Tag Archives: jesus

Does Astrotheology actually make any sense?

I just finished watching a video (edited) by Eric Dubay titled “Jesus Christ Never Existed”. I wasn’t convinced by the argumentation of the video. In fact, seeing blatant anti-Jesus propaganda like that makes me think that maybe he did. I’ve always been contrarian like that. Ever since I was child I’d thought the story of Jesus is just a silly myth, but around ten years ago when I saw the documentary Zeitgeist, which was trying convince the viewer that Jesus did not exist, because there were allegedly numerous other Gods and heroes in the ancient world whose exploits paralleled those of Jesus. He was supposedly just another version of an older story, so we should just discard him, and possibly focus on the older myths. I however entertained seriously for the first time the notion that maybe Jesus did exist if there were these alleged parallels in the ancient world.

Though now it seems much of these alleged connections between pre-Christian deities and Jesus are fabrications or exaggerations. I am not 100% convinced on these connections either way, but the video by Eric Dubay certainly did not manage to convince me to see it his way since, as usual, they don’t properly cite their sources to show that Jesus was plagiarized from earlier deities. They state a lot of claims, with little proof. Moreover listening to people in the documentary like the late Acharya S. (who interestingly allegedly died December 25, 2015) is a chore. Her smugness and how she despises Jesus and those who believe in him are unbearable. This bothered me even back when I was more receptive to her ideas, but not her attitude.

This isn’t supposedly to be a critique of Eric Dubay or his video, but I wanna mention one thing before I move onto astrotheology. I recently discovered a Youtube-channel, La verdad Absoluta, that claims to expose several inconvenient truths about Dubay. I cannot attest that all of the channel’s claims are totally accurate (and I haven’t watched every video), or that the person making the videos isn’t just on a personal vendetta against Dubay, but I do think it’s worth having a look.

 

Astrotheology

Let’s get to the main event. This is something that been gnawing my mind for a while now. Over the course of many years I’ve seen plenty of videos by people like Jordan Maxwell and Santos Bonacci who claim that the Bible is just allegory for astrotheology, Jesus is merely a reference to the sun, and so on. At first it sounded very profound, but I never really just got it. I didn’t understand what’s the actual significance in veiling stories about the heavenly bodies as events taking place on earth. I thought maybe I’m just dumb, I’m not spiritual enough. Yet now I think that’s actually the point of astrotheology: to make the people who espouse it look smart like veiling fact and mythology among the convoluted BS to confuse you and intrigue you at the same time.

While there are some verses in the Bible that might be interpreted to refer to astrology, such as Genesis 1:14-16:

Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The “lights in the firmament” presumably refer to stars. Them being for “signs and seasons” might certainly have an astrological reason behind it, since according to astrology doing certain actions on certain days can be more beneficial than on others. The Book of Job refers to the Mazzaroth, that supposedly means the Zodiac. Ultimately I don’t know what is meant by these things, but I mention them to point out that there seems to be some grain of truth in astrotheology.

 

Jesus and Sun

However, I’ve never really understood the claim about Jesus being an analogy for the sun. First of all, I don’t get how it is supposed to be a great esoteric secret? How does is empower you to “know” that Jesus is actually just the sun? All I see it makes Jesus into something banal. He was supposedly a man who did miracles and rose from the dead. That is quite unique and extraordinary, whereas the sun is something quite ordinary. The sun is important for life on earth to be sure, but it is quite mundane in my opinion, and it is not the way to any kind of salvation. Moreover, what need is there to turn the sun into a man in the form of a myth? If you want to describe the behaviour of the sun during different seasons, why don’t you describe what the sun does? How is it beneficial to come up with stories of a virgin birth, turning water into wine, betrayal by Judas, death and resurrection and so on? It just seems like needlessly convoluted nonsense to me.

Let’s look at Jesus dying for three days and coming back to life and how it is supposedly related to the sun. Jesus died and was resurrected around Easter, i.e. March or April. Astrotheologists claim that the sun dies in December and is resurrected three days later. Notice the difference in months? Jesus does not die in December, his birth is celebrated then, although scholars tend to dispute that Jesus was born in December. Nevertheless the sun “dying” and Jesus dying are at two completely different times. Even if Jesus being born on December 25 represents him being reborn, he would have to be dead 8 months or so, if he died in April.

