GENIUS FORUMS

Nietzsche well understood the meaning of "Athens against Jerusalem." Referring to ancient paganism, which he called "the greatest utility of polytheism," he wrote in The Joyful Wisdom: There was then only one norm, the man and even people believed that it had this one and ultimate norm. But, above himself, and outside of himself, in a distant over-world a person could see a multitude of norms: the one God was not the denial or blasphemy of the other Gods! It was here that the right of individuals was first respected. The inventing of Gods, heroes, and supermen of all kinds, as well as co-ordinate men and undermen - dwarfs, fairies, centaurs, satyrs, demons, devils-was the inestimable preliminary to the justification of the selfishness and sovereignty of the individual: the freedom which was granted to one God in respect to other Gods, was at last given to the individual himself in respect to laws, customs, and neighbors. Monotheism, on the contrary, the rigid consequence of one normal human being—consequently, the belief in a normal God, beside whom there are only false spurious Gods—has perhaps been the greatest danger of mankind in the past.

Jehovah is not only a "jealous" god, but he can also show hatred: "Yet, I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau" (Malachi 1:3). lie recommends hatred to all those w ho call out his name: "Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? 1 hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies" (Psalm 139: 21-22). "Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, 0 God" (Psalm 139:19). Jeremiah cries out: "Render unto them a recompense, O Lord, according to the work of their hands. . . . Persecute and destroy them in anger from under the heavens of the Lord" (Lamentations 3:64-66). The book of Jeremiah is a long series of maledictions and curses hurled against peoples and nations. His contemplation of future punishments fills him with gloomy delight. "Let them be confounded that persecute me, but let not me be confounded: ... bring upon them the day of evil, and destroy them with double destruction" (Lam. 17:18). "Therefore deliver up their children to the famine, and pour out their blood by the force of the sword; and let their wives be bereaved of their children, and be widows; and let their men be put to death" (Lam. 18:21).

Further. Jehovah promises the Hebrews that he will support them in their war efforts: "When the Lord thy God shall cut off the nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them, and thou succeedest them, and dwellest in their land" (Deuteronomy 12:29). "But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deut. 20:16). Jehovah himself gave an example of a genocide by provoking the Deluge against the humanity that sinned against him. While he resided with the Philistine King Achish, David also practiced genocide (1 Samuel 27:9). Moses organized the extermination of the Midian people (Numbers 31:7). Joshua massacred the inhabitants of Hazor and Anakim. "And Joshua at that time turned back, and took Hazor, and smote the king thereof with the sword: for Hazor beforetime was the head of all those kingdoms. And they smote all the souls that were therein with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying them: there was not any left to breathe: and he burnt Hazor with fire" (Joshua 11:10-11, 20-21). The messianic king extolled by Solomon was also known for his reign of terror: "May he purify Jerusalem for all gentiles who trample on it miserably, may he exterminate by his wisdom, justice the sinners of this country... May he destroy the impious nations with the words from his mouth."

Hatred against pagans is also visible in the books of Esther, Judith, etc. "No ancient religion, except that of the Hebrew people has known such a degree of intolerance," says Emile Gillabert in Moise et le phénomène judéo-chrétien (1976). Renan had written in similar terms: "The intolerance of the Semitic peoples ( arabs included ) is the inevitable consequence of their monotheism. The Indo-European peoples, before they converted to Semitic ideas, ( Christianity ) had never considered their religion an absolute truth. Rather, they conceived of it as a heritage of the family, or the caste, and in this way they remained foreign to intolerance and proselytism. This is why we find among these peoples the liberty of thought, the spirit of inquiry and individual research." Of course, one should not look at this problem in a black and white manner, or for instance compare and contrast one platitude to another platitude. There have always been, at all times, and everywhere, massacres and exterminations. But it would be difficult to find in the pagan texts, be they of sacred or profane nature, the equivalent of what one so frequently encounters in the Bible: the idea that these massacres could be morally justified, that they could be deliberately authorized and ordained by one god, "as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded" (Joshua 11:12). Thus, for the perpetrators of these crimes, good consciousness continues to rule, not despite these massacres, but entirely for the sake of the massacres.

