Toxic Jesusianism

But Jesus Was Good For Us!  

Imagine some people committed no crimes but got put in a prison by some crazy mean guards.  They have to eat food in the communal cafeteria, where each meal they are given one plate and one fork, which they have to put back when they're done.  As for drinks, each person has to keep his own cup that he can use in the cafeteria (you're outta luck if you forget it because they don't give you one).  Those are these little cups, each one of which is some kind of hard plastic stained gray.  Talking between the cages isn't allowed, so the prisoners develop this habit of tapping their cups against the bars of their cages.  A certain number of taps means a letter.  Tensions grow, and the prisoners begin developing a code whereby certain rhythms that they tap mean certain things.  Things like "tired," "this sucks," and a few years later, "go left," and, "get him now."  As the years pass, the prisoners work out a complicated set of codes, make a few tries at escape, there are some brutalities, and eventually some of them get out of the prison.  

Some years pass, and then this book of the descendants of the guards says that "those damn gray cups" are bad because when certain people communicated that way it was really bad for the prison guards.  The descendants of the prisoners point to that as proof that a person who is against the guards loves little gray cups; a person with a good heart always carries around a special gray cup.  They tell all their friends, and some of the people they meet, that you should always carry around a little gray cup to have pride in yourself and to really resist the descendants of those evil guards, as proven by the guards' descendants complaining about those damn gray cups.  

Is that proof that gray cups are good?  That gray cups lead to freedom?  No!  Two times, and a thousand times, no!  The gray cups were just a feature of the captivity used by the prisoners!  Those cups were given to people by the prison guards; they are part of the prison-situation!  They have nothing whatsoever to do with freedom, free will, free choice, etc.  If those people hadn't been trapped in a prison, they would never have used those icky little cups!  Talking is much better than tapping a cup to send a message to the next cell, and thinking that tapping a cup is good when you have the freedom to talk instead makes you out to be an idiot.  The prisoners only did that because they had lost their freedom.  

That is what Jesus-based Christianity is now--an artifact of the beginning of the imprisonment (if you're not sure about that, do your taxes, and if you don't wanna then just skip food for that year).  It is so, so stupid to think that little gray cups or little golden crosses (or big crosses, or even crosses with a statue of a nearly naked male masochist on them) mean anything even remotely good.  A lot of people were killed, a lot of people were trapped, a lot of other horrible things (including, of course, some gross unwanted physical things involving underage males) happened, but people keep pointing out that for a time, those little gray cups served as an indication of people resisting that badness.  Those little gray cups were even spoken of derogatorily by the descendants of the guards themselves!  

However, even though those little gray cups served as a locus for resisting imprisonment, and even though they got hated by the evil guards, they are not good things.  They only existed because of the prison-experience; they were part of being imprisoned, a feature not a bug!  Thinking that "people need to live for the little gray cups" is so stupid.  Those things were monuments to being taken over; they were a feature of being conquered.  The first guards gave the first prisoners those cups, and acting like those cups mean freedom is completely wrong; those cups were a feature of the prison-system.  

(Consider how the growing men of Europe before the invasion of the Middle East had images of pretty women about which to think, and how then they were supposed to get rid of all their references to those women, those female characters were called evil demons, and those statues were replaced by figurines of a man having passionate suffering.  Yes, the resistance to Middle Eastern philosophy continued, and for a long time it was expressed through the figurine of a man having passionate suffering, but there were much longer times before when there were available better things.  

Think of how modern Bangist home-O-secks-shoe-ull and trains without an eye movements show that the real purpose of the anti-matter philosophies is to cause people to make no babies.  The message is to have 3 billion orgasms, as many as you like, get really turned on as turned on as you like, and your line dies off.  The breeders win.  The way that initial Christianity had growing young men focused on representations of a twisting man rather than on representations of attractive women is, like modern nonsense about people who've transcended matter, anti-life: expressly Christian.  The Christian cross is like the flag with lots of colors: a pennant of non-life.  That seems not to apply, because almost all current Jesusians are against trains without an eye movements; they correctly get a feeling of sepulchral badness from things like people thinking it's A-OK if men participate in women's sports.  However, it should be remembered that matter-disavowal is exactly what saying you like a savior from matter is about.  Rabbi-worship is literally [christ!  Good grief Christians it's right out there in the open!  "Saved from matter" is "dead!"  It's a death cult!] an earlier edition of it not being gay for a man to date a trains without an eye woman.)  

It is so with the cross of Jesusianism.  That cross is a mark of relatives killed or imprisoned; it is a mark of paying taxes to support your enemy, and of immigration into where Europeans live.  Choosing that when you have the freedom to not do so is an immense betrayal.  Many people do that now because they think that the cross represents goodness and tradition, but that is not true--it represents subjugation.  

Europe had tradition when Tamerlane and Genghis Khan tried to take it; they failed, but the ideological virus of Christianity is working.  Before that, there were thousands of years of Europeans allowing zero immigration, watching the stars, using empiricism in other ways, and now they're remembered as Flintstonian pagans because of the conquest.  People who say they're atheist, agnostic, or pagan without even half believing in the Christian falsities about what paganism was are much closer to European tradition than people who say you should worship a rabbi.  

If you want to support immigration or pervs using screaming little boys to get off their sick selves, if you want to support paying taxes to give money to the people hurting you, then you want to wear a cross and close your eyes to think special words to a rabbi of whom you've been thinking.  If you don't think those are good things, and if you are a man who prefers women instead of writhing men in very little clothing, then those are more reasons not to be associated with that.  

Ostara

The man-centered nature of the Christian invasion of Europe can be well-expressed by the way that the holiday for a woman--Ostara--was changed to be a holiday for a man.  If you'd prefer to think about being very close to a forest woman, that is one thing, and if you'd prefer to think about being very close to a scantily clad man writhing in pain, that is another thing.  The way that Ostara became Easter very much exemplifies the way that Jesusianism was about men replacing women.  When we see trains without an eye women winning at girls' sporting events today, that is just a modern version of the Christian replacement of women with men.  All of your inner feelings that such ugly things are wrong are correct; rabbi-worship was the start of it.