Even more nonsensical is the claim that the sun dies in December for and is resurrected three days later. Even here in Finland the sun does not “die” for three days in winter. The days get short, but there are 4-6 hours of daylight even during the darkest days. Sometimes in the very far north in Lapland they might have dayless days. We have the concept of “kaamos”, the Polar Night. During that time the sun does not rise above to horizon. It only affects the very north, though. So you might say that the astrotheologists are talking about kaamos in Lapland then. Not really. First of all the Bible was written in the Middle-East and Mediterranean region. I don’t think they have kaamos down there. Why would they be describing the behaviour of the sun in the far north? Even if they for some reason thought the way the sun behaves in the arctic circle is of the utmost importance, Jesus’ death and resurrection is not applicable here.

I found a newspaper article from 2016 marking how long kaamos lasted in Lapland. It says in the northernmost municipality, Utsjoki, kaamos started November 26th and they got to enjoy sun’s rays again in mid-January. Apparently the sun was dead for 52 days last winter, not three days. The article also mentions that it’s not pitch black even during kaamos. Although the sun is under the horizon, it still shines from underneath and some of the light is reflected down via the atmosphere.

 

Try replacing Son with Sun

One more thing before I finish. The Eric Dubay documentary has Michael Tsarion (whose both names are numerologically 33) saying how you should replace the “son of God” with the “sun” or “sun of God”. I think I’ve heard him say it before, and it sounds smart and mysterious when he says it, but this time I actually decided to heed his advice. For example:

Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

This would be: “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Sun, Today I have begotten You.

Matthew 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

This would be: and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Sun, in whom I am well-pleased.”

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Propitiation apprently means “appeasing a god” or “atonement” so God sent the sun to atone our sins. How does that work exactly? By giving us a tan?

John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

This would be: Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Sun can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Sun also does in like manner.

First of all, if we take Tsarions’s advice we see the sun speak these words. Moreover, the sun is copying the actions of his father. It sounds like nonsense.

Sorry MTSAR, this sounds like nonsense to me.

 

Conclusion

The claim that Jesus is just an allegory for the sun is utter nonsense. I feel silly for taking it seriously for a long time. I suppose it was due to the Emperor’s New Clothes -syndrome. When you first “wake up” to the fact that there are conspiracies and that we’ve been lied to about most things, then you find these alternative researchers and they seem so smart and edgy, you don’t dare dismiss their claims, especially since some things they are saying you recognize as true. However, it seems that most of the alternatives we are given are pushing lies, just different lies from the mainstream. The difference between main stream and the alternative is that the latter mixes truth with lies.

When it comes to Jesus, I don’t know if he existed or not. But seeing that there is seems to be an agenda to convince you that he did not exist, or that he’s not important, makes me think the establishment is worried about him for some reason. I wonder why?

 

Links:

Jesus Christ Never Existed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-k2glNuwLI&t=3435s

La verdad Absoluta: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCKQeXoqLfTkFYhPbi3qixw/videos

Polar Night: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night

Kohta alkaa kaamos – näin pitkään se kestää eri paikkakunnilla: http://www.is.fi/matkat/art-2000004877281.html

Bible vs Christianity, Illuminati Trannies, and 33

Back in 2014 I wrote an article titled “The Fourth Abrahamic Religion”, which referred to atheism or Scientism. I’m going to look back on how I saw the world differently back then compared to now, and discuss where I was correct and incorrect.

First of all I do still think that militant atheism, or Scientism is part of this continuation often called Abrahamic religions. It’s even more obvious now than it was back then with Social Justice Warriors, i.e. Cultural Marxists, becoming more overt with their crazy schemes. While most of them are atheists and anti-religion, many of them are still curiously pro-Islam. Where I think I was wrong though is that Christianity is just one of those harmful, or digital, religions. Or more accurately I don’t think the Bible is part of these man-made delusions. Christianity might be,

 

A Tale of Two Christianities

I’m not claiming that this is a completely unique position, since Alexander Hislop wrote similar sentiments in The Two Babylons in the 19th century. Yet he was basically saying that Catholicism is Mesopotamian mystery religions in disguise, but if I recall correctly he had a positive view of Protestantism. I think that most main stream forms of Christianity, and most people who call themselves Christians, are either wittingly or unwittingly worshipping such mystery religions, or they simply have their man-made religion that coats itself in Biblical imagery.

There are basically two types of Christians: deliberately false ones, and apathetically false ones. The deliberately false Christians are Luciferians, Satanists, Jesuits, or crypto-Jews, that pretend to be Christian to fool others. The apathetic Christians do not really care about the greater questions of life. They merely want to be nice and have a nice life without offending others, and acting superficially Christian of simply part of their culture. They honestly believe that their unbiblical lifestyle is what God and Jesus is all about.