A lot of ink has been spilled over this tradition of intolerance. Particularly contentious are the words of Jesus as recorded by Luke: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). Some claim to perceive in the word "hate" a certain form of Hebraism; apparently, these words suggest that Jesus had to be absolutely preferred to all other human beings. Some claim to see in it traces of Gnostic contamination that suggest renouncement. despoliation of goods, and the refusal of procreation. In this context, the obligation to "hate" one's parents is to be viewed as a corollary of not wishing to have children.

These interpretations remain pure conjecture. What is certain is that Christian intolerance began to manifest itself very early. In the course of history this intolerance was directed against "infidels" as well as against pagans, Jews, and heretics. It accompanied the extermination of all aspects of ancient culture—the murder of Julius of Hypati, the interdiction of pagan cults, the destruction of temples and statues, the suppression of the Olympic Games, and the arson, at the instigation of the town's Bishop Theophilus of Sarapeum, of Alexandria in A.D. 389, whose immense library of 700,000 volumes had been collected by the Ptolemeys. Then came the forced conversions, the extinction of positive science, persecution, and pyres. Ammianus Marcellinus said: "The wild beasts are less hostile to people than Christians are among themselves." Sulpicius Severus wrote: "Now everything has gone astray as the result of discords among bishops. Everywhere, one can see hatred, favours, fear, jealousy, ambition, debauchery, avarice, arrogance, sloth: there is general corruption everywhere."

The Jewish people were the first to suffer from Christian monotheism. The causes of Christian anti-Semitism, which found its first "justification" in the Gospel of John (probably written under the influence of Gnosticism, and to which many studies have been devoted) lie in the proximity of the Jewish and Christian faiths. As Jacques Solé notes: "One persecutes only his neighbors." Only a "small gap" separates Jews from Christians, but as Nietzsche says, "the smallest gap is also the least bridgeable." During the first centuries of the Christian era anti-Semitism grew out of the Christian claim to be the successor of Judaism, and bestowing on it its "truthful" meaning. For Christians, "salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22), but it is only Christianity that can be verus Israel. Hence the expression perfidi, applied to the Jews until recently by the Church in prayers during Holy Friday—an expression meaning "without faith," and whose meaning is different from the modem word "perfidious."

Saint Paul was the first to formulate this distinction. With his replacement of the Law by Grace, Paul distinguished between the "Israel of God" and the "Israel after the flesh" (1 Corinthians 10:18), which also led him to oppose circumcision: "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God" (Romans 2:28-29). Conclusion: “For we are the circumcision" (Philippians 3:3). This argument has, from the Christian point of view, a certain coherence. As Claude 'Tretmontant says, if the last of the nabis from Israel, the rabbi Yohushua of Nazareth, that is to say Jesus, is really a Messiah, then the vocation of Israel to become the "beacon of nations" must be fully accomplished, and the universalism implied in this vocation must be put entirely into practice. Just as the Law that has come to an end with Christ (in a double sense of the word) is no longer necessary, so has the distinction between Israel and other nations become futile as well: "There is neither Jew nor Greek" (Galatians 3:28). Consequently, universal Christianity must become verus Israel.

This process, which originated in the Pauline reform, has had a double consequence. On the one hand, it has resulted in the persecution of Jews who, by virtue of their "genealogical" proximity, are represented as the worst enemies of Christianity. They are the adversaries who refuse to "convert," who refuse to recognize Christianity as the "true Israel." As Shmuel Trigano notes, "by projecting itself as the new Israel, the West has given to Judaism a de facto jurisdiction, albeit not the right to be itself." This means that the West can become "Israelite" to the extent that it denies Jews the right to be Israelites. Henceforth, the very notion of "Judeo-Christianity" can be defined as a double incarceration. It imprisons "the Christian West," which by its own deliberate act has subordinated itself to an alien "jurisdiction," and which by doing so denies this very same jurisdiction to its legitimate (Jewish) owners. Furthermore, it imprisons the Jews who, by virtue of a religion different from their own, are now undeservedly caught in the would-be place of their "accomplishment" by means of a religion which is not their own. Trigano further adds: "If Judeo-Christianity laid the foundations of the West, then the very place of Israel is also the West."

