Tag Archives: christianity

Taylor Swift’s New Video Transitions Her to Lesbian-Gay Activist

About a decade ago I spent a summer with my oldest sister and her son who was about 15 at the time. Of course I felt sort of “paternal” with him, kind of on the edge between being his “friend” and a “father figure.” The moment always stuck in my head because he said some things that made me cringe at the time but on reflection make me empathize with him and sent me right back to when I was 15, a virgin, literally just months before I “lost my virginity.”

He made some comments that were “misogynistic” and “prudish.”

Looking back on it a decade later, what caused that cognitive dissonance is remembering when I was 15 – a virgin – very much interested in girls but not really understanding my own “heterosexuality.” But I have to admit, when I was 15 years old, I was as “misogynistic” and “prudish” as he was. It’s also a political issue because it was about that age when I first began to understand political propaganda and how television was a propaganda apparatus promoting, in both a subtle and not-at-all subtle way, teenage promiscuity.

When I was growing up in church, there was really only one political issue, and that was “abortion.” Abortion was a horrific murder of a child in the womb and we, as Christians, as members of “The Church” were the forefront of the opposition to “abortion.” Those non-Christians – “secular humanists” – were literal baby-killers. We never “blamed” the pregnant women having the abortions, instead opting for the idea that these women were themselves “victims” of “abortionists” who were some sort of horror-movie serial killers, and also “secular humanist” “feminists” who, for religious reasons, had rejected human decency due to their own “sin nature.”

It’s important to understand that we did not consider the girls and women getting abortions as “evil” and we considered the abortionists themselves only “evil” in the sense that they were “blinded” due to their lack of Jesus. Our greatest hope was to “convert” these abortionists to pro-life activists. Once they understood how even little unborn babies are human, we could all hold hands and accept Jesus, then everything would be good.

One thing the Church taught me that really stuck was to critically examine media, television, and “Hollywood.” All of the authority figures at church told us, at a very young age, that “Hollywood” was evil propaganda. For a pre-teen and later a teenager, one of the most obvious aspects of this was the promotion of “pre-marital sex.” I recall many TV shows and movies that made it seem “normal” to have sex with your “girlfriend” and in fact attempts to “shame” fathers – and mothers – that tried to prevent their children from having “pre-marital sex.”

Even at 15, it was so obvious. The basic trick was to demonize parents for “not trusting their own children.” The basic scam was that parents had already successfully passed their morality to their children, but “didn’t trust” their own kids, and their own parenting, thus didn’t “trust” their daughters and sons to not “go all the way” with their teenage hearthrobs.

If a parent had said, “no I don’t want you to spent time alone” with a member of the opposite sex, this was treated in the Hollywood fiction as a scandalous lack of “trust” on the part of the parents, perhaps even a horrific example of hypocrisy. Maybe it was the parent’s fault – maybe the teenagers were actually morally superior to the parents because it was the parents who had given into temptation and engaged in premarital sex.

A clear example of this was in an episode of “All In The Family” which was promoting miscegenation, specifically, promoting White girls having sex with Black boys. In this episode, quite cleverly they distanced the main characters from the propaganda. The daughter of Archie Bunker’s White friend had “danced” with a Black boy at prom, and posed for a “prom picture” with him. The teenage white girl “shames” her father for thinking anything was untoward here. Of COURSE she didn’t “have sex” with him, it was just “a dance.” It was just a “picture.” Not only is the father “racist” for objecting, he’s a moral failure for not “trusting” his daughter.

This propaganda worked amazingly well, because of course all you have to do is give teenagers half an hour alone, without supervision, and they will do what comes naturally and fuck each other’s brains out – and lie through their teeth about how they totally are not fucking each other’s brains out. The parents were always right, and the Hollywood propagandists were always lying. The point is simply to “shame” parents from being protective of their children’s sexuality just long enough to get the teenagers to start having sex, thus destroying the culture of monogamy. It was never anything more than a confidence game, and obvious psychological trick.

As the Christian blogger Dalrock points out, the real reason that Christians (i.e., Whites) failed is because they lost their nerve – instead of marrying off their teenagers at the appropriate age, they were shamed by Hollywood propagandists into looking the other way as their children “fornicated.”

There’s a great quote from some wag about Hollywood, maybe be the famous “alt-right” Jewsish “Holocaust Revisionist” David Cole. It’s not so much that Hollywood is controlled by Jews, it’s that Hollywood is controlled by gay Jews. They are double-alienated from White society. Not only are they Jews, the are homosexuals, thus alienating them from their own actual religious tradition.

So what I learned from my 15 year old cousin is that his “misogyny” and “prudishness” – his “judgementalism” – was just him trying to resist the temptation of girls and keep control of his own raging teenage lust. It’s the same instinct that plenty of teenage girls feel when they become “feminists” and show great concern about “rape culture” (which really is nothing but a culture of promiscuity) and “sexism.” It’s just these young people trying to live up to the expectations of their parents and do the right thing.

Of course Christians, since the era of Hollywood and Television, don’t really believe in their own religion – there is NO SUCH THING AS A CHRISTIAN IN AMERICA SINCE 1945 – and instead simply, one TV commercial at a time, converted to their action religion, which is – what would you call it? American Imperialist Capitalist.

The fact that good bloggers like Dalrock (https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/05/03/word-has-it-there-is-a-tip-jar/) still fetishize the Bible doesn’t actually make him a Christian, it actually proves that he’s simply a conservative capitalist imperialist that wants his daughters to be Roman Wives, not Roman Whores. But he has to outsource that to Old Testament Protestantism because it’s literally all he has. His instincts are all good, but he still has to posture as Christian because, as an American peasant, he has no other way to resist the Empire and the new technological system.

