There is a short story called "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson(published in 1948) that was assigned in both high school and college. The story begins with what seems like just another community gathering in a small town. All the families are there. Old folks, parents, and children. And village leaders and the like. Everything seems normal. People are gathered for a lottery, and it hardly seems unusual. You'd think maybe it's for a prize turkey or some such. The shocker comes at the when it's revealed that lots were drawn for human sacrifice. The chosen must be stoned to death, and there's no two ways about it. Even the family of the doomed must accept the outcome. Of course, the shock derives from its occurring in the modern world. Though rural and folksy, it's still part of the 20th century. And yet, human sacrifice is practiced by people like 'you and me'. Is it a remnant of hidden tradition within a religious minority, or did it arise as an act of desperation in times of bad harvest? A similar story, indeed even creepier(and lot more entertaining), is the British film THE WICKER MAN where an islandic community carries on with updated version of pagan practices, even human sacrifice. Supposedly, Stephen King(and others, literary or genre) took inspiration from Shirley Jackson, and it's evident enough in King's short story THE MIST(seen it, haven't read it) where panic unleashes the darker aspects of humanity. The difference is King's universe is one rife with spirits and/or sci-fi monsters, which rather undermines his (cheap)shots against the religious mindset. (If the world can be full of demons or frankenstein-science, why not imbued with God and Biblical truth? Perhaps it's because King's idea of holiness amounts to some mountain-sized Negro who wuvs a wittle white mouse or some grey-haired Negress full of folk wisdom. King attacks one kind of irrationality to push an even sillier one.) At any rate, if "The Lottery" and THE WICKER MAN are more unnerving, it's precisely because they take place in the 'real world', without recourse to suspension of disbelief. They go to show that the 'monster' is really in us, though THE WICKER MAN is more ambiguous in a mix of horror and reverie at the pagan ways that finally reduce the priggish Christian inspector to a pitiful sack of tears babbling prayers to God to no effect.
The authoress Shirley Jackson was likely a leftist. She was married to a Jewish literary critic who seemed to have been an adherent(and even a pioneer) of a branch of Critical Theory in the arts, though the intellectualism of the time was surely more serious and sober(and would seem even 'conservative' today) than the vulgarized and pop-culturized garbage that passes for 'critical theory' today. The story probably has been a favorite among Liberals as a swipe against the reactionary, conservative, and narrow-minded small town mentality that, instead of seeking rational solutions, clings to custom and rituals out of dark fear and superstition. At the time when the story was written, there was a much bigger divide between the cosmopolitan city and the 'backward' small town. Today, radio-TV-and-the-internet have profoundly altered the cultural landscape of rural areas. In the age of Fentanyl and White Death, it no longer makes sense to speak of small town ways and values in contrast to city slicker life. There was a famous Life magazine photo of a small town community encircling foxes egging on a smiling boy clubbing them to death. At the other end, there was Norman Rockwell with his rather bucolic and picaresque depiction of small town life.
Fast forward to now, and "The Lottery" is more relevant than ever. Not only has there been a rise in the occult, voodoo, witchcraft, astrology, and 'crystals' among educated types(especially with the fading of religious authority and the negative association of science/enlightenment with 'dead white males'), but colleges, the very bastions of reason and critical thinking, have turned into centers of dogma, ones that see the world in terms of not only heroes and villains but of saints and demons, gods and monsters. It seems Stephen-King-ism has taken over the 'woke' mind. Kingism replaced the bigotry of the Old Religion with delusions of the new cults of the Magic Negro and the like. Same can be said of Joyce Carol Oates, another fan of Shirley Jackson. The war that modernity and rationalism waged on traditional irrationalism didn't lead to the triumph of facts & reason but of the new idolatry, mainly of Jew Worship, Negro Idolatry, and Homo Celebration.
The 'woke' mentality is similar to the one in "The Lottery". It is geared toward human sacrifice to placate and appease the new gods. In their worldview, Negroes are innately divine and sacred. To the wokemons, George Floyd wasn't some lowlife punk who died of drug overdose under the knee of a police officer(the factual truth) but some Negro Angel who died for the sins of 'systemic racism'. And for this reason, billions of dollars of damage against American cities has been justified as an offering to the black gods? Derek Chauvin must be human-sacrificed on the altar of Floyd Rapture. The 'woke' passions during the Kyle Rittenhouse trial also reeked of human-sacrifice mentality. To any sane person, it was obvious Rittenhouse wasn't out to kill people but used his gun for self-defense. But, to the 'woke' types, justice isn't based on facts. It's based on symbolism and cult mentality, in the blind faith that the US is crawling with evil nazi goblins who must be destroyed by any means necessary by the heroic Antifa and BLM mobs with the blessing of the Power and the Deep State. Even as more 'woke' types are into witchcraft, they are also increasingly into the witch-hunt mentality. When truth is sacrificed, humanity is sacrificed. All those who denied the murderousness of Stalinism gave moral cover to Stalin to kill many more. Those who give moral cover to 'woke' lunacy give moral and legal cover for mobs to do more damage, even leading to the deaths of innocents. The end result is hardly different from human sacrifice. In any endeavor, there are winners and losers; in favoring one, we disfavor the other. Still, one can favor one without dehumanizing the other. But, when only one perspective is allowed(and even sacralize), result is total blindness to other perspectives, even to the point of dehumanization. The current mania of Negrodolatry turns a blind eye to all the victims of black thuggery, be they white, brown, yellow, and even black. BLM mendacity has actually led to More Dead Blacks, but it's ignored because it undermines the faith in the Noble Negro who wuvs a wittle white mouse but is oppressed by 'systemic racism'.
Worse, in the age of Covid Nuttery, forget about being saved by one's reliance on principled science. While there are plenty of brilliant Jews in many elite fields, who can deny that most Jews are motivated by tribal(supremacist) interest than the objective truth and will cook the books in favor of power over principles? This is evident in the Jewish change of opinion on free speech. In the past, the great majority of Jews were for Free Speech, and one might have assumed Jews, whatever their tribal biases, placed universal principles higher on their list of priorities. In retrospect, it seems Jews favored Free Speech in the past because they needed its protection to out-compete other groups. Now that they have the supreme power, they not only use private companies to restrict free flow of ideas and information but are amassing an army of lawyers, judges, academics, and pundits to do away with the First Amendment. After all, the Bill of Rights are only as good as what the courts say. Incredibly, the judges decided the US Constitution is about enforcing 'gay marriage' in all fifty states. Why would the Jewish shift on Free Speech be an exception than the rule? It seems part of a larger pattern where Jewish Power, motivated mainly by tribal dominance, will twist and turn anything to maximize its dominance. Of course, such behavior is found in any power, be it Turkish, Chinese, Iranian, Russian, and etc. Still, the US is the lone superpower, and what happens in the US has far greater consequences all over the world. Also, while Anglos have shown at times to be capable of choosing higher principle over(or at the expense of) tribal interest, this is rarely the case with Jewish Power these days. Anyone who hasn't noticed a coordination(if not outright conspiracy) among the Jewish-dominated institutions and industries of law firms, mass media, finance, big tech, big pharma, and deep state is just fooling himself. One really has to be a moron at this point to earnestly and sincerely put his/her trust in Anthony Fauci as Mr. Science. He got to where he is as the useful shill of far more powerful forces, the ones that also foisted Bill Nye on young ones as the 'scientific' authority on sexuality and 'gender'.