Subsequently, the requisites of "Westernization" must also become the requisites of assimilation and "normalization," and the denial of identity. "The crisis of Jewish normality is the crisis of the westernization of Judaism. Therefore, to exit from the West means for the Jews to turn their back to their 'normality,' that is, to open themselves up to their otherness." This seems to be why Jewish communities today criticize the "Western model," only after they first adopt their own specific history of a semi-amnesiac and semi-critical attitude.

In view of this, Christian anti-Semitism can be rightly described as neurosis. As Jean Blot writes, it is because of its "predisposition toward alienation" that the West is incapable of "fulfilling itself or rediscovering itself." And from this source arises anti-Semitic neurosis. "Anti-semitism allows the anti-Semite to project onto the Jew his own neuroses. He calls him a stranger, because he himself is a stranger, a crook, a powerful man, a parvenu; he calls him a Jew, because he himself is this Jew in the deepest depth of his soul, always on the move, permanently alienated, a stranger to his own religion and to God who incarnates him." By replacing his original myth with the myth of biblical monotheism, the West has turned Hebraism into its own superego. As an inevitable consequence, the West had to turn itself against the Jewish people by accusing them of not pursuing the "conversion" in terms of the "logical" evolution proceeding from Sinai to Christianity.

In addition, the West also accused the Jewish people of attempting, in an apparent "deicide," to obstruct this evolution.
Many, even today, assume that if Jews were to renounce their distinct identity, "the Jewish problem" would disappear. At best, this is a naive proposition, and at worst, it masks a conscious or unconscious form of anti-Semitism. Furthermore, this proposition, which is inherent in the racism of assimilation and the denial of identity, represents the reverse side of the racism of exclusion and persecution. In the West, notes Shmuel Trigano. when the Jews were not persecuted, they "were recognized as Jews only on the condition that they first ceased to be Jews." Put another way, in order to be accepted, they had to reject themselves; they had to renounce their own Other in order to be reduced to the Same. In another type of racism, Jews are accepted but denied; in the first, they are accepted but are not recognized. The Church ordered Jews to choose between exclusion (or physical death) or self-denial (spiritual and historical death). Only through conversion could they become “Christians, as others.”

The French Revolution emancipated Jews as individuals, but it condemned them to disappear as a "nation"; in this sense, they were forced to become "citizens as others." Marxism, too, attempted to ensure the "liberation" of the Jewish people by imposing on them a class division, from which their dispersion inevitably resulted.

The origins of modem totalitarianism are not difficult to trace. In a secular form, they are tied to the same radical strains of intolerance whose religious causes we have just examined. The organization of totalitarianism is patterned after the organization of the Christian Church, and in a similar manner totalitarianisms exploit the themes of the "masses"—the themes inherent in contemporary mass democracy. This secularization of the system has, in fact, rendered totalitarianism more dangerous—independently of the fact that religious intolerance often triggers, in return, an equally destructive revolutionary intolerance. "Totalitarianism," writes Gilbert Durand, "is further strengthened, in so far as the powers of monotheist theology (which at least left the game of transcendence intact) have been transferred to a human institution, to the Grand Inquisitor."