Perhaps you could call me hypocritical, since I do not consider myself Christian, yet I am judging Christians. Maybe I am. In recent years I’ve merely come to the realization that the Bible seems to hold more answers than any other source I’ve seen so far.

 

The Abrahamic Religions

I don’t know if it is accurate or not to call Judaism, Christianity, Islam and atheism Abrahamic religions or not, or if only the people who truly follow the Bible should be called Abrahamic. I don’t want to discuss semantics right now. Perhaps you could say Biblically inspired pagan (man-made) religions vs the religion of the Bible.

Also in my article I was praising animistic and polytheistic religions for exuding life with little evidence to back my claims. Those comments seem silly to me now, and reflect my spiritual bias of the day. It’s not to say that I think that those kind of religions are necessarily bad now either, but I just have very little actual experience with them so I cannot say how they are. I try not to idolize or demonize something I don’t know much about.

 

Trannies, Fallen Angels and the Flat Earth

In just recent months my change in perspective has allowed me to see some conspiracies from a different, and hopefully more accurate, viewpoint. One obvious clue to the relevance of the Bible is the fact that both actual science and the Bible seem to support the fact that the earth does not seem to be curved into a ball, and is not moving. I still do not have all of the facts regarding all of this, but admitting to myself that the earth is probably flat gives a certain inner peace, instead of resisting it out of the fear of sounding silly or going too far against the grain.

For the last few months I’ve been thinking about the idea the movie They Live presents. Every conspiracy nut knows that the basic idea of the movie is true in some sense, but the trick is to figure out how much of an allegory the movie is, or how literal. Are the shadowy elites really aliens, demons, fallen angels, undead spirits of Nephilim trapped on earth, Jesuits, Freemasons, Jews, or what exactly? Are we being controlled by actual non-human entities, humans possessed by such beings, or simply human beings who belong to secret societies?

A couple of Youtubers might have uncovered some important clues to this question: MrE (nothing to do with Rocking MrE) and Russianvids. Both have made videos of the transpocalypse, which refers to the claim that many celebrities, actors, politicians, even royalty, are actually secretly transgender. The claim sounds ridiculous at first, but when you bother to take a look at some of the evidence, it doesn’t sound so silly. MrE claims that basically any actress who has won an Oscar is a transgender. I’m not sure if I would go that far, but there’s something there worth investigating.

Apparently there are some Youtubers who have been discussing these Illuminati trannies, as MrE, calls them for years. I didn’t know until fairly recently that there is allegedly a tranny epidemic among the rich and famous. I did know that Michelle Obama is allegedly a man. I even wrote about it back in 2014. Back then I also heard claims that tennis players Serena and Venus Williams are trannies. Although I wasn’t convinced back then, at least it would make more sense for two men to pretend female in order to excel at sports, but I couldn’t figure out what would be the point in pulling the deception that the First Lady is a man. I wrote about these alleged celebrity trannies a month ago, but back then I was still somewhat unsure what to think of it. Now I have a better view of things.

First of all, if what people like MrE say is correct, that it is basically the religion of many of these elite families to become transgender like Baphomet, and they’ve been doing it for decades, if not centuries, or even millennia, then it’s “normal” for Michelle Obama to be transgender as well. (S)he probably wouldn’t even have been the first tranny First Lady in America. Another thing is that Kerth Barker, who I’ve quoted in the past, said in Angelic Defenders & Demonic Abusers that the generational Satanist families do habitually engage in transvestite activity, i.e. men pretend they are female and vice versa. I don’t recall him saying anything about them actually going through surgery to transition to another gender, but the basic idea is still the same.

Another thing is that if in fact many of these elite families are Satanists or Luciferians, the old idea of the Black Mass is to do what righteous people or the Bible does in reverse. Russianvids also shows a page from a book by Alesteir Crowley (or his translation of Eliphas Levi’s book?) in many of his videos where Crowley describes how you should de everything backwards. These are things I knew of Satanism and the Black Mass even when I was a teenager. I just always thought they sounded silly so I didn’t pay much attention to it. The idea of backmasking in music has been clearly known for decades even among people who are not interested in conspiracies. But if the Satanists really do engage in doing things backwards, reversing one’s gender does not sound like a stretch at all.

MrE says in many of his videos how the Illuminati trannies are “unclean bodies for immortal spirits of Nephilim trapped on earth” or something to that extent. Quite frankly it sounds reasonable to me.