At any rate, the 'science' of Covid-mania has turned into a kind of human sacrifice. Not because the 'vaccines' are particularly deadly(they aren't though far more so that earlier vaccines, the real kind) but because so much sanity has been sacrificed in the blind service to this Narrative pushed by Jewish Supremacist Power. Many people died or lost their minds because utterly irrational lockdowns prevented necessary medical treatments or forbade social interaction so integral to mental health. But all such sacrifices were deemed necessary to combat the greatest disease of all time, whether it was blamed on Trump, China, or bats(though when BLM riots were deemed useful against Trump, the lockdowns were suddenly de facto suspended for the 'mostly peaceful protesters'). Just like one's eyes can spot mud on others' faces but not his/her own, those startled by what happens in "The Lottery" are likely to remain blind to how their own world eerily bears some similarities. The key difference is the sacrifices are made to a different set of gods and beliefs, often deemed as 'science', 'reason', 'justice', or 'progress' but operating at the emotive level much like the gods of old.
While science and rationalism are great in and of themselves, they're often tools of the Power. It's just the way the world is. It's like a democracy should ideally be Rule by the People, but it rarely works out that way. Ideally, the free press should dig into facts objectively and speak truth to power, but more often than not, the media are controlled by the powerful that use it to further their own power at the expense of others. Just ask the Palestinians. Media lies(or perhaps they should be called voodoo superstitions) about black criminality and thuggery(and racial truths in general) have led to something akin to human sacrifice. Recently, some crazed Negro willfully plowed into white folks celebrating the holiday season in Wisconsin with an SUV, but the media pretended it was all just an accident and had nothing to do with race. Thus, black lunacy is swept under the rug and more blacks feel emboldened to act crazy, leading to more deaths. Of course, the motivations of Jewish media folks and goy media folks differ. For Jewish Power, Negrolatry is key to guilt-baiting white goyim, whose submission is key to Jewish Supremacism, and so, the Big Lie is employed cynically as a power-strategy. Among goy media types, there are other reasons. Among blacks in media, it's just self-aggrandizement as blacks seem to have no limits to their self-adulation. Among whites, there are those who know what's really happening but go along to further their careers, and there are those white cucks who are really stupid enough to have swallowed whole hog the tenets of political correctness.
One kind of modern human sacrifice, endorsed and practiced by both sides of the political aisle, is the product of mindless worship of Jewish Power. Perhaps, it was best encapsulated by Madeleine Albright's statement that it was 'worth it' to sacrifice half a million Arab children for the New World Order. Okay, Hussein was a bad guy who turned Iraq into a brutal place, but one could have made the same case for Israel, a nation that came into existence via terrorism & ethnic cleansing and maintained its grip by subverting neighboring nations, especially Lebanon. Since Albright spoke those chilling words in the 1990s, Zionist power has managed to spread far more terror throughout Middle East and North Africa. Entire nations have been wrecked by direct invasion, crippling sanctions, ceaseless bombing, or use of terrorist proxies rebranded as 'moderate rebels'. US instigated the War on Terror after 9/11, only to end up arming those very terrorists to tear Libya and Syria apart even though Gaddafi gave up what little WMD he had and even though Syria is a modern Arab nation, far more westernized than others, such as Saudi Arabia, the favorite ally of the US that preaches modernity but seeks to undermine as much modern development in Arab/Muslim nations as possible at the behest of Israel that seeks monopoly of modernity in the region.
Consider all the dead or crushed Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims human-sacrificed at the altar of Jew Worship. Most Americans don't care because of their blind worship of Jews and Israel. Even when Israel crushes the people in Gaza, there is nonstop bloviation among politicians(even by relatively unconventional Rand Paul) about the need for more support for Israel, more funds for the Iron Dome. It's like George Foreman beating up a little kid and everyone howling about how Big George needs more protective padding from the little 'bully'. In honor of, service to, and worship of Jews as the New Gods, the US foreign policy has effectively turned into rituals of human sacrifice. Anything to appease Jews-as-gods no matter the human cost. Even when Jews did most to destroy Donald Trump's presidency, all you get from the Orange Man is "I need to be back in office so that AIPAC will totally control Congress, like it literally used to and deserve to." One thing Trump and Pelosi agree on and will hug each other over is in their total deference to Jewish Power and not an ounce of sympathy for the Palestinians who continue to lose whatever remaining territory they have in the West Bank.
The Sackler Family did so much harm to white working class Christians. Imagine if some Baptist family targeted the demographic that includes lots of Jews and killed scores of them with false advertising and corruption of the medical community. Jews would do everything to underline the ethnic character of the injustice, but even white communities worst impacted by Sackler evil dare not speak up and, instead, are into the dimwit support-the-troop mentality(at a time when the US military is nothing but a globo-homo neo-imperialist instrument of Jewish Supremacism that not only wages war on the Arab/Muslim world but plays with fire with Russia and China; the military does nothing to secure US borders to prevent White Nakba but is instead destabilizing the Middle East and North Africa, thus pushing even more non-white 'refugees' into the West, all to the delight of the likes of Blinken, Merrick Garland, and of course Jennifer Rubin). Support-the-Troops is a human sacrificial mentality. It suckers American families into believing their sons should surrender their lives for imperial ventures in the name of 'liberal democracy' or some such when the military's primary purpose should be national defense. Also, the sons are invading and occupying other countries not for 'liberal democracy' but for imperial hegemony, now controlled by Jewish Power for Zionist-centrist reasons. Worse, it leads to the human sacrifice of foreigners who end up dying in far greater numbers than US troops armed to the teeth, and for what? Why are US troops in Syria?