It is a serious error to assume that totalitarianism manifests its real character only when it employs crushing coercion. Historical experience has demonstrated—and continues to demonstrate—that there can exist a "clean" totalitarianism, which, in a "soft" manner, yields the same consequences as the classic kinds of totalitarianism. "Happy robots" of 1984 or of Brave New World have no more enviable conditions than prisoners of the camps. In essence, totalitarianism did not originate with Saint-Just, Stalin, Hegel, or Fichte. Rather, as Michel Maffesoli says, totalitarianism emerges "when a subtle form of plural, polytheistic, and contradictory totality, that is inherent in organic interdependency" is superseded by a monotheistic one. Totalitarianism grows out of a desire to establish social and human unity by reducing the diversity of individuals and peoples to a single model. In this sense, he argues, it is legitimate to speak of a "polytheist social arena, referring to multiple and complementary gods" versus a "monotheistic political arena founded on the illusion of unity." Once the polytheism of values "disappears, we face totalitarianism." Pagan thought, on the other hand, which fundamentally remains attached to rootedness and to the place, and which is a preferential center of the crystallization of human identity, rejects all religious and philosophical forms of universalism.

z

z quoting J:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"

It means trust in his teachings even when they clash with what you've been taught by your parents and family. It means be willing to relinquish any material fruits of your labors that hinder your following of his teachings.

You quote a lot from the OT. Jehovah is a Hebraic God. Jesus sought to "fulfill" the OT prohecies, so that people could get past them, past a god belonging to one people, and recognize a God to whom all people belong.

The Bible - especially the OT - is frought with contradictions. Yet it is possible to resolve them if you understand what Christ was attempting to do in his short sojourn on earth.

Hatred and anger are barely human emotions. If you attribute them to your God, you should probably find another one. No sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though. God is waiting to be known by any who seek him.

Be good if you read the whole thing and responded 'in context'...It's about totalitarianism and polytheism. I don't ascribe to either, but am interested in where the ideas came from and how much they have influenced human thought and deeds, particularly in the west. By the way, your argument PROVES my point, which, ironically, I don't think you are consciously aware of...what sad times we live in...
z

brokenhead wrote:z quoting J:

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"

It means trust in his teachings even when they clash with what you've been taught by your parents and family.

-tomas-
Sure. My dad and mom were poles apart.

Dad was raised Lutheran.

Mom was raised by a street preacher (never took a salary or free-will offering.) He'd ask if I'd like to cruise along to the hospitals, nursing homes etc., I'd lurk in the background and watch him minister to the sick, needy, the lonely people, the ones with no family and/or don't who visit and so on. I learned a lot about that dude. He (Andrew) and his wife, Hazel, had nine children, he'd work 2-3 jobs to make ends meet. Hi pride and joy though, was his garden.
Conceived in Norway, born in Decatur, Iowa, his parents adopted out all his siblings but him. Tough times, you know. I have an original photo of Andrew, and his two brothers, Lars and Sam.

Hazel, born in East Grand Forks, Minnesota. I remember asking her if she needed anything, she said a slice of bread with butter, handed it to her and (I had to run along) she had a stroke that paralyzed her right side 15 minutes later (when I think back her eyes seemed a little strange) Died in nursing home. Back then (nurses and doctors would ignorantly allow) people to fend for themselves after a stroke not knowing that vigorous rehab would alleviate most forms of body strokes... That woman could cook!

Anyways...




-broker-
It means be willing to relinquish any material fruits of your labors that hinder your following of his teachings.

-tomas-
Naw, never agreed with that part.




-broker-
You quote a lot from the OT. Jehovah is a Hebraic God. Jesus sought to "fulfill" the OT prohecies, so that people could get past them, past a god belonging to one people, and recognize a God to whom all people belong.

-tomas-
The trail is a narrow path. Made for one soul at a time. What a journey, so far so good.




-broker-
The Bible - especially the OT - is frought with contradictions. Yet it is possible to resolve them if you understand what Christ was attempting to do in his short sojourn on earth.

-tomas
I like to see where somebody is going, before I join up with them.




-broker-
Hatred and anger are barely human emotions. If you attribute them to your God, you should probably find another one. No sense in throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though. God is waiting to be known by any who seek him.

-tomas-
This is unknown.