 

Numerology 33

Another thing I’ve learned is some practical numerology from Russianvids. I’ve heard over the course of many years many conspiracy researchers say how the Illuminati or Masons love their numerology and they encode things, but I never really got it. I wasn’t sure are the researchers making it up to sound smart or are they talking about something real. Russianvids is the guy who seems to understand numerology, and make his viewers understand it as well. It comes down to recognizing how the Masons encode the 33 into their fake events. Russianvids has countless videos pointing this out. The latest is from the London Bridge terror attack showing plenty of police cars on the scene with the licence plate adding up to 33.

I also like Russianvids’ explanation of the Masonic 33. Everyone knows how 33 is important to Freemasons, but no-one really knows what it means, but according to Russianvids it refers to the third of the angels that rebelled against God. A simple but reasonable explanation. It also explains why these fallen angels, or their minions, would put their brand on everything.

Russianvids uses a numerology program to decode words. I downloaded the same program a little while ago. First I checked out the name of several people I know. None of them were 33, or any other obvious occult number. So it probably is not simply a co-incidence that these numbers are so frequent among the elites. Then yesterday I found some use for the numerology program. There is a newstory of an artist, Dana Schutz, who painted a picture of dead black teen. Then two other artists, or provocators, started protesting the painting, because a White person is appropriating Black culture, or something. These protestors are Hannah Black and Parker Bright. It just happens that “Hannah Black” is 33 in Chaldean numerology. “Parker” is 33 in Pythagorean numerology. “Bright” sounds like a reference to Lucifer. I do believe that this controversy over the painting is a deliberate stunt by the Masons to divide and conquer people. Whites vs Black. Social Justice Warriors vs normal people.

 

Conclusion

I think most people, even conspiracy minded people, stay away from the “craziest” conspiracy theories because want to bargain with the norms set by society. “9/11 might have been an inside job, but Hollywood actresses are not trannies.” “NASA might have faked the moon landings, but the earth is not flat.” The underlying psychological factor here is that people are trying to run a thin line between reality and acceptability. I will accept this “crazy” but true thing, but I will reject that one, so it evens out. There is always some line people won’t cross to avoid sounding too ridiculous. However the only line you should care about is the line between truth and lies.

And have a gander at the Youtube channels of MrE and Russianvids if you haven’t done so far.

 

Links:

The Fourth Abrahamic Religion: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/the-fourth-abrahamic-religion/

Russianvids: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTrZJrLbsoN171bMFQKN5Xw/featured

MrE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAgVKvt3syB7gV-hL9bMTYw

Is Michelle Obama a man?: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/is-michelle-obama-a-man/

Apparently Hollywood actresses are male: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2017/04/05/apparently-hollywood-actresses-are-male/

Why Dana Schutz Painted Emmett Till: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/10/why-dana-schutz-painted-emmett-till

 

Salvationism in Christianity and atheism

Last summer made a post saying that atheism is the fourth Abrahamic religion. There’s one aspect, salvationism, that seems to be a key feature in both Christianity and atheism. It may or may not apply to Islam and Judaism as well, but I not so well versed with their ways of thinking so I cannot say for sure.

Way back when I was younger there was one aspect of Christianity that made it clear for me that faith wasn’t meant for me; the salvationist ideology. This was decades before I heard of John Lash’s criticism of the concept in Not in his Image. Christians used to say “Do you accept Jesus into your heart?” or “Do you accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour?” I might have accepted that Jesus was some transcendental being and spiritually superior to the rest of us, but this particular dogma of having accept something external into me was like accepting a spiritual microchip into my soul, or, pardon the vulgar expression, having his dick rammed into my mouth. I neither liked the idea of having to accept some external, outer thing into me, nor did I see how it would make me better.

I have no problem looking at myself or human beings in general as somehow sinful, although I don’t mean it necessarily in any religious sense. We’re simply all screw-ups, we’ve all done something immoral, there are limits to what we know and can know, nobody’s perfect and so on. I think the best way to handle it is to stop whining, and do the best you can. Try to be a decent person. I fail to see how the mythological remedy Christianity claims to possess can fix our sinful state. I would say it rather gives us an excuse to continue living sinfully since somehow the act of Jesus unjustly being murdered on the cross makes it OK for us to be sinful. It never made sense to me, still doesn’t.  And certainly accepting a murdered Jesus into my heart won’t fix anything either. It is merely an attempt to abdicate one’s responsibility to a “higher power”.

This is also what the atheists do. They don’t believe in God, Jesus or sin for that matter, but they do believe in the marvels of “progress”. To them vaccination is merely an updated version of the Eucharist. Christians drink the blood of Christ and eat his body in order to be saved. Atheists take the jab to be safe from the germs. This is very much the impression I’ve gotten from some atheists and their blind belief in vaccines. I’m not saying all vaccines are necessarily harmful, but some are. But to these atheists saying this is heresy.