Taylor Swift was a much more clever marketing campaign than Miley Cyrus was. She pretended to date a bunch of boys and men, her gimmick was to “date around” with the implication that she was promiscuous. And a decade later, as a barren 30 something biological failure, she will openly embrace being a lesbian.

Which is exactly the plan for American girls, and Taylor Swift is the perfect role model for the new dispensation. Christians do have a sense of unease about it, but they are simply too unsophisticated to really understand what’s going on.

When I was young, I had enough intuition to understand that the people who crafted these music videos were pushing something that I didn’t understand; as an adult it’s all so obvious now. Conservatives really need to understand LGBT culture and its intersection with Jewish culture.

But they won’t – cue Buttigieg Buttplug jokes.

Should Christian Women Wear Pants?

One of my guilty pleasures is watching Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church on youtube. A decade ago my other guilty pleasure was watching Westboro Baptist Church parody music videos but I don’t think they make them anymore. I find them refreshingly subversive to modernity and liberalism.

I don’t enjoy watching, say, Paul Washer videos. Anderson is a dork and not particularly bright. But Washer is a full fledged sociopath. So the difference is it’s fun to see Anderson ranting and railing against stuff, often getting it wrong in a hilarious way because he’s not that smart and a huge dork. But it’s not fun watching Paul Washer because he’s a competent, sadistic sociopath. It’s the difference between watching a crazy old man yelling “get off my lawn” to a bunch of naughty kids vesus an evil psycopath psychologically torturing children.

Anderson (and the Westboros) were known for their “homophobia” but really that’s what they used for publicity and controversy. As Anderson notes, the fact is most people don’t approve of homosexuality and are absolutely repulsed by transsexualism. That’s exactly why the media promotes LGBT constantly (and also, relatedly, why they promote Jews, Israel and Holocaust culture so much – and also why there is so much Afrophilia.) People have to be browbeaten by this stuff because they naturally don’t like it.

While the media will tell you Anderson is “hateful” it’s not true, he’s actually kind of dorky, which makes it fun.

You have to understand the role that Pastor or Preacher had in American society. Before the era of mass education, the only educated person in a community was the Minister. Harvard University, in fact, all of the universities, were started to train ministers. In an entire town, the Bible was very often the only book that anyone had. So the Pastor was not just a religious figure, he was essentially the only intellectual.

The precise reason that religion lost so much cultural clout is because people started to read more than one book – and more than one person started to read. So Pastors lost their place as the only educated person in town.

In any case, Anderson tries to fulfill the role as “general intellectual” for his small congregation of working class, mostly (but not exclusively) Whites in Arizona. He’ll read the news for them, discuss issues, etc.

In this particular video, he actually does a somewhat credible job of trying to explain the difference between SEX and GENDER. He wants to tell his congregation why women shouldn’t wear pants, because while putting on a pair of pants doesn’t change a woman’s sex, it can be seen as a form of cross-dressing.

But he even gets this wrong, mostly because he’s a) not that smart and b) kind of a dork.

So he writes three columns on the whiteboard and has the congregation categorize different kinds of clothing into either for men, for women, or both. He starts with easy stuff: skirts, dresses, bras, pantyhose – all for women. Then, he asks about shoes, hats, gloves, tee-shirts, etc., and everyone agrees they are for both women and men.

So then he comes up to his big point, his coup de grace. How comes there’s nothing in the men’s column? He wants to point out that the verse in the Bible that says women’s shouldn’t wear “what pertains to a man” would have no meaning if there’s no clothing specifically for men.

But one of his congregation helpfully points out – TIES. Oops. Here’s a clear case. In modern, American society, men wear ties, and women don’t. But that ruins his entire point. His point was to say that women shouldn’t wear pants and pants are exclusively for men and if women wear pants there’s no point in the Bible verse.

But it’s OBVIOUS to everyone that ties are more stereotypically men’s clothing than pants. So what does Anderson do? Well, he’s a dork, and not that bright, so he mocks the guy who helpfully tried to help him out and give him a CLEAR example of something in our culture that is for men only: ties.

So Anderson says, well, he’s seen women wear ties. (WHAT?) I do remember a school uniform that had a kind of “tie” for women, it was a short thing, more like a ribbon really, that they would wear over their right breast. It was never popular and never caught on.

But Anderson just tries to ignore this to make his point, that women shouldn’t wear pants – and throws his earnest, helpful congregant under the bus – even tries to make fun of him. He’s just not that smart, because it was the obvious answer. Essentially, his entire sermon is begging the question.

Besides – physically speaking, it would make a lot more sense for men to wear something like kilts, wouldn’t it? I mean, men have a penis and testicles that literally hang down inches between their legs, and wearing pants scrunches them up in a very often uncomfortable way. Wearing tight underwear is actually bad for fertility – men who are having trouble getting their wives pregnant are often told to wear boxers to give their balls some breathing room. In fact, the entire biological purpose of a scrotum is to keep the testicles at a lower temperature than the rest of their body, thus, not killing sperm.

Did God design the male genitals incorrectly? Of course not, so men should wear kilts. Women’s vaginas are inside and their outer vulva doesn’t take up any room, making pants anatomically correct.

So the fact that men wear pants and women wear skirts is just cultural, in fact, biologically inappropriate.

Real Men Keep Their Balls Cool And Their Sperm Healthy To Impregnate Women!

So why do women wear skirts? It’s to signal sexually of course. It’s to make a show of “easy access.” You just have to hike up their skirt to penetrate them. So in theory, Christians who are against this sort of thing should point out that the modern American culture has it all wrong, and that CLEARLY it is more in tune with God’s creation – and sexual modesty and the “life culture” of fertility and natalism – for men to wear skirts – i.e., KILTS – and for women to wear pants, at least a piece of clothing that restricts access to their vaginas. Pants show less skin than skirts, after all.