Tomas (the tank)
Prince of Jerusalem
16 Degree
Scottish Rite Free Mason

.

Zarathustra, I thought your post was very worthy, but because of its scale it is of course a little difficult to respond to. You point in the direction of so many questions and issues that are right at the forefront of 'our reality'.

I happen to be reading a weird little bit of Catholic propaganda I came across: Historia de la Iglesia Catolica by Francisco Carmona (1925), which presents and describes the Catholic mission in history with not even the merest doubt of its rightness, justness, as a battle against idolatry and paganism. The main enemies being pagan idolatry, the insolent Turk, the Lutheran heresy, and just about everything connected with the French Revolution. It is the sort of brief, direct view of the Catholic historical project---as they believe it to be---that you would present to young persons, say around 15 years of age. In this view, and for those who take it on, there is only one possible interpretation of truth, there is only one desired historical goal, and by defining the goal you have also defined the enemy, which seems to be what Nietzsche is saying.

Speaking of the general process of conversion and organization of the rebellious multitudes:

"When we examine the unconverted legions, we understand that no mere human power was sufficient to restrain them. Only a supernatural and divine power could have opened roads among them, spoken to them in a language that awoke in them humane and kind feelings, converting them to the idea of order, of charity and moral uprightness. This supernatural and divine power was the Church itself, and her use of that power transformed the savage and indomitable hordes into submissive and docile daughters, ready and capable of esteeming and following her teachings".

---Francisco Carmona.

What I find interesting is the way that we construct and subscribe to narratives of 'truth', and I think one also has to take into consideration that you have also presented a 'truth' that could be subscribed to, a view, an interpretation, and though it is a more academic appreciation of history and reality, this general idea is part of a dissident narrative, even a subversive general movement, and in that it is a school of thought that one gets attracted to, attached to, and serves. When I read your post a couple of nights ago, the first thought that came to mind (on the basis of the little book I was reading) was that, just as you are involved in identifying and 'locating' a malevolent trend or potency, so too you are identified as a malevolent trend and potency, and many can and do take issue with you.

"Happy robots" of 1984 or of Brave New World have no more enviable conditions than prisoners of the camps."

Here, I take issue with you flatly. For various reasons, with the Judaic influence taken into consideration, world cultural structures move toward a world-organization patterned after the Catholic Church. I don't remember there being even one 'happy robot' in Orwell's 1984 or in any outright totalitarianism that operates through crushing violence, but there are many relatively happy possibilities in the Brave New World scenario (which is the one we live in), and nothing is worse than starving to death in concentration camps.

It seems to me, then, that the question is to find some kind of balance between the state organization systems and what you and I might call 'being free'. (No more time to write).

Well, we are where we are, and part of that is the report I heard on the radio, and see among the young people I know, of the church being abandoned and a search for spiritual roots, not that different from what Native Americans have done, but now in reference to Europe.

Which in the pre-Christian era, was a pretty diverse place, and regaining that diversity. From Joseph Campbell I realized that Zeus/Jupiter were more like town mayors, whereas Jehovah was a tyrant, who didnt need to concern himself with the agendas and sensibilities of other powers, other gods.

Ovid cites several examples, but a favorite has to do with a dispute between Hera and Zeus over which got the most pleasure from sex. So, they go to see Tireseus, the child of Aphrodite and Hermes, who spent some time as a woman and other time as a man, and had it both ways. Tireseus:"Well, the woman of course." Hera was pissed:"Well, you are such a good judge, I'll make you like all other referees." And she blinded him. So Zeus:"I cannot undo what she did, but if you cant see the present, then I'll fix it so you can see the future." (Tireseus BTW, was AKA "Hermaphrodite".)

But note: in this situation, the prime deity, Zeus, is bound by NATURAL LAW , whereas Jehovah can revoke any damn law he wants whenever he wants. This is characteristic of the different instincts of the Semites and Aryans. The Semites have always been nothing more than slaves of the King, Pharoah, Emperor, or whatever. Moslems submit to Allah.