Modern medicine in some respect has become the church for the atheists. As now we have all of the viruses and bacteria, the atheists don’t believe there’s anything they can do to fight against these invisible demons, so they give their money to the pharmaceutical companies in order to be safe. Here too I’m not saying all modern medicine is useless or harmful, but I would rather rely on the natural healing properties inherent in my body rather than rely on this multimillion Dollar industry.

In political matters particularly the leftist atheists view the government as a God-like figure to be obeyed, unless you want to invoke its ire or lose it favour. The media serves a role similar to the inquisition. You don’t want be known as a crazy conspiracy theorist/heretic, so you don’t discuss these and those matters in public. It all goes together, the statism, the media, the pharmaceuticals. They’re all a religion. The ultimate goal of it all seems to become a sublim victim like Jesus. Just look as the Je suis Charlie-stuff, or how the alleged crisis actors are always happy to be victims. Don’t get angry. Don’t blame the attacker. Be complacent, be passive, be a victim because it makes you better than the rest since according to this religion there are only victims and oppressors. And the meek shall inherit the earth…

This is the religion of the New World Order. You’re a meek victim while they inherit the earth. Whoever they may be.

 

Links:

The Fourth Abrahamic Religion: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/the-fourth-abrahamic-religion/

Eucharist: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist

Jesus and Buddha are not good Role Models

In modern times, since the end of the Second World War I’d say, this notion of the ideal human being someone like Jesus and Buddha has become quite popular. We’re supposed to be kind, compassionate, loving and pacifistic like them. Jesus is depicted as a loving, non-judgemental hippie who hardly ever acts aggressively, yet things simply go his way because he spiritually rises above petty human concerns. Quite frankly that’s a harmful archetype that has caused a lot of damage in the last few decades.

 

 

I am not criticizing the mythological or historical, whichever way you perceive these characters, account of Jesus or Buddha. They may or may not have had many more varied qualities in the scriptures describing their deeds. I am addressing the archetypal image fairly prevalent in modern times where the ideal person is only about love, compassion and acceptance. All of the nasty stuff simply seems to be deflected off from the aura of benevolence around them. Jesus doesn’t have worry about being mugged in a dark alleyway. Buddha doesn’t need to address how to prevent mass rapes perpetrated by sick criminals. When we are considering such holy notions as love and compassion, these brutal facts simply seem to slip out of our minds.

This mindset is dangerous and harmful, because it basically makes us hate reality as it is. Regardless of whether people are religious, atheist or whatever, many people seem have bought into, as I have in the past, that the ideal we should strive for is this sinless paragon of virtue. We should never be hateful, angry, judgemental or selfish, yet the world sort of forces us to do that sometimes. We have to fight for our place in the world, we have to fight to get what we want or deserve. We understand there are nasty, criminal people in the world, yet we are not equipped to handle it with mere love and compassion. Still we try to reconcile these two mutually exclusive beliefs; the ideal of being meek and non-judgemental, and the unfortunate fact that the world is often unfair and dangerous. This often makes us resent reality for the nastiness inherent in it, when in fact we should resent the childishly idealistic notion of morality. It’s not the world’s fault that it contains a lot nasty and dangerous stuff, in addition to the awesome stuff in it. We can be equipped to deal with if we face it head on in a realistic manner. But if we try to hold onto this inorganic ideology that we should be somehow morally infallible, or even inhuman, we will fail.

Jesus is not a good role model. He is simplistic. He has an everpresent dictator, God, watching over him, conspiring so that things go his way. In this narrative the deck is stacked in his favour. Yours isn’t. So don’t resent the world that it doesn’t allow the archetypal Jesus to exist. He is not real.

The Religious Right is not like this. They’re not all forgiving. They’re quite judgemental on many issues. I may not agree with them on many things, but I’m getting more sympathetic with their overall attitude.

Let’s take a look at other mythological heroes that are better role models.

The 12 labours of Hercules from Greek myth is quite famous. He got shit done, instead of just sitting on his ass being all holy. He killed a shapeshifting lion, and the hydra. Those required both bravery and strength. He was given various tasks to capture a bunch of other animals too. Hercules was forced to clean the Aegean stables with 30 years worth dung in them. He did it by rerouting two rivers to wash the stables. This required intelligence and industriousness. One task was morally questionable, since he has to steal some horses, the Mares of Diomedes. Not part of 12 Labours is the manliest task ever, he impregnated 49 virgins in one night.