The idea that US troops should sacrifice their lives abroad fighting one bunch of foreigners in defense of another bunch really took hold with the narrative arising from World War II. How many times have we heard that US didn't enter the war fast enough to take out Germany TO SAVE JEWS? While we can understand Jewish concerns for fellow Jews in other parts of the world, the moral logic is appalling because it argues goyim should sacrifice their own lives for the sake of Jews. After all, US entry into the war meant bushels of American deaths. Why should white Americans sacrifice their own sons to save Jewish sons? The argument would at least be somewhat honorable if Jews had mutual feelings, i.e. the willingness to sacrifice Jewish sons to save goy sons. So, how many Jews were willing to go to Cambodia and fight the Khmer Rouge to save Cambodian lives? (During the Vietnam, it seems Jewish families were mostly concerned about seeking deferments for their sons, not signing up to save South Vietnam and/or Cambodia from communism. Also, ending the draft meant future soldiers would mostly come from middle and lower class backgrounds.) How many Jews were just revved up to join the military and be shipped off to Rwanda to end the slaughter there? Or, in a twist of irony, how many Jews would be willing to push for war against Israel and join the US military to invade West Bank to save Palestinians from further ethnic cleansing pushed by Jewish Israelis? How many American Jews were willing to send their own sons to defend Ukrainians from being starved to death by Josef Stalin and Lazar Kaganovich? If anything, plenty of Jews back then in the US and Europe were supportive of the Bolshevik killing machine. In other words, Jews demand goy human sacrifice to save Jews but would never ponder sacrificing Jewish lives for filthy goyim. Heads we win, Tails you lose. (Take SAVING PRIVATE RYAN by Steven Spielberg. Though Ryan isn't Jewish, he's meant to serve as an ersatz Jew. Because he lost his brothers, he's a special case and OTHERS must put their lives on the line to save the last remaining Ryan. As sentiments go, it's understandable. Now, through private Ryan, Spielberg is emotionally suggesting that goyim should have sacrificed more of their own kind to save Jews who, like Ryan, got hit especially hard by Nazi tyranny. The moral logic would be halfway plausible but for the fact that Jews did most to exasperate Europeans in general and provoke German fury and, furthermore, have used their power since World War II to destroy so many innocent lives all in the service of Jewish Supremacism.)
When we see all that's happening around the world and in the streets of America where monuments of George Floyd are erected even as crazed Negroes go on ever bloodier rampages, it seems the human sacrifice in "The Lottery" is total amateur hour, small potatoes. After all, the community kills only one person per annum. In contrast, how many innocents have been sacrificed in the Wars for Israel, Sacklers' poisoning of White America, Covidian perversion of science, and the Summer of George Floyd of 2020? But maybe the 'woke' can gaze into crystals for the truth, and maybe the 'right' can restore meaning by shouting, for the umpteenth time, "Uh duh, support the troops!"
...the principle of authoritative revelation is not the main factor involved in the development of Western atheism, I think. The content of the revelation is critical. I believe that modern atheism is, to a great extent, a reaction to the disgusting character presented as “God” in the Old Testament. Yahweh’s obscenity has ultimately ruined God’s reputation... Richard Dawkins can only make his atheism sound plausible by first professing, correctly:
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”[1]
In his speech on “the relations of religious and moral ideas with republican principles,” read at the Convention six weeks before his death, Robespierre said:
“I know of nothing so close to atheism as the religion that [the priests] have made: by disfiguring the Supreme Being, they have destroyed him as much as it was in them; […] the priests created a god in their image; they made him jealous, temperamental, greedy, cruel, relentless.”
Is modern atheism a reaction to the 'disgusting' character of God in the Old Testament? But atheists have no interest in the New Testament God either. Also, has religion gained in strength by becoming more tolerant, forgiving, and flaky? The very nature of religion is to be judgmental, and that's why all 'tolerant' and flaky churches don't last long or they adopt New forms of intolerance, such as globo-homo dogma or 'muh Holocaust' or 'muh Israel'. Religion is intrinsically judgmental and damning because it is the rejection of the body and the material world as fallen, cruel, horrific, and vile. If one were content and satisfied with the body and the world, what need for God, spirit, and heaven? It is because the material world is so imperfect that people conceived of souls as separate from flesh. And this soul could enter Heaven if it were good and obedient to God. Or it could enter Nirvana if it rejected desire and attachment to the material world and the way of the flesh. A non-judgmental religion is ridiculous. Religion is essentially the judgmental condemnation of the body by what we imagine to be the 'soul'. It is rejection of the world in favor of Heaven and Nirvana. It is spiritual utopianism as utopia is impossible in the actual-material world.
Also, I find it unlikely that modern atheists were really put off by the ruthlessness of God in the Old Testament. Secular Social Darwinists were pretty heartless about the poor. Eugenics, another secular movement, believed the undesirables should be removed from the genetic pool. It had no use for the concept of the soul. Also, the great 'historical crimes' of the Christian West weren't based on the Bible but on pure greed, vanity, and adventurism. Even though the Church played a missionary role in imperialism, the real drivers were the profiteers and power-lusters. And consider ancient history. Alexander the Great was a ruthless conqueror-adventurer, and he wasn't inspired by the Jewish God. If anything, whatever one may find in the Torah, Jews were among the least militaristic peoples in ancient times. Not because they were nicer but because they sucked at fighting. Jews figured, Other Peoples may whup our ass physically, but we will whup their ass spiritually. Others will grab more land, but we will conceive of a God greater than all their gods combined. It's true that the Torah speaks of God ordering Jews to carry out mass-killings and the like. But in ancient times, pagans were just as ruthless, if not more so. Assyrians were terrifying. Spartans were bung-donging killing machines. (It goes to show acceptance of homosexuality does NOTHING to ensure a more humanitarian point of view. Some historians surmise Frederick the Great was a closet-homo, but he was among the most aggressive German rulers. Also, homos today are all over CIA, NSA, & Deep State, and they are among the most enthusiastic pushers of globo-imperialism. They love to play the world like a sex toy and cackle with glee at the horrors in Syria. Besides, though homos started out pleading for tolerance, once they gained dominant power in alliance with Jews, they've pushed globo-homo Queertianity as the new dogma that must be obeyed. Once a secular force in society, globo-homos are now festooning churches and even mosques with 'gay' colors.) National Socialists, Japanese imperialists, Soviet imperialists, and etc. proved time and time again that people can be just as crazy in service to secular ideology or pagan mythology. I don't think the Chinese in Nanking were fleeing in horror because Japanese were running around with Bibles and sermonizing.
As for Richard Dawkins, a fine biological scientist but moronic social scientist, he acts like the god of the Current Year. Whatever happens to be most PC in the present must be true and just for all times. His litany of complaints about God is truly hilarious. He's such a vain dolt that he is utterly unaware of how his brand of atheism is just as judgmental as old-time religion. He's so arrogant, contemptuous, sneering, sniveling, smug, and full of hot air. His personality is more despicable than that of any deity. Oh, he knows best, he knows everything, he is so very rational, he is all about facts and truth while those who disagree are all morons and monsters. What a prick.
I've always been an atheist but can't stand people like Dawkins who are really into self-worship and auto-cult-of-personality.
Let's consider some of his complaints.
