Decay--It Can Be Nothing Else

Large majorities of voters across the West (Western Europe and Usica) have begun to understand that many (all?) of their political leaders, and many of their fellow citizens, are trying to destroy them--their cultures, their history, if female their vaginas, and so forth.  The possible reactions to these phenomena are as follows:

1) It isn't happening;  

2) It's happening because of some fictional version of badness; 

3) It's happening because the globalists seek power over a docile, stupid workforce;

4) It's happening because everything decays, and what we're seeing is part of that process.  

(1) Believing/saying that there is nothing of the sort happening is the ostrich insisting it stick its head in the sand style of approach, the horse demanding blinders, and so on.  "See no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil."  While people saying no such thing is happening exist, generating memories and local money, they are unknowing of something theoretically important to them.  Trying to convince them is not going to work (some of us make a hobby of trying to argue with Jesusians, but we know that's not going to work--they need to believe in that universalism).  

Again, this is not the place to try to convince you that Decay exist.  This is Christianity Rules.  Consider the main tenets of the Christian story: 

A) Everything began with a cosmigasm;

B) Everyone originated from a certain part of Africa; 

C) Jesus underwent a great Passion, suffered so much, it was so bad and so mean, there was so much hurting, and Jesus did it all for you.  

Now, as we've said, we just can't figure out how C applies, and what kind of giant story of fake badness happened that was as real as Jesus being crucified, but the "Big Bang" and "Out of Africa" stories are modern versions of the same thing.  This is still the Christian era; it is still the Dark Ages, and the claim that we're not living in the Dark Ages but are enlightened and empirical now is a narcissistic delusion.  We say we like empiricism and base all our stories about what things are on observation, making matching fun of the priests who wouldn't look through Galileo's telescope, but our saiunce does not allow us to make correct social observations because that would be way-cyst.  Think about how priests were considered very wise in what was then considered very modern/advanced times for knowing that the Bible was true, spending centuries telling people that the fictionally created epicycles were real things, and compare that to how much businesses want to officially consider why different breeding groups of people keep getting different generalized intelligence scores.  

2) Saying that Satan (possibly in an Allah disguise, possibly not) made unexplained things appear in the narrative is just Jesusianism showing how good of an ideological weapon it is.  Even as Saiunce-worship has in the mainstream supplanted rabbi-worship of the Jesus variety, the descendants of the victims come squalling back to Jesus, as though the fictional character on the lips of the conquerors of Europe will save Europe this time; as though Jesus is European history.  Tens of thousands of years of larger-brained Earthling humanoids are utterly betrayed, their memories sullied, as their farchildren actually believe that S.R. is their origin, the source of their love and spirit, and their hope for their children!  To imagine the hideousness of that, think of 1,000 years in the future Britons praying to Allah, the god they say was protecting the first people to live in Britain, and how much all Deep European Britons in the 21st century wanted more immigration.  Think that's wrong?  In that case, you know what your ancestors think about you now worshiping S.R.  

See how it works?  It is that filthy when you now try to get other people to accept the love of Jesus.  S.R. advocated universalism, egalitarianism, and giving up your wealth and focusing on "Him."  See how rabbinical universalism led to things that you now see as very bad?  A Jesusian is necessarily not supposed to be concerned with matter as compared to Jesus, which matter is beneath S.R.'s Sugarcandy Mountain, thus giving money to lots of immigrants is fine; an anti-matter Jesusian who focuses on separation from the life cycle and the unimportance of the material world doesn't keep little girls safe from grooming gangs, because vaginas are made of matter.  

All the window dressing of "Jesus likes children!" is revealed to be a nice smiling mask over the face of a grinning, rotting death's head.  Your great gramma might've been tricked into liking S.R., but your great great*whatever grandma, and a bunch of others in your line, had nice lives before being told they better shut up and bend over to S.R.  