Anderson, being not too smart and only reading one book, is actually THE WEAKEST LINK and exactly the reason why the sexual permissiveness and now transsexualism has been able to take hold. He – and people like him – were just outsmarted by the sexual revolutionaries. The irony is, of course, that if Anderson and the people like him were even slightly familiar with the context of the cultures of their own Bible, they would know that men actually did wear skirts – robes – in Biblical times and that women most certainly did NOT show their legs or signal easy access to their vaginas.

(White Anglo-American conservatives got stuck at Protestantism and left the culture to the most insane leftists instead of continuing our actual organic tradition, which should be post-Protestantism. The Enlightenment.)

Surprise, Surprise: Dyke Nuns Hate Little Boys

(((Curtis Yarvin))) may be a Jew, but his neo-reactionary movement attracted Catholics. In their attempt to demonize Whites, Protestants, Americans, the Enlightenment, and modernity, they have instead introduced a whole new generation to the reason we threw off the yoke of the Catholic church in the first place.

The “Catholic church abuse scandal” is really just the victims of the Catholic church growing up, and now that the Catholic church has lost its institutional power, and now that sexuality is understood biologically and scientifically, the shame conditioning that the Catholic church used for centuries to enslave Europeans doesn’t work anymore.

It’s obvious how homosexuals came to dominate the “celibate” Catholic institution.

Consider: one of the primary complaints about Muslim “refugees” and “immigrants” in the West in how they treat women. One only needs to look at their own culture to understand how different they are than us. For a Muslim boy, when he sees a girl his sexual attraction is coming from her. She is doing something that causes him to feel arousal, and since she is the actor, she is the seducer, it’s ok for him to rape her. He was just standing there, minding his own business, and this girl walked by, acting sexy, therefore she’s a whore. The only way a girl can not be a whore is to cover her entire body because if he can’t see her, she cannot seduce him.

So take a typical scenario in Ireland or America in the 1950s. A boy grows up, begins puberty, but unlike his peers, has no interest in girls at all. The idea of marrying a girl, having sex, and starting a family is off-putting to him. Since the Catholic church tells him that “lust” is a grave sin, and he himself is apparently free of this “lust,” he realizes that he is actually “more spiritual” than his peers. His uncouth, sexually obsessed peers who are obsessed with the girls now reaching puberty, are just not as “spiritual” as he is.

So, he joins the priesthood. He is assigned to work in a boy’s school.

There, all of a sudden these boys start acting sexy, or more specifically, acting gay. It’s not the priest’s own desires coming to the surface, it’s the boys who are acting gay, or acting seductively or acting sinfully. If one of the boys seduces him the priest merely goes to confession, eats a cracker, and all is forgiven.

Lesbians are of course different than gay men. So a girl begins puberty, but unlike her peers, these boys are not interesting at all. In fact, they are quite scary and even disgusting. While her girlsfriends are all crushing on various boys, she’s actually turned off by the whole affair. She can’t understand why her close friendships with her girlfriends are all being interrupted by their growing awareness of boys.

She must just be “more spiritual” than her peers. She is, in a sense, on a “higher spiritual plane.” Unlike the “earthly” desires of her girlfriends, she’s only interested in the “pure” and “spiritual” things.

So, she becomes a nun, and is assigned to a orphanage. There, she has to take care of these disgusting, rowdy, violent, and gross boys, with their little penises popping underneath their pants all the time. It’s up to her, a “truly spiritual” woman without these “desires of the flesh” to whip these boys into line. She, in fact, quite enjoys it when these boys feel shame for their disgusting “lust,” their “sin.” It’s actually quite a power trip, watching these proud boys become ashamed of themselves. For the ones that are defiant, beatings work well. As the “Good Book” says, spare the rod, spoil the child.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/christinekenneally/orphanage-death-catholic-abuse-nuns-st-josephs

It was a late summer afternoon, Sally Dale recalled, when the boy was thrown through the fourth-floor window.

“He kind of hit, and— ” she placed both hands palm-down before her. Her right hand slapped down on the left, rebounded up a little, then landed again.

For just a moment, the room was still. “Bounced?” one of the many lawyers present asked. “Well, I guess you’d call it — it was a bounce,” she replied. “And then he laid still.”

Sally, who was speaking under oath, tried to explain it. She started again. “The first thing I saw was looking up, hearing the crash of the window, and then him going down, but my eyes were still glued—.” She pointed up at where the broken window would have been and then she pointed at her own face and drew circles around it. “That habit thing, whatever it is, that they wear, stuck out like a sore thumb.”

Children are amazing in the sense they will believe pretty much anything you tell them. After all, you’re an adult and children are evolved to mimic older humans. The central image of your religion is a man being tortured and the central story is of a man being murdered for the sins of the world so it’s the “sinful” child’s fault.

Sister took hold of Sally’s ear, turned her around, and walked her back to the other side of the yard. The nun told her she had a vivid imagination. We are going to have to do something about you, child.

Like sociopaths, eventually these predatory homosexuals begin to recognize each other and that’s when they start working together:

A 1998 UK government inquiry, citing “exceptional depravity” at four homes run by the Christian Brothers order in Australia, heard that a boy was the object of a competition between the brothers to see who could rape him 100 times. The inquiries focused primarily on sexual abuse, not physical abuse or murder, but taken together, the reports showed almost limitless harm that was the result not just of individual cruelty but of systemic abuse.

