——————————————————————————–

PLEASE NOTE I DID NOT SAY THE CHRISTIAN WAR AGAINST WHITE INTELLIGENCE.

I SAID “THE CHURCHES’ WAR.”

I mean what is today called the Orthodox and Roman Churches.

But this is no polemic against them. They were the only churches there WERE in the first centuries of the Faith.

Protestant churches, and especially evangelical churches, are just as upset at the idea that Jesus could have been married as the most conservative Catholic priest.

Fundamentalist churches are infuriated at the idea that Jesus, who was wholly a man, could ever have had a sexual desire.

Those who cannot understand this distinction between “church” and “Christian” can now proceed to call me a heretic.

— The Church’s War Against White Intelligence

Too many Christian commenters don’t like the truth, so they deny it.

In my simplistic, non-theological way, I believe that Christ was hated becaus he simply would not bow to the Temple theolgians.

He could have beeen a famous Temple theologian.

Instead Christ kept going out among the masses and telling the simple truth.

Christianity soon rejected all that.

It was too sophisticated to talk about simplistic reality.

Where Jesus attacked adultery, the theologians like Paul attacked all sex.

I belive that, that because of its obsession with the decayed Zoraostrian hatred of life itself, which we now call Manichaeism, there was a two thousand year war in all white countries against the birth of intelligent children.

This is VERY relevant today, because the higher AVERAGE IQ of Orientals and Jews, neither of which were subject to Church hatred of intelligence, is constantly given as a reason for doing away with our race.

No, Elizabeth, they were NOT myths.

The early Christian ideal of a perfectly beautiful, moral and intelligent woman marrying a brilliant and moral Aryan male and persuading him to remain chaste and sterile with her WAS the Christian Ideal.

St. Paul’s ideal of sterility, which commentersw call “moderation,” came out of nowhere if you are the kind of personwho tries to find everything he said in the Old Testament.

St. Peter was a happily and unapologetically married man.

James the Just was Jesus’s brother, Mary’s son conceived of Joseph.

The DaVinci Code makes the point that one fundamental point of Judaism in Jesus’s time was that a father had to find a wife for his son and make sire they produced children by the time the son was twenty.

NOBODY, but NOBODY, knew about tghis historical point before it showed up in that book.

So why does everybody go ballistic when someone suggests that Jesus was married?

It is one of those facts of history that nobody knows or mentions, but once the secret is out, it makes very, very serious waves.

Where in the HELL did this Ideal of Sterility COME FROM?

And where in the hell did this idea that the ideal for a person with good genes was to be a human sacrifice in genetic terms?

First think about it: Where id this come from?

Is there a HINT of it in the Old Testament?

So why did Paul take it for granted?

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

REPEAT:

Why did Peter take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

REPEAT:

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

Answer that FIRST before you comment on this.

Poverty, chastity and obedience.

I defy you to find any mention of any of those “Virtues” in the Old Testament.

They are absolutely, purely, and otherwise inexplicably a part of the degenereate form of Zoroastrianism which was overwhelmingly important during the first seven centuries when Christianity developed.

Why does this MATTER?

Because Zoroaster said that the Evil God, Ahriman, was the God of THIS World. The Good God, Ahura Mazda, was the god of hte NEXT world.

Early Zoroastrianism, back at 1000 BC, was limited to members of the Aryan (hence the word Iran and Erin for Ireland and Aryan in India) race.

Zoroastrianism was originally anything but racially suicidal.

But by the time of Saint Paul, anything of THIS world was evil. If you believed that eternal life had to do with your children, you were on the side of Ahriman.

This belief can come from nowhere else.

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

Why did Paul take it for granted that religion has ANYTHING to do with chastity?

So if your ideal for a beautiful woman was that she should have children, you were evil. She should devote herself entirely to the NEXT world, not to the world of Ahriman.

The truly religious person would withdraw entirely from THIS world. The more he had to offer in this world, the more holy he or she was in denying it to Ahriman, the god of THIS world.

The Evil One.

The Church also found clerical celebacy useful for keeping Chruch property away from any heirs the priest might have. That is enough for the Practical Man.

“It’s all just money.”

How Macho can you get?

But Paul never claimed to be a Practical Man.

So any child who could learn to read was encourage, nay, pressed to have no children of his own.

For two thousand years.

And nobody today has the slightest idea that this could have had any genetic effect.