Nietzsche picked up on this imposition of Semetic values which was used to impose tyranny on the Native Europeans. It has never worked as well as it has for the Semites or indeed everyone else. In the Native European spiritual tradition, the law, natural law, precedes divinity. Joseph Campbell unraveled this suggesting that in the Aryan creation myth, Chaos, not god, was the primordial substance.

But as we now know from chaos theory, you cant have it forever without a self replicating sequence showing up. Which in this case was widely known as Gaia. And whereas creating with Jehovah was a deliberate act, Gaia naturally evolved, and reached a point of sufficient sentience to differentiate Herself from Maya, the physical world. She gave birth to it out of the same natural instinct of all other mothers. We are not here to fulfil "God's Plan", but She gave birth to us to fulfill our own destiny the same as all other natural mothers.

You can see how this cosmology would resonate with young white women. It is neither tyrannic, nor polytheistic.

"We are not here to fulfil "God's Plan", but She gave birth to us to fulfill our own destiny the same as all other natural mothers."

I always sense, if you will permit me, a 'secret sympathy' with this mother goddess and not much attraction to the notion of a tyrant God, lording it over.

My perspective is unique: I live in a country, and in a mess of unreal proportions, that is sort of like the European post-Roman 'dark ages'. There used to be a unifying narrative, and the strength and sensibility of the narrative was questioned, attacked, and then brought to its knees, and then overcome---by the barbarous hordes. And here, now, 'the center did not hold' and everything slips into chaos, but there is no glory and little beauty in this chaos, and so in inverse proportion to your glorification, in hindsight, of pagan social norms, we here experience some nostalgia for a social order maintained and overseen by a civilizing force that also had teeth, one that had the power to carry it out, whether with 'supernatural' assitance or not.

True, the attainment of a wide unity requires the knocking down of everything that stands against that unity, that corporation, that organization---and I assume you might have been in pro of the Roman project of conquest? and the famous 'pax romana'? To have that order, to establish it, to fight for it, requires immense sacrifices on the part of many, many people who must dedicate their entire life to it. It took a long while to buid Rome but once built it provided a structure that enabled civilization to occur. Likewise, Catholicism constructed an organic social entity which allowed a very similar culture to grow and flourish. Any system that is installed requires a sacrifice and yet yeilds a result, just as it exacts a price. Something is lost but something is gained. And any social organization comes in its peculiar flavor.

The subject here, according to Zarathustra, is Totalitarianism versus Polytheism (though he subscribes to neither one). Rome was a 'totalitarianism' in its way, jusdt as the US inspired and managed world-system is certainly a kind of totalitarianism. But a Nazi totalitarianism it ain't, though it has a violent underbelly that has been seen from time to time. Zarathustra seems to think that living in a Happyface Totalitarianism is equally degrading as living in...precisely the sort of culture we now live in, with so many different levels, from epsilon to alpha double-plus. I don't share his opinion. I think we have to select from among systems that require sacrifices each of them, and try to make due with the better ones, if we are fortunate enough to have them. And it would possibly be a good idea to learn to cooperate with the system, and not always be working against it.

Europe, from the look of it, wanted to throw the Church from off its back, and it has succeeded. Now, people have that choice, sort of, to return to their pagan roots, as you note some young people are now doing. But this has been a trend in almost all of the post-war years, and in nearly all of the modernizing, renovating movements. Strangely enough, it was the American post-war radical movement that received its impetus from the Catholic tradition: the Personalism of the Catholic Workers. The idea being that the 'body of Christ', that is to say us, is a divine body worthy of care and attention. I do not see that core idea as being at all bad, or backward---that is to say the Catholic idea of a sacred body of Christ in which we all participate. (And yet I am not, myself, a Christian).