1.God is jealous and proud of it.By 'jealous', it is meant that He is possessive. But then, why shouldn't He be? If He is the supreme Lord and the Creator of all, of course He would be jealously possessive of what He created. It means God is a great environmentalist. He created the cosmic and worldly environment, and He is jealous and possessive of the creation. He doesn't want it to be ruined, polluted, or befouled by sin and degeneracy. God created mankind and imbued humans with souls. Naturally, He sees mankind as His property because He created it. So, He wants mankind to be appreciative and not pollute their souls with sin. If you had magical powers and created an oasis, a beautiful garden, out of the thin air, wouldn't you be 'jealous' and possessive of it? And if you created creatures to inhabit the garden, wouldn't you want them to take good care of it and heed your laws? What is the point of being the Great Creator and Owner of the universe if you're not possessive of what you've made?
2.God is a petty, unjust, and unforgiving control-freak. Now, some of this criticism is valid because, after all, what is God or any bunch of gods but a projection of human nature and human personality? So, naturally what we find objectionable in God is a mythic reflection of our failings and our problems. Every pagan god is far from perfect. Zeus is often petty and nasty. Also, many pagan gods were far more frightening than the Jewish God. After all, Yahweh said no more to human sacrifice and that sort of thing. In contrast, certain pagan gods demanded human sacrifice, especially in the New World among the Aztecs and Mayans. I dunno, but I'll take the Jewish God over such pagan gods. Does Dawkins really believe the God of the Torah is worse than pagan gods who demanded human sacrifices of virgins or kids or thousands of captives?
Now, one problem with the Jewish God is the assertion of perfection. With pagan gods, as nasty-vicious-vile-petty-demented-sadistic-cruel they may be, they never claimed to be perfect. So, with a figure like Zeus, we can see his good sides and his bad sides. As for dark gloomy gods who demand tons of human sacrifice, they may be amoral or even immoral, but at least we know they aren't about justice. They are about POWER. They got it and flaunt it, and they demand we obey. In contrast, the problem with the Jewish God is the cult of perfection that, however, is undermined by Biblical evidence. If indeed God is so perfect and all-knowing, why does He contradict Himself so often in the Torah? Why does He say one thing here, another thing there? Why is He about love and forgiveness at certain times but about death and destruction in another? In a way, the history of Judaism(and even Christianity) has been the dialectics between (1) God's Word and God's Character (2) God's Promise and God's Deliverance. Of course, there is contradiction even within God's words as He says one thing through one prophet and another thing through another. Jews and others have tied themselves in mental knots to rationalize these contradictions: (1) The Scriptures are not infallible but flawed interpretations of God's way and will by prophets who could see further than most men but nevertheless fell short (2) Though God's ways manifest themselves in various and seemingly contradictory ways on the surface, they are all consistent and part of the plan at the deeper core (3) God really isn't perfect but fooling Himself and us (4) God speaks to us in ways that we understand, but His ultimate plan is too mysterious for us to understand rationally or through human faculty... much like mankind cannot really understand the mystery in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or MOTHMAN PROPHECIES. (Some people wonder how God could be perfect but His Creation is so imperfect. If He is perfect, why did He fail to create perfection? But maybe one could argue that it is perfect as whole, and paradoxically the 'imperfections' of the parts are integral to the perfection of the whole. It's like a painting. When we look closely at any part of the painting, it looks blurry and crude, even ugly and messy. Yet, when we move back and see the painting as a whole, we realize how each 'crude' brushstroke played a role in creating the great painting. Same goes for music. The final score is the coming together of all the 'imperfect' elements of music. So, for the cosmos to be perfect, it has to be made up of 'imperfect' parts. Not everything can be perfect because most things are part of something bigger. Perfection connotes wholeness, and no part on its own can be perfect alone. It is imperfect and works with other imperfect parts in the creation of the larger perfection.)
Now clearly, if we were to characterize God or gods as nothing more than projection of human nature/personality onto the universe, the deity/deities would merely be a bundle of magnifications of all that is noble and ignoble about us. Our good sides would be magnified but so would our bad sides. And on that level, there is a pettiness in all conceptions of God. On the one hand, they are so grand and awesome, the kings of mountains, skies, and stars. We want gods to be glorious and impressive. But to the extent that even such magnificent beings are slaves of all-too-human vices and vanities, there will be a massive contradiction between their august construction and all-too-human behavior. Zeus is a great god but is often animated by Beavis-and-Buttheadian 'boing'-mania. He is the god of gods but acts like Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein.
What is fascinating about the Old Testament is the dialectics among the various prophets, poets, and writers as to the true and ultimate nature of God. In a way, such dialectics were possible only because of the contradiction between the concept of God's perfection and evidence to the otherwise. Did God fail Jews and humanity? Or did Jews and humanity fail God? Did God betray the promise or did Jews/humanity violate the promise? Was the vision of God by every prophet merely a piece in the larger puzzle? Like the US Constitution, the Torah is a record of amendment. Just like there was talk of making the US a 'more perfect union', the Jewish project was about making their God a 'more perfect God'. While the notion of the Jewish God as perfect could be said to be delusional and arrogant, it also made Jews more sensitive to the failures of God(or of themselves, which were maybe the reason why God failed to deliver His promise). If Jews were okay with a flawed god(as the pagans were), they would have been less worked up about the contradiction between their spiritual conception and their political condition in the world. Jews came to believe their God is the only God who, furthermore, chose Jews as His favorite. If God is just and perfect, why is the world, His Creation, so flawed? If Jews are the Chosen, why do they suffer so much? Why can't Jews be masters of the world over goyim and eat like effendi? (Today, Jews are masters over goyim and eat like effendi, but this came about through Jewish adherence to secular satanism.) These questions made Jews a deep and profound people who raised among the most important spiritual questions. It also made them a difficult and neurotic people, rather like Dustin Hoffman in RAIN MAN trying to crack the mystery of "Who's On First?"
Anyway, the fact that most pagan religions turned into empty rituals, boring customs, or the butt of jokes(like what became of Greek Mythology via Ovid) whereas Jewish religion kept raising questions and even spawned Christianity and Islam goes to show that the Jewish conception of God was more powerful, provocative, inspiring, and meaningful. And despite all the dogmatism, it was adaptable in the sense that God went increasingly from an anthropomorphic super-being to a conceptual spirit, an abstract Deity. In a way, Dawkins' real beef with Judaism-Christianity-Islam is that its God was conceived of as a meme that cannot be dis-proven and has appealed to humanity for eons. With modern science/education, it's impossible for any rational person to believe in Zeus, Thor, or Osiris. As gods with specified dimensions, they now seem like characters in a superhero comic book. But God has been conceived of as a Being that is, at once so accessible and so mysterious. He can listen to our prayers and cares for us; but He is so great and mysterious that we cannot imagine what He looks or sounds like. Dawkins came up with the concept of memes, and as a radical rationalist, he can't stand the fact that an irrational meme still has such power over the world. But then, even as he spouts off about evolution, he seems blind to how spirituality may have been an evolutionary advantage for mankind. Religion gave people hope and meaning, and surely those with hope and meaning are more likely to believe in the future. Even today, why is it that religious people tend to have more kids than secularists who believe there is no meaning to anything? Secular science is superior at identifying issues and solving problems. It sent men to the Moon. But it tells us nothing about the meaning of the universe and why we are here. In all likelihood, there is no meaning to the cosmos, but such fatalism hardly makes for hope and survival.