The Roman Empire, eventually Christianized, swept through Europe, enslaving the “heathens” and creating these institutions. At the forefront were these “celibates” that did not have normal sexuality. They were, perhaps, even the first victims of Catholic sexual repression. Unable to accept that they were the perverts, that they were the reprobates, that they were the sinners, they projected that onto others, even children.

Since these children and “heathens” did not feel ashamed of their naked bodies and their natural sexuality, that just proved how the “celibate” Catholics were of a “higher spirituality” and it was their duty to beat – and rape – the devil out of these Europeans.

From the proto-Protestants like the Lollards and the Hussites, to the Reformation itself, eventually Europeans rebelled against these evil, psychopathic Catholics, rejected the “celibate” homosexual priests, the “celibate” lesbian priestesses, and demanded that Church institutions be led by normal, married men and women.

The first mistake that Americans made was to adopt the African custom of slavery, a mistake that harms America to this day. The second mistake Americans made was to import millions of Catholics, mostly in the 1800s, and surprise, surprise, along with them came Jews. It was only a matter of time until they joined up with each other to attempt to re-enslave the real Americans, the posterity of the Protestant Founding Fathers.

Hence, (((Curtis Yarvin’s))) “neo-reactionary” movement and the sick Catholics that follow him.

We Are Building A Religion

If I were designing a church from scratch, here’s how I’d do it.

I would reject any and all forms of iconoclasm. The church building should be a beautiful piece of architecture, reflecting the natural and human infrastructure of the area. The interior should be beautiful and should be adorned with paintings and sculptures. If you could arrange a glass ceiling that would be ideal.

The services should be held on Sunday mornings, perhaps multiple services all day Sunday; at least one morning and one night service. The service should include congregational singing and perhaps even dance of some kind; dance being simply music of the body. Ideally there would be a form of mass, in the sense, a group ritual that is substantially the same.

There should be a liturgical calendar that represents the natural world. So, you would have Easter, which is the celebration of the rebirth of the sun, the end of winter and the beginning of spring. You would celebrate Christmas, the dead of winter when the sun stops falling and begins to rise. These celebrations should be timed to the actual physical rhythms of the earth, the stars, and the planets.

Birth, puberty, marriage, and death need to be celebrated. So this means when a baby is born, you have a celebration of this; a confirmation or an infant baptism of some type. When a boy reaches puberty, either by age or perhaps even some physical indication, you have a confirmation of sorts; this is the community recognition of a boy becoming a man, or at the least a boy starting the journey to manhood.

For girls, this is a bit more complicated. In the agricultural age, this might even be timed with the onset of menses, however in industrial societies, for whatever reason, the onset of menses happens far too early to be a good indicator. Girls get their periods at ten years old and start having breasts at eleven. Plus human females evolved to hide their ovulation and this fact of evolution should be respected. So maybe just set an age – 16 – and leave it at that. You would celebrate a girl becoming a woman, and for both young boys/men and young girls/women, you need to celebrate their transition into sexual maturity and adulthood. This has a community function as well, because it indicates that the girl and boy are now “open for marriage prospects.”

You would celebrate marriage in the traditional way. We do this pretty well as it is so you don’t really need to do much different.

Then of course you celebrate – and mourn – death. I’d suggest full fledged Mafia-style Catholic funerals. The more goth, the more tragic, the better. It’s a kind of purging. I’d stay away from the modern trend of “happy funerals” where you “celebrate life instead of mourning death.” It’s too cutesy and happy-clappy. Obviously, when an elderly person dies it’s sad, but not that sad, it’s expected and let’s be frank – for many elderly people the end of life means the end of suffering the health problems of old age – and the same with their families. Sad, but not tragic. Of course the death of the young is not just sad but also tragic and the family and community have to have a way to purge that pain.

Church governance is the secret sauce that no one has any clue about any more, which is a huge reason why modern America has so many political issues. The “sweet spot” is a mix of Presbyterian and Baptist polities. If you need the details of this, look it up. It’s sad to me that America has completely forgotten how our entire system of (especially local) government is based on these two styles of polity; our entire political culture, from town meetings to county councils, are based on hundreds of years of fights, wars, compromises, and common law typically cycling back and forth between these two styles.

It is explicitly *not* Catholic polity because we are a Republic, not an Empire. The Catholic Church is an imperial church and Northern Europeans threw off that Empire hundreds of years ago, after only being really subjected to it for a half-century. We’re not going back and let’s be frank, too, the Vatican won’t survive the technological age’s exposure of their actual function as a world-wide pederasty ring. I’ll have to give the Daily Stormer’s Andrew Anglin this: he was completely correct when he said that Israel is to Jews what the Vatican is to pederasts, the headquarters for a organized crime ring recognized as a sovereign state. The entire purpose is so they are not subject to extradition.

I’m still sort of up in the air about the content of the music and the writings. I love the King James’ English, it always sounds profound to me. But there’s a certain queasiness I feel following the traditions of ancient semite barbarians and worshipping psychopathic Roman Emperor God-Kings as “Messiahs” and “Saviors.” It seems downright evil.

I see a picture of a Vatican ceremony with a Pope and his Cardinals and to me it looks like a literal Church of Satan, I have a visceral, knee-jerk reaction and a feeling of dread and evil; there’s nothing good, holy or healthy about them. I see a meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention and I feel nothing but contempt – a group of suckers at a multi-level marketing convention, a group of Amway dupes. Whatever White and Anglo spirit that may have once had has now been completely replaced by the worst of capitalism and Zionism. Sure – they don’t have homosexual priests and women pastors – instead their worship IDF soldiers and wear Jewish regalia and celebrate the marriage of White women to Black men and the resulting mulatto children. Plus, even the most “socially conservative” SBC types are now literal feminists with that awfully cucky, middle class “wife worship” thing going on. That was something fun to do when men were the head of the household, now it does nothing but disgust women who hold these cucky middle class husbands in contempt for not being men.

