It is only after discussing Zoroaster many times here that I have slowly gotten some idea of why Zoroastrianism is important to our history. I got a communication from a seminary student who explained to me that only “amateurs” thought that Z had any influence whatever on Christianity. He explained that all the writings relating to it and the entire literature of Persia had been burned by the Moslems when they conquered Persia hundreds of yeas AFTER the New Testament was finalized, so it could have had no effect on those who wrote it.

This is way most people view history. The religion of the only empire Rome met and did not conquer could not have influenced the Bible because its literature was destroyed AFTER the Bible was written.

Practically nobody has the slightest historical perspective. Mommy Professor tells them only amateurs or Ignunt people say something and it is not true and that’s all she wrote.

Thinking is not allowed..

It has been noted that the Magi are in the New Testament. They are described as star gazers or We Three King, but at the time the New Testament was written if you had described them as anything but Zoroastrian clerics it would have been EXACTLY like trying to describe a Rabbi as something other than a Jew.

Manichaeism is a heresy described by the Church as being too much a renunciation of life. A Church which welcomed the Trappists at their most extreme condemned the Manicheans. Manichaeism bears the name of Mani, the man who tried to synthesized the two great monotheistic religions of his day

The two great religions of Mani’s pre-Islamic world were Christianity and Zoroastrianism, respectively the established religions of Byzantium and Persia. Not only does Manichaeism have a constant historical influence on Christianity, it is probably the most consistent source of heresy in Christian history.

The reason this is important is because, taken with Indian history, it shows a death wish lodged deep in the Aryan soul. The Hindu and Buddhist ideal is to stop being reborn, to escape the Wheel of Life as one is born again and again and again forever. The Manichaeism seeks to end human life by declaring all procreation a sin. This latter idea is what Mani drew from Zoroastrianism.

There is another parallel between the deterioration thought among Aryans in both India and in Persia. The name “caste” system was adopted in English because it was a direct translation of the Sanskrit name for the system, which means “color.” The Buddha had “eyes the color of the blue lotus” because the caste system had done its job of protecting the Aryan race for over a thousand years before Gautama Buddha came along.

But Buddha rejected the caste system for his Wordism, and presumably that was a fashion of his day as it is in ours.

Zoroastrianism made the same deterioration. Originally no one was allowed into the faith unless he was an Aryan. By the time of Mani, apparently, Zoroastrianism was against the procreation of ANY race, including the one Z meant to protect.

This is all hidden by the fact that no one even mentions the titanic gaps between the Old Testament and the New on the subject of sex. There was no condemnation of sex, and certainly not of procreation, in the Old Testament.

NONE.

Jesus never said a word against procreation, only adultery.

NONE.

Yet St. Paul was advising all young women not to marry, not to procreate.

Chastity has been a monomaniacal obsession with the Church throughout its history.

PCs don’t want to talk about any of this because it shows a continuity of ARYAN thought. The alliance of fundamentalism and PC is shown her once again. People like the seminary student are trained to ignore this giant gap and the natural need one would have to explain it if one THOUGHT about it.

This is not a conspiracy, it is a dovetailing of two types of hypnosis that have a common interest in preserving the rather weird version of history we have.

Our present religion of white self-hatred is directly related to the self-torture and self-denial that we got from the Wordist perversion of Zoroastrianism through Christianity. There is no other source for it.

Once you mention it, you can’t deny it. PC has whites feeling wildly virtuous for their “self-sacrifice” in hating their own. You can’t cure a disease if you do not diagnose it. And you can’t diagnose the Aryan self-hatred syndrome if you try to hypnotize yourself into not seeing it.

If you accept that the Inquisition never did physical damage to Jews, you can accept that the priesthood of the temple did nothing to Jesus. But the converse is true. If you overlook the responsibility of the Inquisition that crucified Jesus you must hold the Inquisition guiltless.

One could say that both the Inquisition and the Crucifixion were terrible mistakes in the millennia-long history of Jews and of the Church of Rome. They cannot be blamed on MODERN Catholics or Jews.

But there is a huge difference here. The Catholic Church has admitted it did wrong. The Pope has gone to Israel and groveled at the Jews’ feet for the Inquisition. He has rolled and puked and peed in his robes over the Evil the Church did to Jews.

In other words, the Church admits it was wrong and separates modern Catholics from the errors of their predecessors. The only problem is that, like other white gentiles, the Church keeps on groveling to a sickening extent.

Jewish reaction to Mel Gibson’s perfectly accurate portrayal of the Crucifixion was the exact opposite. The Jews said that if the Temple Priesthood back then did an evil thing, then that evil is still part of Judaism. This is odd, but that IS the logic..

If you insist that admitting a 2000 year old error by Jews is anti-Semitic, you are agreeing with the anti-Semites.

By the same token, Jews who insist that any attempt to save the white race is Nazi are agreeing with Hitler. They are saying that Jews and Aryans cannot survive in the same world.