Dawkins says God is unforgiving, but is He? Adam and Eve disobeyed Him, but He let them live. Cain murdered his brother, but God protected him. When Ham saw his pa Noah naked, God didn't kill him but turned him into a Negro. Given white folks now worship Negroes, that wasn't such a bad deal. When God was about to smite Sodom and Gomorrah, He listened to Abraham and was willing to compromise. Even though so many people were acting like proto-globo-homo tooters, God promised to spare the city IF Abraham could find just a few decent folks. God even sent angel-inspectors to look for evidence, but they were greeted by a bunch of degenerates yelling, 'squeal like a pig'. That's when God had just about enough and decided to blow the city up. Throughout the Old Testament, God is forgiving of Moses, David, and many others... as long as they face up to their own failings. He punishes Jews but forgives them over and over. God is often ruthless but also forgiving. At any rate, He could change His mind because He was the only God. There is actually less forgiveness among the gods in pagan myths. Whereas the Jewish God might hate you but then forgive you, pagan gods generally hate someone forever. So, if that someone is to survive, he needs the protection of other gods who favor him. If Hera hates you, it is likely permanent. If you survive, it's because some other gods grant you protection. Thus, pagan mythology is more political than moral. It's about balancing of powers. In contrast, the Jewish God is capable of changing His mind. He can go from judge to reformer. He can be executioner but change His mind and let you live. Some say what He did with Abraham and Isaac was pretty frightening, but a pagan god might have demanded the sacrifice of lots of young boys. God let Isaac live because, when push came to shove, He wanted to be worshiped as a good God than just a powerful God. Also, the fact that Judaism spawned Christianity goes to show there was an element in the former that was about love and forgiveness. If such an element hadn't been inherent in Judaism, there could have been no Christianity.
By the way, is Dawkins aware of his own contradiction? He has often condemned 'antisemitism' but then argues that the Jewish Spiritual Worldview(that also led to Christianity and Islam) has been the biggest curse upon mankind. If the main cultural, moral, and spiritual contribution of Jews has been so rotten, vile, and disgusting, shouldn't Dawkins agree with 'anti-Semites' that Jewish People have been the worst in all of human history? Also, if mythology is the collective representation of the spirit of a people and if Jewish mythology is the vilest in the world, doesn't it follow that Jews must have the worst human character since it led to the creation of the worst credo and belief system? Now, Dawkins may argue that he is opposed to biological antisemitism and okay with Jews as secular people. If so, why not demand that Jews give up on Jewishness, an identity that simply cannot be divorced from the religious history of Jews? Even secular Jews have an identity rooted in the Covenant with God. Also, if Jews suffered through the ages, it was because they insisted on their difference and even superiority based on the Covenant. So, the very notion of Jewishness should be condemned if Dawkins wants to be morally consistent.
Furthermore, what if the vileness of Jewish religion isn't merely the reflection of Jewish Imagination gone wrong but of Jewish personality itself? Maybe the problem wasn't in the spiritual vision but in the roots of personality, in attitude and mindset. Could it be God is especially arrogant, all-knowing, ruthless, judgmental, and vain because Jewish personality tends to be that way? As an evolutionist, Dawkins might ponder the relation between secular Jewish personality and the ideologies/agendas that sprung from it. Couldn't one argue that modern secular Jews, even without belief in God, tended to have personalities of the monomaniacal and megalomaniacal variety(that one encounters in the Torah)? Personality and attitude go a long way. A person with bland personality is likely to be less fiery and fanatical even with religion; in contrast, a person with strong personality is likely to have a god-complex even if he is irreligious — Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler, and Mao Zedong were non-religious but loved playing gods, even at the cost of destroying millions of lives. And look at Neocons. Most of these Jews are irreligious. Their sense of Jewishness is political and historical than spiritual. But they have strong personalities and are willing to smite 100,000s and even millions of goy lives to fulfill their dream of Jewish Supremacism. So, maybe Dawkins should look more into the problem of personality and attitude than faith.
As for God being a control-freak, I find this hilarious coming from an Anglo, member of a tribe known for its hoity-toity compulsiveness. Also, I see some projection here. Dawkins is a mental control-freak who laments that there are still religious people around the world who refuse to grovel before him as the all-knowing secular genius. And look at current Britain. It has the worst of what Sam Francis called anarcho-tyranny. The culture(which is mostly pop culture) encourages young Britons to emulate savage jungle behavior of blacks. And yet, there are also increased social pressures about how you can't buy knives, you can't tweet certain comments, you can't crack certain jokes, you can't use certain words, you must bend over to globo-homo, you must celebrate Diversity, you must agree that not one less than 6 million died in the Shoah, and etc. Current UK encourages increased levels of savagery that leads to social problems but then exerts more control-freakish state power over everyone in the name of dealing with the problems. Brits are now hoity-toity ho's. How about being sensible and NOT importing lots of blacks and discouraging whites from emulating the most savage race? But no, UK encourages whites to be like blacks and then exerts more state power to suppress the problems resulting from globalism.
3.A vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser. It is true that God watches over Jews as they leave Egypt and clash with pagan tribes to found their own homeland. The most frightening parts of the Old Testament is when God orders the Jews to wipe out entire enemy populations. But here's the thing. Why pretend this is a feature only or mainly of the Jewish God? Those who worshiped pagan gods conquered more and killed more. Romans invaded and killed tons of primitive Britons before they converted to Christianity. Huns, Mongols, Persians, Greeks, Assyrians, and etc. were great conquerors and mass-killers. Alexander the Great has been much romanticized, but he could be as ruthless as any tyrant. All mythologies have gods aiding one people to totally smash another people. The gods defend a people; the gods help a people to invade and take from another people. The Jewish God was no different in this. Still, there are also sides to Him in the Bible that call for mercy, peace, and reflection. The most blood-curdling parts of the Bible is when Hebrews, out of Egypt and in the wilderness, are looking to found their own homeland. It was going to be a bloody process. Now, some historians say that it's all fiction. Others contend Jews did fight and take lands from Canaanites and the like and committed mass blood-baths. But such were common among all peoples at the time, and they all worshiped gods who urged ruthless actions to whup the other side. Still, the blood-curdling God is only one aspect of the Bible, not the main thing. Besides, modern history shows one doesn't need God and religion to conquer, ethnically cleanse, and wipe out entire populations. While white Christians conquered America & Australia and wiped out native populations, they were mainly motivated by political, material, and economic interests, not religious ones. Sure, they invoked God to justify whatever they did, but they could just as easily have invoked 'progress', 'history', or 'justice'. To most people then, it was justice and progress for advanced white folks to take land from useless savages. Ayn Rand, a fierce atheist, said Jews should rule Zion because Palestinians are useless Arab barbarians incapable of building modern societies. Hitler and Stalin didn't need to invoke God to conquer and destroy entire peoples. Zionism wasn't a religious movement as its pioneers were non-believing Jews, and many were secular socialists. Still, they managed to manipulate the great empires to aid Zionists in the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Too many terms here are subjective and un-scientific. What is meant by 'misogynistic'? From a religious-spiritual point of view, secular pop culture could be said to be 'misogynistic' because it encourages women to dress and act like whores. If by 'misogynistic', Dawkins means women being subordinate to men, that is nearly all of human history and human culture(and nature as well as most females are weaker than males across the species). Pagan Athens required women to wear veils, and women there were less free than in authoritarian Sparta. Black savage culture has been more expressive in female sexuality, so does that mean stuff like 'twerking' is the path to female 'empowerment' and dignity? By the way, despite open sexual expression among savage black women, male-on-female violence has been a bigger problem among blacks. Greek mythology's view of womenfolk is actually more damning than in the Torah. Though Eve causes great harm, Adam also shares the blame. At any rate, God gave Eve to Adam as a gift and blessing. In contrast, Greek mythology says women were presented to mankind as a curse from the very beginning.