And though it requires force to knock down resistance and establish a unified social order, to have that order does not necessarily mean that all originality of 'diversity' must be done away with, and repressed violently (and yet that has happened). What is usually repressed is the direct threat. The other fact, if one considers Catholiscism and the shadow of the Roman empire as the prelude to 'totalitarian' systems, is that the Church as a governing structure has allowed regional differences, regional quirks, regional cults, and that the system in its way absorbed many pre-Christian pagan traditions. It became 'pagan' in its way. One example is usurping the Isis tradition, or in building churches in the New World right on the ruins of old pagan temples, and allowing a transference of worship (as in the cult of Guadalupe in Mexico).

As many things as one might critique of Rome or the Catholic empire, there are just as many advantages one could refer to. Haven't you noted how those who critique and clammor for change, if not for open destruction of existing institutions, seem to walk away when their destructive burrowing is done, because they have no interest in actually building anything, and no understanding of what it means, and the responsibilities it entails?

Also, what young people and the uneducated feel a need to do, or in what way their atavistic rebelliousness reccurs and re-expresses itself, should not be of tremendous concern to we who have a world to run.

Real rulership is a vastly different concern than gothic makeup on some slutty White chick and rediscovery of the teutonic legends.

Actually Alex, "Real rulership is a vastly different concern than gothic makeup on some slutty White chick and rediscovery of the teutonic legends." is close to the mark; the Great Earth Mother had a sexy side that only recently do I see young women come to appreciate, altho, at my age 68, not personally.

The conversion of, or to, the New World Order is not going to be the kind of violent struggle we have seen. The brave heart, strong right arm, sword in hand, no longer cuts it. We've moved on from scripture to hypertext. The ideas are more inter-related and full of downsides that refute utopian visions.

We can see the Goddess culture exist in SE Europe until Tripolye, on the Dneipr 5000 years ago, but as the domestication of the horse was worked out, women rode off to the vastness of the Steppes to become the Amazons. Some of them arrived in what is now NW China 4000 years ago, and for several thousand years, established and ran the independent city states of the Silk Road. Most notably at Kucha, which was so literate it translated sacred text among 20 different languages, and many different religions. Whatever floats your boat.

But in the "Maitreryasamiti Texts in Tocharian A" from the 5th century, we see they arrived with their matriarchic Aryan traditions intact. This document is a conversation between the Living Buddha and the Gautamid Queen of Kucha. But unlike the sacred text we are all familiar with, he does not come to lay down the law, but to discuss with her the appropriate way for her to perform ancient Ayran rituals. In the end, they agree to go consult with the monks at Sibushi, the monestary 12 miles north of town.

You can still go there; the monastery is caves carved into the cliff face, and look at the frescos. We all know what Buddhas look like, little bald headed pot bellied fellows blessing us for kissing their asses. Here the Bodhisattavahs are stud muffins fingering their pearls. We also know that Kucha exported men as astrologers and magicians to the Chinese court in Xian. In the Chinese texts we see that the men of wisdom, the "Ma-ag" came from the west. In Occidental texts we see that the men of wisdom, the "Magi" came from "The East". Well, Alex, this is that EAST.

Why are they so smart? For one thing, they didnt breed airhead welfare queens but drafted them into brothels. The government owned the brothels, and didnt need any other taxes. No, the mothers of the Bodhisattavahs and Magi were notorious for wearing silk, and ran the shipping offices of the Silk Road. The Kuchi also managed the Jade mines north of town. If you recall, the Silk Road didnt end at the "Silk Gate", but the "Jade Gate". And if you consider how rich China got exporting silk, you can understand how rich Kucha got exporting Jade to China.

And every day, at the brothel door, when the Kuchi coo, the men come running with whatever they have. And when they leave, they pay for sexual services with Kuchan coin known as "cash". The slutty white chicks you refer to have a very ancient history, and are coming to recover it. They wont be using swords.

Last year I saw a sacred safe sex orgy hosted by witches. And was in frequent contact with a Gulf War I vet, as macho as they come, for quite some time afterwards. And all he could talk about was what he could do to further their agenda. All of his usual rhetoric about violence, weapons, racism, and their justifications were blown out of his mind. I expect another infantry man, x-cop, to move up here later this week who will be under similar case management. If these ladies need the use of force, they wont be lacking for those who know how.

