a man to take possession of her …
I hope the power dynamics of her fantasies are obvious. There are no feminists in the bedroom.