As for 'homophobic', what is more intolerant and judgmental than current globo-homo Queertianity? BAKE THE CAKE, BIGOT. Or, if you say you find sodomy to be gross(which it certainly is), forget about working in any elite capacity. Also, even if religious intolerance and judgmentalism toward homos were excessive in the past, it was still intolerance in the name of normality, decency, and health. In contrast, current globo-homo intolerance of so-called 'homophobes' is a denunciation and negation of normality, nature, and decency in the name of consecrating degeneracy and decadence. Some things are worth honoring, and some things are only worth tolerating. Family and natural norms are worth encouraging and defending. Homosexuality is, at best, worth tolerating. NOTHING good can come of homo fecal penetration, guys sucking penises, and tranny-penis-cutting-and-balls-lopping. So, while one could argue that the Old Testament is too excessive in its anti-homo-ness, intolerance of homosexuality still makes more sense than intolerance of normo-sexuality and its natural attitudes toward homosexuality. I mean, why shouldn't a sane, decent, and normal person find homosexuality to be deviant and gross? Also, Ancient Jews lived in tough times when people had to focus on core values and core essentials to survive. They had no time for decadence. Is there any evidence that celebration of homosexuality led to civilizational strength? While Ancient Greeks were smart to harness homo talent, it was never good for any civilization to be overly celebratory of homos as it invariably led to decadence and degeneracy as homos are naturally vain and froopy-doop. They act like those trivialist freaks in Fellini films. Keep them on the side, not at the center.
As the Jewish God was a moral force focused on essentials, it's understandable why He was hostile to homosexuality. His laws were about reminding Jews over and over what really matters, what are essential and what are trivial. Naturally, sticking dongs up bungs was not only non-essential but gross and a good way to spread disease. Imagine you have special powers and you create a garden. And then you mold creatures and tell them, "This orifice you use for eating, this orifice you use for shi**ing', and that orifice you use for sex", but a bunch of freaks decide to stick sexual organs into poop-chutes. Of course, you-as-creator would be upset. Suppose you create a toilet bowl that is meant for pissing and pooping but a bunch of people use it for washing their faces and drinking water. Suppose you build a museum for appreciation for art, but idiots fill up the place with junk and have orgies inside.Of course, you will be upset. Naturally, God wasn't into 'gay' crap because He didn't design the bung for the dong.
Dawkins says God is 'racist'. Well, all gods tended to favor one group over others. But then, what's the point of worshiping a god who doesn't favor your side? Also, non-'racist' gods are not necessarily better. In the Trojan War, it's obvious that the gods whom the Greeks worship are not necessarily with the Greeks. Indeed, half of them favor the Trojans, and this prolongs the war. Would you want to worship a god that sides with your enemy? Greeks did, and it caused them all sorts of problems. Because there was no covenant between Greek gods and Greeks, it wasn't long before Romans took them and made them serve Rome. (Later, Romans took the Jewish God as their own, but Christianity was the doing of Jewish heretics who, Prometheus-like, smuggled the Jewish fire to the pagans, something Jews could never forget or forgive. Jews see it as a bigger failure than Rosenbergs sending nuclear secrets to Stalin who became the enemy of Zion.) But generally, most gods rooted for one people over another. Oftentimes, gods needed to be appeased to stay on your side. Gods also needed to be appeased for good weather. Or appeased so that they won't torment your people too much. Popular Chinese religion imagined heavens filled with corrupt bureaucratic gods who had to be bribed so as not to torture one's ancestors too badly. No wonder Chinese are morally screwy.
So, it seems the 'racism' of the Jewish God wasn't such a bad thing or a bad thing at all. What's wrong with your god favoring your kind? The elites should favor their own people, and gods should favor those who worship them. It's how spiritual contract works: A people worship a certain set of gods, and the gods favor them. British elites used to be grand and excellent as race-ist elites. They favored and cared for their own people. But ever since British elites became 'anti-racist', they've neglected and abused their own folks while sucking up to rich Jews, pandering to angry Muslims, cucking to savage blacks, and welcoming the Great Replacement. Race-ism is infinitely preferable to evil 'anti-racism'.
Granted, there was a contradiction in the Jewish conception of God because Jews increasingly claimed He is the only God and the God of all and everything. If so, why should God favor Jews over others when He is lord of all? So, the problem of the Jewish God has been less about 'racism' than conceptual contradiction, even hypocrisy. If God is the only God and if He is just and moral Being to all living creatures, why should He favor Jews over others when, in fact, Jews can act unjustly while non-Jews could act justly? But this contradiction led to the rise of Christianity and Islam.
At any rate, if Dawkins finds the Jewish God to be most 'racist', he is effectively condemning Jews as historically the most 'racist' people since their cultural character led to the creation of the most 'racist' Deity. As such, one could argue Dawkins' view is rabidly and virulently 'antisemitic', but then, the hypocritical fool makes a lot of noise about how he loathes 'antisemitism'. Following Dawkins' logic, Jews can be good ONLY IF they are culturally and spiritually de-Jewified. Jews must undergo spiritual holocaust to be good folks. They must be castrated of their ethno-spiritual roots. He loves Jews only as un-Jews.
Now, why should an evolutionist be opposed to race-ism? Evolution is about genetic divergences and emergence of differences among groups. Indeed, not only is evolution race-ist but it has been the generator of different species and different races. And these racial divergences can lead to different species. After all, there was a time when the ape-ancestors of humans were of the same species as the ape-ancestors of chimpanzees. But over time, one race of those early apes became chimps while another branch became the apelike proto-humans. So, if Dawkins has a problem with racial differences, he should blame evolution.