Yamato Takeru is apparenly based on a historical person, but has become a part of Japanese mythology. He was a bad ass prince, a son of the emperor, who bravely killed lots of enemies, crushed rebellions and so on. In one quest he was supposed to kill two brothers, so he dressed up as a woman to gain entrance to their palace to kill them. (Possibly the game Final Fantasy VII was inspired by Yamato Takeru, since in one part the main character dresses up as a woman to gain entrance to the palace of a mafia boss.)

Yamato Takeru also killed his brother, either as accident ormaybe he was just an asshole. He also angered a god who cursed him. He got a mystical sword Kusanagi no Tsurugi, which was found in the body of a 8-headed and 8-tailed dragon (sort of like the hydra?), although he didn’t kill it.

Cuchulainn is a Celtic hero who was a tough fighter, romanced many women and killed an enormous hound. Not everything in his life was nice heroic stuff, since he killed his son mistaking him for someone else, and was grief stricken.

Cuchulainn deserves a longer description, as do the Hercules and Yamato Takeru, and I’d like to mention many other mythological heroes here, but quite frankly I’m getting sleepy. I think you get my point nonetheless. These other mythological archetypes are men who did stuff, they affected the world, fought battles, romanced maidens, and also had flaws and did morally dubious or reprehensible things. They’re the kinds of stories that should inspire us. No-one is perfect, we all make mistakes, but despite that we can arise beyond the limitations of our humanity and do something worthwhile. It’s better than aspiring to be a hippie, since they didn’t accomplish much. They didn’t stop the Vietnam war, and the military industrial complex is still going strong today.

And no, I’m not saying you should literally emulate these heroes and go kill people. Don’t be an asshole.

 

Links:

Labours of Hercules: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labours_of_Hercules

49 virgins: http://www.infoplease.com/cig/mythology/training-hero.html

Yamato Takeru: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamato_Takeru

More Takeru: http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~nw6e-mtmr/japan/hero_fiction_e.htm

And more: http://japanesemyth.firespiritdesigns.com/html/yamato.html

8-headed dragon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamata_no_Orochi

Cuchulainn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%BA_Chulainn

Others sources:

The Ultimate Encyclopedia of Mythology by Arhur Cotterell and Rachel Storm

Temporal Displacement in the Minds of Cultural Marxists

I once read a book of medieval Europe for a university course that claimed the medieval Europeans had a peculiar notion of the Middle-East. In some way the way the Middle-East was a thousand years before at the time of Jesus, and how it was in the middle-ages had merged. The Europeans somehow saw the Saracens being the people who killed Jesus. I guess that is a mythological view of reality where the past is always present, or something. Anyways, I failed the exam so I shouldn’t talk about the book, so I’ll move on to Cultural Marxism, which is something I’ve never had an exam on, so no fear of embarrassment either.

Cultural Marxists love victims, and anyone who is not regarded as a victim, must be an oppressor. Cultural Marxism manifests itself in many forms such as feminism, where people with gender or some shit like that, i.e. women, transsexuals and gays are victims, anti-racism where anyone but “white people” are victims, and socialism where anyone with money is an oppressor, unless they’re gay, black females, for example. The people who give themselves the generic and meaningless label “progressives”, presumably believe in all of the above victim groups, but I’m not sure.

I do believe that many Cultural Marxists set on that ideological path with good intentions, and a genuine, sane concern for minorities, but somewhere along the way they go batshit crazy. They are literally extremists for concern of the Other. The Other is in extremist conservative groups often reviled as some outside force, like a foreign religion, race or ideology. The main difference between extremist conservatives and progressives or liberals, is that conservatives hate and fear the Other, but progressives love it, and hate anything is too normal or normative.

Anyways, Cultural Marxists seem to have one thing in common with medieval Europeans, if the book whose name nor author I do not recall (EDIT: It’s Medieval Civilization by Jacques Le Goff), is accurate, they have a mythological view of present and history. Cultural Marxists obsess over victimhood, and they seem to view their favorite victim groups always being temporally situated in the era that was most oppressive for them, or at least in some time in the past when they were oppressed. Women are seen as being stuck in the Victorian Age when men “feared women’s sexuality”, and men controlled society, women were property and so on. This may have been true over a hundred years ago, but is not true anymore. Homosexuals have been oppressed in many countries in the past, and it’s been illegal and so on, but homosexuals are not oppressed anyone, not in the West at least. President Obama supports gay rights, for fuck’s sake. Black people are seen as eternally stuck in 19th century Confederate America as slaves or a weak minority fighting for its rights in the 1960s, Asians are always supposed to be viewed by Westerners through 19th century Orientalists eyes as something exotic and mysterious.

