Figurines
So, if you want their society to grow (via reproduction; the only possible way for a meiotic species, which humans are), which image should older boys about to become reproductive have in mind? Something like this:
...which image do you think? Again, let us assume you are having images being around a bunch of developing males, and that you want them to reproduce their population?
Actually, the loincloth was a little after-the-fact decency. The original story went for the kill: if S.R. had been real, he would have been crucified naked. There is no pretense here. Lots of Europeans were killed and others forced to worship a rabbi, every little boy had to go be instructed about that man by the older Department of Education that had been under directives from the older D.E.I. to be sure to hire men who preferred male company, and immigration law went from "none" to "some." Now 2025 we’re at lots.
In 2025, as Whites find their societies holding that homoerotic-friction partnerships ("gay marriage") are formal (legal), it is absolutely not a surprise that liturgy-leaders for the single man religion have a dirty reputation for pursuing orgasms by sexually abusing little boys. Before the Christ-ifying of Europe, Europe allowed zero of that. The appearance of rabbi-worship started what was then a very small gayness--everyone has to look at a bare man, a few kids become the sex toys of some pervs--and that was definitely much, much better than 2025. So it seems better now, but in fact that little opening was like a pinprick in a dike--now, as the big waves wash away the town, it is so stupid to say "Pinpricks in dikes are good!"
So Judas identified Jesus with a kiss, the apostles were all male, Mary was a virgin (Golly-shucks that seems important! Was it really? Golly-gee what was she called?) and the first figurines and drawings that replaced Aphrodite looking fine were instead of a naked man. Is it such a conspiracy theory that Christianity was gay? Seriously, dudettes and dudes, we know it is crazy that some people now think it's fine that a guy can decide to be a girl who runs track, but just like Trump is laying the BS for going against Iran, it fits perfectly. Christianity's instillation of interest in a solo man is a very indicative giveaway that it is a gay philosophy. When gay men are now insisting that they're not gay because they only rub against naked trans-women, they are a modern facet of that same trend. There have been gay men speaking, dressing, and completely costuming and acting like women for a very long time, and gay men who exchange bodily friction and partial or full nudity with those men. Yet, like deluded Jesusians, the men participating in that can think they are doing this independent thing.
Replacing a little figurine of some shapely, attractive woman who represented the desire that kept the society alive by a figurine of a naked man, and having all the young men look at it every week, was as much a giveaway then as when you are grossed-out/shocked now by transwomen replacing females. In a thousand years, will you think it was just fine that images of a writhing man became "what good young men should think about," replacing images of "pretty woman in dress"? Or, will you think that it is a problem? (Yeah, worship a rabbi because it's so good.)
There are many nice, good people/organizations who have done nice/good things and said something like it was because of their belief in S.R. Similarly, Earth has been here for a long time, and when plagiarizers are trying to make a good story, they can say a real thing was done by S.R. because of reason XYZ. Think of how a Black Sea flood was turned into the story of Noah's Ark. If a city was built by a big volcano that people just think is a normal mountain and then the volcano goes off, destroying that city and these guys who built houses outside the walls, whammo: Sodom and Gomorrah. Evidence that the Bible is true. Jesus must actually exist--there's evidence the scientists are ignoring!
(If the popular god were Groshdar [with all the tentacles and bug eyes and stuff], there would be all these nice women praying to Groshdar and giving meals to hungry people if they attended a service, and idiots could think "Groshdar is so nice!" A bunch of countries have a majority of Groshdar-worshipers; someone there develops flight, and idiots can say that love for Groshdar is so good. In actuality, there is nothing good about Groshdar, who doesn't even exist--he's just an idea that is spoken of by a lot of people.
Of course, what was done was done by the nice women, the nice women were 100% responsible for it, and if they ate cauliflower that night the cauliflower was not responsible. Them having done that was not why they did the nice things--them, their genes, but not Groshdar or Jesus. That fake--that idea being associated with people who do nice things, therefore that idea is great--was a successful genetic attack. It got Jesus associated with good things, rather than those genes. Like teaching boys for years about an underclad man instead of an attractive woman, it is a way of replacing one thing with another--homoeroticism rather than heteroticism; a foreign official wise man rather than local wisdom. It is a genetic attack. Like the cuckoo replacing a bird's eggs with its own ["brood parasitism"], Jesusian Christianity is dislikable when seen--other birds will fight to the death for what they think are their eggs, and Whites will do that for the idea of rejection of matter [which is savior-ity]. The idiocy we see now is that.)
Of course, those pieces of "evidence" are no more than the evidence that pagans had community centers (called shrines) or that there is this big carbon-dated fossil record that shows the six days crap to be, well, crap, but...
Anyway, flooded basement. Because Christianity has a progressively worse effect, and because it began spreading in Europe over 1000 years ago, it can seem that Christianity is indicative of things being better than they are now. However, imagine that you are trapped in a basement. You begin to notice some weird spots of water appearing on the upper steps of the stairs. After a few minutes, you notice that some of the shoes on the lower stairs are wet and gross. A few minutes later, you are actually splashing through some water! As time progresses, the water gets deeper and deeper. Walking grows more difficult. Soon you have to swim. The water rises, and in your last moments before drowning, you think fondly of how wonderful it was when there were weird spots of water appearing on the stairs.
When you say to people, "It was so nice, the community was so strong, when the flood was just a few little wet spots! How good are little wet spots! People need little wet spots of water to begin to appear on their stairs!" Now, this was true: right before drowning was a jillion times worse than when you were still alive and noticing just a few blots on the upper steps. There is 100% true evidence that the beginning of the flood was better than now! However, claiming that the beginning of the flood was a good thing is sick and wrong. Many people have forgotten that Christianity was a philosophy that came from the Middle East, not at all from Europe.
How stupid is that? Obviously, the spots of water were the beginning of the flood. Thinking fondly of those spots is insane. Those spots were never good things. The very second they were seen, you should have gone upstairs, noticed that one leaky faucet in the bathtub, called a plumber, and saved the basement and your life. Saying that the first spots of water were good is, as aforementioned, insane.
Jesusian Christianity is the same way. It is the first major indication that something was wrong. People trying to save White societies by having others love the rabbi are like someone who wants you to think fondly of those first spots up the stairs.
Comments
Post a Comment