Literally “worship” in the traditional Anglo marriage vows meant sexual foreplay, it meant to caress your wife’ body and whisper sweet things in her ears. It did NOT mean to put her on a pedestal and pretend she was morally superior. Women are not morally superior to men, but men are naturally inclined to idealize women – to “put them on pedestals” – because they are beautiful on the outside.

Notice I haven’t said anything about “beliefs” or “ideology.” Instead I’ve focused on physicality and ritual.

We’re at an impasse. For instance, as a Presbyterian, I have a choice between the PCUSA, which is appropriately White and anti-Zionist, but has literally “gay marriage” and is pro-abortion – meaning, it’s anti-natal, thus anti-life. The other option is PCA, which is appropriately pro-natal – pro-marriage, pro-baby, pro-family, but is completely semitized – it’s been completely cleansed of its Scottish/Viking character and now does fundraisers – in money and White blood – for Jew Supremacism in Palestine. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.

So, being practical, we’ll just have to start over.

Also notice I’m not at all being a “neo-pagan” or an “Odinist” or any of that nonsense. That is LARPing to the nth degree, it’s utterly inauthentic. I’m sure there are ways to connect with our pre-Christian, pagan European roots that does not entail “converting to Odinism” – which is again just low church Protestantism with the name Jesus replaced by Odin – it has the trappings of pre-Christian paganism with the substance of Christianity. Neo-pagan Odinists can’t even get paganism right.

Also, we have to avoid this sort of nonsense like the plague:

This takes ALL of the worst aspects of low-church Protestantism and kills whatever value they had left by “celebrating atheism.” I hope I don’t have to explain why this is stupid, in fact, it’s actually nothing more than an extension of liberal Protestantism, in the same way that the Anton Levey “Church of Satan” was just a Jewish anti-Christian “church.”

You don’t need a community to “celebrate the non-existence of god or gods.” You need a community to *celebrate life* – and you most certainly do not need superstition and supernaturalism to celebrate life – even “eternal life” or “life after death.” That is what children are, after all.

Celebrate life, celebrate community.

Footnote: We also need a private welfare state similar to what the Mormons built and a “mannerbund” – a hierarchical civil society institution of men, while avoiding all the (anti-natal, anti-life, misogynist) sexual weirdness that goes with a “celibate priesthood.”

Kissing God’s Ass So He Won’t Torture You & Jesus Is My Girlfriend

A comment for Hazelshade about nature’s religion:

@Hazelshade

It’s not so much “the religious instinct” I have a problem with, it’s the modern American Christian church that is the problem. I’m sure that the inborn religious instinct can be compatible with science, nature, and reality. I’m a little hesitant about “worshipping” anything though. (Except you should “worship” your wife, it’s in the traditional marriage vows, but in context “worship” means foreplay, both verbal and physical!)

When most Christians “worship” God/Jesus they use the same language (sometimes word-for-word, see Psalm 104) that slaves used when worshipping Oriental kings – literally, over the top obsequious ass-kissing that is almost a self-parody, like something out of a Monty Python skit. They did this not out of any real sense of awe, but to placate a sociopathic monster and avoid being tortured to death, or having their children tortured in front of them.

Let us praise God. Oh Lord, oooh you are so big. So absolutely huge. Gosh, we’re all really impressed down here I can tell you. Forgive us, O Lord, for this dreadful toadying and barefaced flattery. But you are so strong and, well, just so super. Fantastic. Amen.

Does the Almighty Creator of the Universe really desire such ass-kissing? Or is this a left-over from the era of Oriental God-Kings and the Roman Empire that ruled through mass murder, torture, and baby-snatching? To ask the question answers it.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp

The modern American evangelicals have a criticism of modern worship called “Jesus is my girlfriend” because a lot of their “worship” songs are really just pop songs sung, instead of to a girl, to Jesus. Of course their “criticism” is just meant to socially signal how much more “spiritual” they are then their rivals at church, their alternatives aren’t any better, in many cases worse.

I just can’t find anything in American Christianity that has any worth. Sure, their teachings on sexual morality are solid but it’s like how you teach a baby to not stick their fingers in a light socket – “NO! BAD! SHOCK HURT BABY!” Once you get into the “intellectual” parts of the religion it’s hardly different than Scientology.

I’ve read some pretty heavy duty Catholic stuff and it’s not any better. Typically, the “pre-Vatican II” Catholics are even worse with their absolutely insane “Judeo-Masonic” conspiracy theories and the typical little old Catholic lady’s beliefs are just one step above voodoo, clutching rosary beads like a middle ages peasant clutched magical amulets, the “Evil Eye” and seeing literal demons everywhere.

Truly, I’ve tried to find something good in it but I’m at a loss. I’m far from ignorant, either, I’m actually extremely over-educated in the subject matter.

Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104

Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104

O Lord, please don’t burn us,
Don’t grill us or toast your flock,
Don’t put us on a barbecue,
Or simmer us in stock,
Don’t braise or bake or boil us,
Or stir-fry us in a wok.
Oh please don’t lightly poach us,
Or baste us with hot fat,
Don’t fricassee or roast us,
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don’t stick thy servants, Lord,
In a Rotissomat.

Conservatives Are Losing The “Transgender War” Because They Are Sexually Obsessed, Stupid And Easily Fooled

When the “transgender” thing started a few years ago, presumably with the Bruce Jenner “transition” it caused a huge dust-up among the “right wing” from “Conservative Inc.” to the “Alt Right.” Everyone jumped right on it and many said it would be a winning issue for the “right” because who wants bearded men in dresses stalking little girls in the ladies’ restroom?