Kucha had the Longswords, and would be in business yet, but were unaware of the hordes of Mongols who had a remarkable series of good years with their numbers exploding, and it was swept aside along with most of the rest of Asia. But like I said above, the sword no longer cuts it. Hordes wont do anymore. But with modern diagnostics and hygiene, safe sex is useful. All that is required, and this is going on under the radar of moder media, is the organization of young women.

And since young men no longer make enuf money to support a family, young women are looking for alternatives. Such as becoming part of case management teams like I cite above. And all these arrangements are being privately made; they dont build monumental churches, dont advertise their services, and make their agreements in private contact or email. Dont ask, dont tell. They dont discuss their sex lives with people they dont have sex with, much less the media.

They are not going to tear down the corporations; they are taking over the corporations. The violence of warfare damages infrastructure, which reduces profits. And its the corporations, which have provided healthcare, and more recently childcare, that will be adding fertility clinic services so that the next generation from their smart women will be even more competitive in the global market. Young women will sacrifice the romantic model of ideal husband and family for the support of sisterhood that will provide a more secure economic base, but also require of them sexual services for men they find useful who may not be all that personally appealing.

From Kucha all the way back to the 6th mil BC, we see a trading network of independent city states. And like the Silk Road, you get to vote with your feet- or U-haul, There will be some communities of nearly every ethnicity or religion. Kucha had the shrines of 22 different religions to meet the needs of travelers. It also had a translation and transcription business making copies of the various scriptures, which benefited from the finer muscle control of the female hand. The Tocharian Alphabet, based on Brahmi Sanskrit, had 120 letters so as to render any word in any language.

Whatever floats your boat. The Silk Road was only profitable because it was beyond the hegemony of Chinese, Persian, or Roman empires, and was destroyed by the greed of the Mongol hegemony. I cant really imagine what the hegemony of the global free market will be like, but in any case, there will be places for a long time that operate in traditional ways that ignore the values of the New World Order.

From the look of it, I don't think we are going to be able to work together to rule the planet, daybrown.

Sorry it didn't work out.

Tell you what, though, let's divide the Earth up (we'll work out the details later or have your people get in touch with my people) and you'll get to install your peer-to-peer networks of Great Goddess-worshipping madames pandering their daughters, while in my Kingdom we will go back to the basics with tip-top primary education, duty, masculine values, controlled and channelled sexuality, all the boys wearing smart ties and with perfect manners, and the girls keeping their legs modestly crossed, and then we'll check back in a hundred years to see how it all turns out.

I don't know what else to say...

Alex Jacob wrote:From the look of it, I don't think we are going to be able to work together to rule the planet, daybrown.

Sorry it didn't work out.

Tell you what, though, let's divide the Earth up (we'll work out the details later or have your people get in touch with my people) and you'll get to install your peer-to-peer networks of Great Goddess-worshipping madames pandering their daughters, while in my Kingdom we will go back to the basics with tip-top primary education, duty, masculine values, controlled and channelled sexuality, all the boys wearing smart ties and with perfect manners, and the girls keeping their legs modestly crossed, and then we'll check back in a hundred years to see how it all turns out.

I don't know what else to say...

I think its too late for that Alex. Have you looked at the young men lately? They were raised on sugar cereals, junkfood, and soda, and spent all their time playing violent video games. Their minds are no longer in any condition to be educated in the manner that you would like to see.

Moreover, its not "my people". I'm not a Moses or any other such prophet leading them. Its upta the young women. I'm just reporting on what I see of the way they think. one of which is, from my own grandaughter and others, that the young men they are are way too "stoooopid" to bother trying to build a relationship with. So- they look for other social models. If you have any, I'll be sure to pass it along for their consideration. Like I keep saying, it is not up to me.