3) As previously discussed, people advocating for globalism are mostly not going to fit into the comptrolling skimanagers of the future world state.  They feel that unification is something good, and they sleep easily, privately believing they are doing a good and necessary thing by bringing people together even when what they think of as those ignorant people don't want that.  To really unify things, unification requires discrimination, but the people pushing about their misperceived notions of a unification without discrimination--heterogenizing homogeneities; like trying to make stars out of 10% hydrogen, 10% mercury, 10% carbon, and so forth--are thinking thoughts and feeling feelings that will cause the environment of which they are part to decay.  

Generally, such people do not know that they are causing their societies to decay.  Because they feel that unification is good and necessary--an utterly foundational thing--they are completely content.  They shall internally believe they are very correct and good, doing a good thing, like a wagon-driver who feels he is brave and giving as he steers a wagon full of passengers over a cliff.  

Seeing this kind of bad behavior, many have concluded that those people are bad in some way.  The thought can occur that those people are ignorant, and they would change their minds if they could only understand XYZ; such has led to many fruitless arguments, wherein one party presents statistics, the other party uses faith but in modern fashion does not call it faith, and incorrect conclusions are made.  The second party concludes that the first party is mean and filled with prejudice, while the first party concludes that the second party is, as aforementioned, ignorant, doing the will of Satan, or motivated for globalism by greed.  

The Cycling of Environments

What is being missed is that it is good when environments cycle.  It is good and right when an environment decays, because that is part of making new environments in which things can come to be.  It is a certainty that living through decay is unpleasant, but it is equally a certainty that what comes from decay is a very good thing.  The old society dies, there is a period of some duration during which there is nothing of note, and then the raw materials become part of a new environment.  

The mistake made by many is thinking that the obvious dissimilarity between a dying environment and the good things that can therefrom come is quite understandable.  A pile of dirt is not at all clearly, not anywhere near as nice as new life.  A messy street filled with trash, roved by evil rapists (as opposed to "good rapists"?  Haha, no, "evil and inclined to rape"), is not at all a nice place in which to be.  An empty patch of space where a star red-gianted and then supernovaed is, well, boring.  

Consider, though, what becomes of sad endings in time.  A messy street watched by rapists is not at all a pleasant place to be, but after a few thousand years, no one is there.  Everyone has starved, which involves lots of hurting and suckage.  Not a joke--it's really unpleasant.  

A while longer, things there are just dirt.  Eventually some plants grow, some animals eventually grow that eat those plants, some other animals eventually grow that eat those animals, some humans eventually show up that eat some of both, a lot more time passes, and then those humans have a society with balls, tea parties, and stuff like that.  This man sees this woman he really likes, they have this great kid, that kid invents some rocket, etc.  

Would you be such a monster you want that rocket to never be invented?  That love to've never happened?  That's why you approve of decay: because an environment is always needed for things to live, that environment needs to cycle, and that means it has to decay.  The combination of you not wanting in the tiniest, slightest bit of an inkling to be around decay and its agents, along with you wanting decay to happen, can seem confusing.  

(People thinking about this through the lens of Hinduism can think of how the cycle of the yugas is an expression of the inevitability of the process of environments cycling.  The Kali Yuga is an expression of decay.  Consider the similarity of the "krita" in Krita Yuga and "christ" in the rabbi's surname, implying non-literally that good things are reached via a straight line man-exclusive severance from matter rather than an infinite cycle involving the use of matter and different sexes.  In the same way that Jesusianism plagiarized concepts from Zoroastrianism and European culture, the appropriation of other known religions can be seen.  Think of the round band around the scarab that was placed on mummies, referring to the cycle of the way death leads to life and life death etc., and how Jesusianism's cosmigasm story of sole male, non-female creation argues that reality is a straight line with a beginning and end, not a circle around which one can forever spin.)  

Next imagine some empty black space.  A lot of space.  A star has just gianted and blown itself up.  A billion or so years pass.  99 billion.  It is really cold and lonely.  Is that terrible?  No, because then some hydrogen pops up, it finds some other hydrogen in this completely discriminatory way, there's a new star, some time passes, some extra matter gets squeezed by gravity into roundness, one of them later grows humans, they later have a ball, and…  

Is it good that environments cycle?