I demurred. I didn’t really know much about the issue and I figured that the right was being suckered, as it always is. Conservatives tend to be stupid and have a near-perfect record of LOSING, especially on sexual issues.

I blame religion, in a sense. The thing is, Christian (i.e., classical Stoic) sexuality morality is great, and is pretty much obviously the most healthy sexual lifestyle. Monogamy, fertility, family. If women and men married as virgins, and didn’t cheat, there would be no STDs. If motherhood was promoted in our culture, we’d have lots of White babies, fulfilled mothers, and responsible fathers.

Pornography, masturbation, female – and male – genital mutilation (“circumcision”) promiscuity, homosexuality – all these are vices that have traditionally been proscribed to one degree or another.

But religion can’t explain WHY this kind of sexual morality is healthy, because Western religion/Christianity doesn’t believe in biology or nature. So they have to come up with “spiritual” reasons which are false and mostly imaginary.

Even worse, Western religion – Christianity – can’t accept vice as vice – vice has to be “sin.” So instead of a socially effective form of “vice control” – suppressing vice, punishing vice when it harms society, Christianity has to eradicate it, which doesn’t work. You always have the return of the suppressed.

For the religious, there has to be a “zero tolerance” approach to vice, because vice is a “sin” meriting eternal punishment in hell. Instead of the natural truth – vice is bodily unhealthy, religion has to make it a “sin” that is deadly to the soul.

And of course those people who want to “fight sin” can find “sin” anywhere. Since Christiainty always follows the culture, NEVER leads it, all it can do is rear guard actions. So that means right wing religious types want to “eradicate homosexuality” while left wing religious types want to corral homosexuality into “gay marriage.”

Neither really works.

In any case, when it came to the “transgender” thing, of course the religious people went straight to the “won’t somebody thing of the CHILDREN!” angle and assumed that the “transgender” thing was about sexual perverts perving on little girls in the restroom.

But of course it wasn’t about that at all. What is the “trans” movement – a VERY well funded movement, promoted by the richest and most powerful corporations in the world – what is “trans” really about?

It’s not about SEX at all – it’s about DRUGS. “Trans” is, essentially, a drug cartel.

View at Medium.com

Religious people jumped on the sex angle, and made themselves look like the sexually obsessed church ladies they are. And the “trans” movement loved every minute of it, because they know that religious people ALWAYS LOSE on sexual issues – they can’t even keep themselves sexually normal, they can’t even stop divorce and remarriage (or the Catholic equivalent) in their own churches.

So by baiting the religious conservatives into obsessing over SEX – the trans movement has successfully slipped their actual agenda – DRUGS – right under the radar.

CONSERVATIVES ALWAYS LOSE. Don’t be a conservative – it’s unhealthy.

Reaction is ‘Reverse Psychology’ That Works on Children

The original Mencius Moldbug essays were great; very interesting stuff, thought provoking, broke a lot of taboos.

There must be something about Jewish verbal intelligence that just captivates the goyim, in the same way that ancient primitive tribes got high off of a small dose of the venom of snakes or various parasites. It figures that conservatives, right wingers, and reactionaries – i.e., the low IQ, low intelligence, low imagination, low executive functioning segment of Whites – get so enthralled by Jewish verbal venom. The same way dumb Whites smoke weed or take some drug and think they are having “deep thoughts.”

So these clever, thought provoking essays by Moldbug, essentially just some “devil’s advocate” push back against modern, post-industrial era “Enlightenment” philosophy, were turned into a bona fide religious cult by former Catholics (and it is mostly Catholics, Catholicism being the religion of the dumbest Whites and half-White Westerners.)

So Moldbug says, hey, we all assume that monarchy is worse than democracy, but is it? Here’s some advantages that monarchy had over democracy.

What do the cultists do? They immediately take all this as not an intellectual exercise to re-think some of our cherished assumptions – oh, no. They take this as a literal command and start declaring themselves “monarchists” and even clever goys like Blog.Jim.com start picking apart Donald Trump’s tie colors and Victorian era British fashion for clues to the “soul” of monarchy.

And just like bored White housewives who are really into hiring “past lives consultants” to tell them they all are the reincarnation of Cleopatra, ALL – 100% – of these neo-reactionaries automatically assume they are the new Brahmins, the new priest class, if not monarchist pretenders themselves. Not a single one of them thinks, “hey, if we restore the monarchy, I’ll be a pig farming peasant like 95% of my fellow Whites.” Oh, no, not these Big Brained Brads, they are just sure that in a restored monarchy they will get pride of place.

It’s all so much like “Reverse Psychology” you used to trick your kid brother into giving you an extra helping of dessert. “You didn’t really want that ice cream anyway, did you?” Like Tom Sawyer and white-washing the fence, these neo-reactionaries all buy it, hook, line, and sinker. “Well, democracy is bad, therefore, we need to find a literal king, with a robe and bejeweled crown, and some bald headed “celibate priest” to restore “Throne and Altar.”

The religious ones are the worst of all. I hate to be one of those types – athiests annoy me as much as anyone – but let’s not beat around the bush here. If you were born in Mosul, you’d be a Muslim and you’d believe the Koran. If you were born in Bangalore, you’d be a Hindu praying to Vishnu. But you went to Catholic school or some Protestant church, so therefore you’re a Christian. You didn’t investigate all the religions and them decide that Christianity was the right one. Of course not. You were brainwashed as a child to believe in Christianity and now you have an emotional attachment to it. If you had NOT been emotionally conditioned, you’d find the Bible, the Old Testament stories – and especially the New Testament stories – to be a third-rate bunch of fairy tales without even the positive, heroic spirit of Hercules.