Dawkins says God is infanticidal, and it's true that God ordered the killing of kibblers when Jews were battling other tribes to found their land of milk and honey. And in Egypt, prior to the Exodus, He killed the first borns among the Egyptians. But His actions against Egyptians were punishment for Egyptian tyranny over the Jews. And when Jews were battling Canaanites and the like, it was kill or be killed. In other words, infanticide(as extension of genocide) was common practice in the ancient world. Your people, upon defeat and capture, were lucky if spared and kept alive as slaves. Quite often, the conquering folks raped, pillaged, and wiped out entire enemies. So, it's hardly surprising that the Jews, like other tribes, committed bloody acts and justified them as the decrees of their God. But before we judge the past too harshly, let's look at the modern world. During World War I, British blockades against Germany were a form of Total War. It wasn't just military vs military but targeted the entire population, driving many Germans to the brink of starvation. In the aftermath of the Gulf War, the secular 'liberal democratic' West enforced sanctions on Iraq that, by some estimates, killed 100,000s of Iraqi children. To create a new social order, Stalin and Mao were willing to sacrifice millions of lives in the name of History. To his dying day, the much celebrated secular intellectual Eric Hobsbawn remained a proud communist and said Stalin's actions were necessary. Also, many people see abortion as infanticide, especially as it is now allowed even up to the moment of birth when the baby is virtually fully formed. Also, the Modern West and Modern East are cursed with 'conceptocide' or 'fertilocide'. Never mind killing babies. These societies are not even conceiving and creating life necessary to sustain their civilizations. They live for elitism, individualism, hedonism, and vanity. They are essentially death cults and won't survive the way they're going. Is this what Dawkins so proud of?
Dawkins accusing God of 'megalomania' is rather silly. Megalomania is about having a self-image that is bigger than the actual self. If a nobody considers himself a big man, he is a megalomaniac. If a king regards himself an emperor, he is a megalomaniac. If an emperor considers himself an immortal god, he is a megalomaniac. But God has been conceived of as the supreme creator and ruler of all of universe. Naturally, He would have a grand view of Himself. Should the Creator of All be timid as a mouse? Indeed, the striking feature of God is that, despite His grandeur and awesomeness, He expresses an incredible amount of sympathy for a weakling tribe(in the Old Testament) and losers around the world(in the New Testament). The reason why so many people have clung to God through the ages via Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is because He is, at once super-powerful & almighty AND concerned with the little guy. In contrast, Dawkins worships his own infallible intellect.
Dawkins says God is pestilential. Now, we see what Dawkins' real shtick is about. He is trying to blame God for all the problems of life created by evolution. Since the beginning of life, organisms big and small have been slaughtering, devouring, murdering, tormenting, torturing, trashing, smashing, slashing, gnawing, goring, gouging, pummeling, cracking, smacking, and etc. each other. The theory of evolution may be elegant as a model in a textbook, but its practice in reality has been most brutal and horrific. We may wonder at the beauty of nature, but what we consider to be 'beauty' is really a range of survival mechanisms that were developed over eons via natural selection that weeded out so many 'innocent' organisms in brutal ways. Just watch any nature program, and these non-believing animals are murdering and slaughtering each other to no end. Animals evolved to survive because the natural environment was so unforgiving. In other words, evolution has been utterly genocidal toward all those that failed to survive. Evolution led to rise of all kinds of germs that wiped out entire species. It has been pestilential. Also, the uncaring godless universe sent asteroids to smash into planets and wipe out entire species that had evolved over eons in a single day. That is the godless world of the laws of nature and evolution. Look at chimp behavior. They bite off each other's penises and balls. Look at how big cats kill wild pigs. Look at how polar bears butcher seals and their cubs. Look at how sharks maim turtles. Look at how volcanoes and forest fires burn millions of animals to death. And mankind, with or without God, has been pretty miserable. Look at US policy toward Iran and Palestinians. Has Jewish behavior gotten better without God? Secular Jews gave us communist mass-killings and Neocon wars. Were Japanese less cruel because they didn't believe in the Jewish God? Look at their behavior in World War II. Is secular globalism and open borders the way of peace and justice? They are filling the West with savage jungle-jivers from Africa who are bound to turn Europe into New Africa.
Also, when most people lose religion, do they become rational and sane, or do they adopt a quasi-religion because it's human nature to seek spirituality? Look at the 'climate change' faith. Global Warming may be real, and something needs to be done, but for many people it's the new faith. When Western folks lost God, many more of them took up neo-idolatry of celebrity-worship, drugs, and debauchery than commitment to reason and science, the domain of those with high IQ. Steven Pinker says the world is getting better and better, but what will happen when tons of black Africans turn Europe into jungle-land? The effect will be worse than WWI and WWII combined. As long as Europe was still inhabited by Europeans, it recovered from both WWI and WWII in no time. But with blacks taking over Europe, it will turn into one big Detroit forever. This should be so obvious to any secular and rational person who cares about facts(that are race-ist), but Dawkins has a quasi-religious blindspot of his own: Political Correctness and 'anti-racism' as new catechism. Not unlike extreme religious bigots with their holier-than-thou sanctimony, the PC people are so theatrical and rapturous with their holy-shmoly 'anti-racism' when, in fact, the reality of race is so obvious and the black threat is so dire to the West.
Dawkins says God is sadomasochistic, but this goes for Dawkins and his ilk too. They're oh-so masochistic with 'white guilt' BS. Oh boo hoo, they must atone for their history of 'antisemitism' and 'racism'. But as GOOD WHITE PEOPLE SAVED BY PC, they sadistically love to bully other whites who refuse to kneel at the altar of White Guilt and debase themselves like a bunch of worthless cucks. In this, Dawkins is very much like the religious people he abuses. Just like certain insufferable Christians yammer about their sinfulness but feel morally superior precisely because they churn out such noises, Dawkins bleats about 'racism' but that very bleating fills him with the moral pride and arrogance to stick it to others.
Dawkins is a real pile of shit. As for Jews, they could be promoting Dawkins to dissuade goyim from worshiping God so that Jews can reclaim and own Him all for themselves. If someone owns gold and you want it, it makes sense for you to make him believe that his gold is worthless pile of crap. When he lets it go, you run off with it. So, Jewish support of Dawkins could really be a gambit.
God and gods never existed. They didn't give us life. Life emerged by process of evolution and survives by destroying other life. Evolution created life, and that is the curse. God or gods are the imaginary creations of life, and why did intelligent beings imagine gods? Because nature is so horrible. Because life is so full of agony. And this life was created by evolution, the beloved process of Dawkins. Evolution is a pack of hyenas eating a wildebeest alive. It's lions slowly tormenting and killing a hippo mother and its calf. Without life, there would be no terror. If Earth had no life, who'd care if volcanoes or earthquakes happened? So what if a giant asteroid crashed on Earth? The Moon was hit by tons of asteroids, but it was never tragic because there was no life to kill.