Cultural Marxists have been called Social Justice Warriors, and I’ve always disliked the term as something too pedestrian, but now that I think about its quite accurate. Cultural Marxists are like Don Quixote thinking he’s back in old times fighting against monsters that do not exist. I haven’t read Don Quixote, but assuming the filmatizations and TV-shows I’ve seen on it are accurate in their basic message, it’s eerie how well the description fits Cultural Marxists.

Moreover, it’s quite interesting how the medieval Christian mythological view coincides with modern Cultural Marxists, even though most Cultural Marxists despise Christianity. Jesus was the ultimate hallowed victim, the scapegoat sacrificed for no reason and all the best reasons. The ideological origin of the sacred victim mentality of Cultural Marxists must originate with Christianity. They often say: Don’t blame the victim.” I agree, but I retort with: Don’t idolize the victim either.

Christianity

I’ve had a fairly complex relationship with Christianity all my life. As a child I began to detest it, and did so until my mid-twenties. As a teenager I, as most people of our time, were offered the false dichotomy of Christianity or materialistic science. I chose the latter, because it didn’t seem as dumb even though since then I’ve forsaken that belief system as well. In my mid-twenties I began to realize there is as much validity to the Christian world view as any other, even though it was still dumb, but so was any other belief system. I stopped resenting Christianity. I got rid of my emotional baggage on it. Then I could see Christianity truly as the monstrosity it is. Yet it’s never that simple, is it.

Christianity and the Abrahamic religions have been described as a mind virus, and I wouldn’t disagree with it, but I’m not sure if it is strictly true either. I’m more inclined to think of Christianity at least as a vehicle for this ancient Archontic mind virus. It’s almost as if there are these two sides to it, that don’t really know of each other and don’t generally interact with each other. Perhaps this is the ingeniousity of it. The religion of love and compassion has been used as justification for all sorts of violence and torture, and often spread with the sword, and not the pen.

 

Christianity in Finland (or the Bad)

This certainly happened here in Finland around a thousand years ago. Thanks Sweden. This is one reason I, and many other Finns, have resented Sweden for forcing Christianity on us through force, but of course the same had happened to Swedes before us. They were infected with the virus and had no choice but to infect others. I’d never seen Finland as a purely Christian country, even though in my childhood in the eighties we were. I call it more like lip-service Christianity. Most people didn’t really feel Jesus or Jehovah in their hearts, but it was simply something you should do. Part of the patriarchal control system, or rather the cult of consensus society. Since most people act they are Christian, you have to do it too or you’re punished. This may have been different in other countries in central Europe or whatever. Perhaps in other lands, people truly embraced Christianity, and it wasn’t simply an act of oppression. But not here. We are the men of the North and we do not worship Semitic gods willingly.

Now, I find that Christianity has almost disappeared from the minds of common people. It’s some embarrassing shadow people aren’t supposed to shed light on, except when archaic clerical institutions refuse to allow gay marriage, or some Cultural Marxist tripe like that. Now we are lip-service atheists. I don’t know when or how it happened. Was there a meeting somewhere that I missed? Back in the nineties we still had the lip-service Christianity thing, somewhere post 9/11 there was this invisible shift in the attitudes of people. It almost makes me want to have Christianity back. Almost.

I’ve written about this previously, so I won’t waste much time here, but I argue that Atheism is the fourth Abrahamic religion. It is a continuation of the mind virus, it does not represent freedom from the virus, but deeper enslavement into it. It is merely a system of dogma without any spirituality or mystical aspects to it. No life.

 

The Good

Despite all of the countless horrible things that Christianity has wrought on the earth, it would be intellectually dishonest to deny its good aspects. There are loads of good people who are Christian and the have been many such people in history. There are aspects of Christian spirituality I find truthful. I do consider the Bible to contain valuable information. I greatly dislike the cult formed around the Bible, and the worship of the book as the word of God. I do agree that God works in mysterious ways, so even though the Bible was of course written by men, and it was altered in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and all that stuff, I can agree to the possibility that the Bible does contain information from beyond that we should know more about. Yet I think this applies to several other books as well. There’s so much different interpretations of the Bible around there, Bible code and who knows what. I’d be quite hesitant to dismiss the Bible as silly fairy tales. But I also abhor the use of the Bible as some sort of talisman, or an excuse to try to justify one’s particular delusions as reality.