I personally find the English of the King James absolutely profound, but at least I’m self-aware enough to know it’s due to my childhood conditioning. You can take the most trite statements – even absurd and self-contradictory statements, and rephrase them into the King James English and to me it sounds utterly profound.

When the Beatles’ Paul McCartney smoked pot for the first time, he had some of his paid flunkies follow him around and write down all of his “profound” thoughts and “brilliant lyrics” but the next day – after the weed wore off – it was all just stoner gibberish. Have any of you religious people ever actually sobered up long enough to THINK about the trite and often nonsensical crap your religion teaches you? Typically, it’s either just obvious truisms (that are only profound to children learning them for the very first time) or “koans” that are actually just artifacts of human language and typically you grow out of that “profound” feeling once you’ve grown out of freshman year university classes.

Just a typical example: I’m sure that the sexual promiscuity – and resultant STDs – of the ancient era caused a serious backlash when sexual restraint all of a sudden seemed like an important spiritual discipline. You can see this in the Stoics, who were just as sexually conservative as the most conservative Catholics – sex was only within marriage, for reproduction.

Yet take a reactionary and they think, “well, if sexual indulgence is bad, then complete denial of sexuality must be good!” “If democracy is bad, then monarchy must be good!”

“If people aren’t actually completely ‘equal’ in every way, that means the best society is a totalitarian dictatorship, and OF COURSE I’ll be part of the ruling class, after all, I’m such an intellectual I read brilliant Jews like Curtis Yarvin, I will surely be a famous priest in the court of the new monarch and rule over the peasant pig farmer, not a slave to a syphilitic dictator who rules through genocide and violence while wearing robes and claiming a divine mandate from a vision he had while tripping on the fungus from moldy bread!”

I mean, have you people ever actually read the book of Daniel in the Bible? It’s not “profound” at all, it’s the ravings of a madman. It’s even worse with those people into “mysticism” that think the Jew Kaballah is somehow interesting. Hell, the smartest Jew even pointed out that that the author of the Kaballah was likely suffering from dementia – he called it “the product of neurological degeneration.”

The worse, most awful pop song of the 1990s was “Mister Jones and Me” where the skinny White wrote a love song to some old Black drunk blues musician he met at a bar, and this old Negro’s drunken rambling was turned into profound and poetic “wisdom.”

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. Reactionaries are even most easily manipulated than liberals or hoi polloi. Reactionaries are the “goth” in high school, the Adam’s Family types. Whatever the mainstream believes, the react against it and believe the exact opposite.

But of course “each thing evokes its opposite” which means that “reactionaries” are the least interesting, and the least thoughtful, people of all.

They think they are fighting priests, dissident intellectuals, and restorers of tradition, when in reality, they are just that stupid kid that got fooled by Tom Sawyer into white washing the fence.

Isn’t Christianity Just Stoicism Plus Hebrew Superstitions?

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.

Athena, Minerva, or Mary: A Rose By Any Other Name …

Which Way, White Man?

https://infogalactic.com/info/The_Kallikak_Family

The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness was a 1912 book by the American psychologist and eugenicist Henry H. Goddard. The work was an extended case study of Goddard’s for the inheritance of “feeble-mindedness,” a general category referring to a variety of mental disabilities including mental retardation, learning disabilities, and mental illness. Goddard concluded that a variety of mental traits were hereditary and society should limit reproduction by people possessing these traits.

More On Moore: The Evangelical Cult’s Denial Of Basic Human “Sin” Nature And Its Cost To White Culture

When the Washington Post article came out, I actually read it. Of the four women, three just said that Moore dated, or tried to date them, when they were 16-18. Frankly, I find the idea of a 30 year old man courting – for marriage – an 18 year old woman to be a big “meh.” It may not be something the culture should encourage, as it’s a pretty big age difference, but there’s nothing biologically strange about it and there are plenty of strong, healthy and fertile marriages that have such an age gap.

The only accusation that mattered was that of the 14 year old girl, and her story was somewhat corroborated by two other women, who said she told them at the time that she was “dating” Moore.

For the next 48 hours, Roy Moore issued a bunch of “non-denial denials” which frankly made him seem guilty. Hipster Racist isn’t a court of law, and I frankly could not care less about the Republican party or the Alabama elections, so I’m just calling it as I see it. The woman’s claims seemed quite credible to me, because I’ve had numerous women tell me stories of exactly such behavior on the part of men – yes, even men in socially conservative, Evangelical subcultures. In fact, that is exactly the sort of behavior I expect of men in that culture. No, of course, not all, nor even the majority or a large minority, of Evangelical men are rapists, or chase jailbait, but neither does Christianity or the Evangelical subculture change the nature of men. In fact, I thought that was an important part of Christianity – the idea that we are “born in sin” – and it’s particularly true of the Reformed/Calvinist theology.

Eventually, on Sean Hannity’s show, Moore specifically and categorically denied the accusations of the woman, said he didn’t know her, and I figured that was that. I did expect – and warned – that there were likely to be other accusers, but 40 year old “he said, she said” accusations can’t really be judged.

I wasn’t particularly surprised to see fans of Moore denying everything and suggesting the women were lying, but I have been somewhat surprised by the reaction of many so-called “Christian” conservatives. At least now three times, on Twitter and this blog, so-called “conservative Christians” have suggested that anyone giving any credence to the accusations, or suggesting that Evangelical men aren’t always angels, either:

1. Hates Jesus

or

2. are sexual perverts and want sexual anarchy, promiscuity, and only believe these women because they don’t want a sexually conservative society.