It’s nice to see there’s also some sort of Christian truth movement going on. Although many of them have a very stubborn, dogmatic view on things, which I find hard to connect with, I also realize that many Christians understand the simple fact that there is a battle between good and evil going on on this planet. I certainly don’t agree with them on many details of how and why this is happening, but I agree there are not only nasty control freak people running this place, but there seems to be a more ancient, and less human evil at play too. I don’t see so many atheists recognizing this.

 

My Ugly Theory

There’s definitely the nasty mind virus-side to Christianity, but there is a positive side to it too. I figure this partially, at least, due to the Pagan elements in Christianity. Christmas doesn’t have anything to do with Jesus, it’s a Solstice celebration. Easter refers to Ishtar. Catholic reverence for the Saints seems like Pagan god worship to me. Even the myth of the god dying on the tree and getting resurrected predates Christianity by assloads (assload is a theological academic unit of time and means “a long period of time”). None of this in new information, of course, and many Christians wouldn’t agree with this, but I see many of these Pagan elements as remains from an older, natural religion that our ancestors followed. The mind virus had to adopt a guise that the Pagans would be attracted to to sucker them in, but once they bought the whole package they couldn’t let go of it. They were assimilated into the collective. Yet perhaps, the Pagan elements in Christianity were still working their magic, and have gradually been subverting the mind virus to more healthy ends.

So even though Christianity started off as a nasty Abrahamic religion, it really didn’t start off as one, since it had borrowed older elements into it. Over the course of millennia certain sects of Christianity may have shed off the virus, and became Pagan in the core while remaining Christian on the surface. I don’t know if this is true, but just trying to make sense of all of this.

So this is my Heretical view on things. Take it or leave it. I don’t want to offend any Christians, I’m just saying it as I sees it.

 

What is Jesus?

By Jesus here I do not mean the pseudo-historical or theological character that supposedly existed 2000 years ago in the middle-east. I mean the saviour figure who dies on the tree and comes back to life to redeem us. The esoteric idea behind Jesus. This old archetype is supposedly associated with Osiris, Mithra or even Thor, as well as Jesus.

I grew up hating Christianity but in my mid-twenties I became more accepting of their beliefs. Around that time I also saw Zeitgeist, which has a section on these similarities of Jesus to other, older religious figures. Whereas Zeitgeist tried to lead you to believe the universality of the saviour figure to be proof that Jesus is fake, for me it had the opposite effect. It was the first time I thought perhaps the story of Jesus is more than a fairy tale. It is not just some story made up in the middle-east a short while ago (2000 years is a relatively short time) but something inherent to humanity. An integral story we re-write in our image every now and then.

While I am not certain how universal this saviour figure actually is, as many have disputed these various connections between Jesus and other mythological characters, but I’m fairly certain the story is much older than 2000 years.

According to my understanding Jesus is the ego, or rather some inner function of the individual that the concepts of our culture have no word for and “ego” is the closest equivalent. The ego is supposed to die, but you won’t get rid of it. Only after it has died it ceases to be a pest and can begin to work for the good of others, and oneself. In Matthew 15:21-28 Jesus calls Canaanites dogs and says “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” In his book Two Babylons the author Hislop commented something along the lines that only after his death and resurrection Jesus became the universal saviour. Before that he only served Israel, or personal gain as the story was written from an Israeli perspective.

The ego serving mentality that still is ruling our civilization has not killed the ego. The Christ is not resurrected, and thus causes suffering by self-centered action. However the other, post-modern, ideology which states the ego is completely harmful denies Jesus completely. Is that Satanic, or is it Satanists who try to hoard Jesus to themselves and disempower others? Ego is our conduit between two worlds, the world of flesh and spirit. Flesh is dumb and immobile without spirit to animate it, yet the spirit is impotent in the physical realm. That is where we need mind which is the state between spirit and flesh. Something the spirit can communicate with, and which can command flesh. Perhaps that is what it means that Jesus is half human, half God. The ego/ mind/ Jesus is an intermediary between two connected yet separate aspects of us.

The lie and the sin the church has committed is teach Jesus is something external from us. A character in the distant past, divine being somewhere out there in heaven, something superior, a crucifix on the wall, an idol to be worshipped. The church has turned an inherent aspect of ourselves into an external idol. It has perverted our selfhood. It has made us sinful by not only teaching us false doctrine on Jesus, but ripping him out of our flesh. By sinful I mean something which is harmful and meaningless, not something that some external patriarch will punish us for. Deliberately shooting yourself in the foot is a sin, as it is harmful to you, and it serves no purpose. The same is true for worshipping Jesus as an external deity.

This is my understanding of Jesus. No doubt it is flawed and limited, but I can say it is my honest assessment that I have reached at this point in time.