I think some are protesting too much. I also noted, here and on Twatter, that these reactions are EXACTLY THE SAME as the reactions of Jews and Scientologists. Anytime anyone says anything negative about Jews, the Jewish religion, Jewish power in America, or the Israel lobby, 100% of the time they are met with essentially the same accusation:

“You are just jealous of Jews because of your personal failures.”

Scientologists are trained to ALWAYS respond to any negative critique of Scientology with accusations that the critic is a “suppressive person” and Scientology has a “counter attack” strategy, laid out by L. Ron Hubbard himself, that is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.

I was a little bit surprised to see otherwise normal seeming conservative Christians doing the same thing to me, for the “crime” of believing a bunch of Southern, conservative, Christian women that claimed Roy Moore, the GOP politician from Alabama, sexually assaulted them. All of a sudden it was ME on trial – even though it’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s a bunch of conservative, Christian, southern White women from Alabama – most of them, in fact, Republican Trump voters.

But it’s all so telling that his partisans, instead of dealing forthrightly with the accusations against Moore, or even having the decency to look at their own culture and accept maybe there is some dysfunction, to immediately start accusing others of having immoral motives or … “hating Jesus.”

It’s pathetic, it’s un-Christian, and it really says more about them than it does about the people they are attacking.

Well, what do you know, another woman has stepped forward and gave a detailed allegation of Roy Moore sexually assaulting her as a 15 year old girl. Unlike the 14 year old, Moore cannot claim he’s never met her, because he SIGNED HER HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK.

I find Beverly Young Nelson’s accusations to be VERY credible, because I have heard this story, from numerous women, for my entire life. Including and especially from women from the Christian and/or Evangelical subculture.

Not only have I heard stories, for my entire life, that match Nelson’s story, I practically witnessed it personally, myself, at a church meeting. Once, at a night time event, a young woman, about 16, came running into the church building, crying and hysterical, saying that she was attacked by one of the other church attendees, who was about 18. I knew both of them. The girl was an extremely beautiful and very sexy young woman – to be clear, I don’t believe she went out of her way to be “sexy” or “seductive” – she was just a beautiful and blossoming young woman and even I, at about the age of 12, was utterly mesmerized by her. She accused a young man, of 18, of offering her a ride to the church function, then he parked the car in a dark spot and assaulted her.

The boy was expelled from the church and the church school, although I don’t believe the incident was ever made into a legal case. I heard, through the grapevine, what happened, and it was virtually exactly the scenario that Nelson says happened to her. As far as I can tell, this is a very typical, very common, way that men sexually assault women. I knew the alleged attacker, and was in fact quite fond of him, even though he was much older than me. He was a “sincere Christian,” seemed somewhat like a “leader” to us younger boys, seemed quite serious about Christianity and the Bible, and it was shocking news to us.

But, now, as an older man with some experience under my belt, I think I can figure out what happened. He had a crush on this girl for a year, found her extremely sexy (as we all did) and one night he just “snapped” and made very aggressive sexual moves on her, and when she wouldn’t cooperate, became somewhat violent. His “Christianity” went out the window because his lizard brain – his testosterone, and his evolved biology, took over. Why? Because he was a human man with a strong, overpowering sexual drive and the naive culture he was a part of somehow thought that “Jesus” would prevent young horny teenagers from doing what comes naturally. I do also suspect that the Christian subculture simply had no way of dealing with the realities of sex, simply expecting that “faith in Jesus” would stop him from “lusting” after a highly lust-worthy young woman his age.

I also heard NUMEROUS TIMES of older men – adult men – doing very similar things to young teenage girls in that culture. Women and girls that I knew. They certainly had no reason to lie to me. I witnessed on NUMEROUS occasions very obvious strong sexual tension between adult men and teenage girls – the kind of sexual tension that you can cut with a knife. To my mind, the problem was that adult men simply shouldn’t be in positions of power over teenage girls. In fact, I think co-ed education itself is basically asking for trouble.

I attended an upper-middle-class Christian high school based around a very mainstream, but very conservative, Protestant church. I remember at 15, sitting next to 15 year old girls, in those little school girl outfits, absolutely unable to concentrate on my school work because the slightest flash of leg, the slightest scent of “girl,” the tiniest hint of curves, flooded me with testosterone. It was often PURE TORTURE and it somewhat amazes me that these Christians, supposedly well aware of “sin nature” and lust, nevertheless, forced young horny teenagers together and then expected us to NOT “lust” after each other.

I don’t think at all that Christians are “worse” than the secular world, and I don’t think that the “answer” is “sexual liberation” or the promotion of promiscuity or “safe sex” for teenagers. I think, in fact, what old fashioned and traditional (even Christian) culture did is best for everyone – sexual segregation, a frank understanding of human nature and sexuality, and a restoration of old fashioned courting and young marriage – and by young marriage, I mean that 16-20 year old girls should be married off to 20-24 year old boys. That sort of marriage worked quite well for a thousand years and it can work again.

To accuse me of wanting “sexual license” because I have zero respect for some grand-standing GOP political hack like Roy Moore – and I find the stories of White, conservative, Southern, Christian women to be credible because it’s a completely observed pattern of behavior on the part of men – just shows how morally bankrupt the GOP, as well as the Evangelical subculture, really is.

It’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore. It’s not the Washington Post, the liberal media, or the Democrats accusing Moore – it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore.

It’s just that the Evangelical subculture can’t deal with biological reality because they have their heads in the clouds, expecting “Jesus” to fix everyone’s problems and keep everyone “free of lust.”

Which is, of course, highly ironic because Jesus Christ himself, in the Bible, said the exact opposite of that. The Evangelical cult, and “conservative” American culture, lost the culture war, and lost their culture to the sexual revolution, precisely because they didn’t even read their own Bible.