Dawkins got it backwards. He blames the Jewish God for cruelty and horrors, but all those resulted from life. Evolution created life, and life is about pain. Why pain? Because pain ensures better survival. An organism that feels pain is more likely to avoid danger. But the pain is often horrid and unendurable. Before mankind came up with the first spiritual idea, tons of life forms were destroyed by eating and devouring, volcanoes, earthquakes, asteroids, germs(that are also just more life), and etc. Life was so terrible and cruel that mankind came up with gods to explain why the world is so messed up. And by ascribing disasters to gods or God, they hoped to ease the horror by prayer and appeasement. It's true that the Old Testament God sends all sorts of disasters on life and mankind. But even before Jews conceived of their God, such disasters had been happening forever. There were floods, pestilence, violence, fires, and destruction. As people sought answers to such problems, they believed some higher force was behind them. And if gods controlled the universe, there were three possibilities.
1. God or gods are powerful but bad. God or gods are cruel and love to use their power for power's sake. They love to stomp on the weak, and that is the reason for the horrors. Therefore, the ONLY way to ease their sadism and cruelty was to make sacrifices and offerings.
2. God or gods are good but powerless. God or gods are good & loving but helpless to stop the disasters to protect or save mankind. They watch and weep but can't help us.
3. God or gods are powerful and good. God or gods are good & loving but use disasters to punish mankind when it does wrong.
Many pagans opted for #1. Aztecs believed in cruel gods that had to be appeased endlessly. Chinese popular religion believed in more civilized gods but they were utterly corrupt and had to be bribed regularly by burning money.
#2 is problematic even if it lets God or gods off the hook because it implies God or gods are rather weak and helpless to do anything. If they are good but lack the power to save mankind from the horrors, what good are they? Indeed, are they really gods when they are so lacking in power?
#3 is the one the Jews settled on. God is powerful and good, and so, He uses Power to protect the good and punish the evil. Jews believed that disasters weren't arbitrary muscle flexing of God but divine moral acts to punish the wicked. But this caused problems of its own as Jews couldn't help but notice that so many good folks suffered and perished while so many bad monsters got rich and powerful. And so, there was the Book of Job and the rise of Christianity that promised Heaven for the good and meek. For all its problems, #3 is still more assuring than #1 and #2.
As for science and evolution, it just says Things Happen, and if an asteroid hits Earth and kills all of us, that means we just ran out of luck, and that's that. I agree with this, but is it any more heartening than religion?
Commentator Rurik:
Am I the only one who’s struck by that characterization? Seeing how exactly it parallels the charactor of Israel today?
But here's the thing. While God is a projection of Jewish personality and has a Covenant with the Jews, He is also bigger than the Jews. If God were merely a tool of the Jews, then He would be lesser than the Jews. He'd be just a henchman and bouncer of the Tribe. But as creator and judge, He is bigger than the Jews, and Jews must bow down to Him. And even though He favors Jews, He is very tough on the Jews. Sometimes, He is tougher on the Jews because of the Covenant. When Jews betray Him, He takes it especially badly, 'personally'. It's like a father especially feels betrayed by his own children.
Even though He can be ruthless and brutal in favor of Jews, He can also be ruthless and brutal against Jews. Also, it's not enough that Jews do well and gain power in His eyes. Jews must gain power and wealth as GOOD people of virtue, piety, and conscience. God is not okay with power for power's sake. His message to Jews is NOT 'by any means necessary'. If Jews are to be blessed, they must be a good people who obey God and act moral. Through a prophet, King David was admonished of the wrongness of His ways. And even though God allowed ruthless and even genocidal tactics on the part of Jews during the land wars following Exodus, most of the Torah is a story of God warning and reminding Jews not to lose the way and often punishing the Jews for their perfidy and disobedience.
So, current Zionism and Jewish Supremacism are similar to the way of God only superficially. Yes, there is the ruthlessness and brutality but no morality. King David atoned, but has any Israeli leader said sorry about anything? Ancient Jews were a moral people who feared God, but today's Jews turned the Holy Land into Sodom and Gomorrah with massive globo-homo debauchery. In our time, Jews feel as gods and answer to no one and nothing. Current Jewish covenant is with Satan. True, Satan doesn't exist, but Jews are totally amoral and nihilistic in their lust for power and more power.
Indeed, one reason why Jews remained limited in might and reach in the Ancient World was because of their moralism. Now, one could argue chicken-or-the-egg as to whether Jews chose moralism because they kept losing or they lost because they chose moralism. But if Jews ONLY CARED for power and might, their agenda would have been served better with them acting like Assyrians and Romans who were less concerned with morality and more with sheer might and endless conquest. Though modern people will wince at the punishments in Deuteronomy, the laws are still morally based. God put down such-and-such laws, and you get punished or killed for violating them. In contrast, Roman and general pagan brutalities were far more arbitrary without moral basis. Romans even staged massive gladiator bloodbaths where countless humans and animals were sacrificed for the fun of it.
In the modern world, Jews came to world power because they dropped God and morality. Jews no longer believe there is a higher force above them judging them. They now believe THEY are the new gods. Ancient Jews had a combo of big fat ego and mega-personality, and it was projected onto the Heavens. So, even though God came to possess many of the unpleasant qualities of Jews — but then, gods of any people embody the unpleasant as well as pleasant qualities of such people, as among Hindus and Mayans — , He was MORE than the Jews. Also, no single Jew or Jewish sect/tribe could claim Him as his/its own. God was bigger than anything, and His message to Jews was they had to be a good people in order to deserve great power. In modern times, Jews figured that morality(or true morality) is an impediment to their global dominance. Jews figured it's better to make a pact with the Satanic side of their nature. So, Jews became masters of vanity and vice industries. Also, Jews don't practice morality but rather exploit moralism in devious ways so that goyim must be ultra-conscientious toward Jews but Jews need not reciprocate. The 'muh Holocaust' thing that gives Jews passover rights over other people.
Zion today is about power without morality. It's about Jewish covenant with Satan. It's about there being no higher good or truth above Jewish egotism and supremacism. Today, Jews act as if they are gods. It's really closer to Golden-Calfism.
Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Billy Boy Clinton, said in an interview with Leslie Stahl that it was WORTH IT to kill and sacrifice 500,000 Iraqi children for the sake of the New World Order, one in which the US-Israel Axis gets to determine what is ‘evil’ and what is ‘justice’. She framed her remark in moralistic terms, i.e. though tragic, the killing of all those Arab children via Zionist-US sanctions is a lesser evil compared to the greater evil of Saddam Hussein or expansionist Iraq that must be contained by any means necessary. While it’s true that Hussein was a scumbag and Iraqis were no angels — indeed, what people are? — , we know Albright and her cronies were full of BS. The New World Order took shape as the Jew World Order, especially as Jewish elites edged out the traditional Wasps for top power, privilege, prestige, and authority(and even sanctity as Jews elevated themselves as the eternal Holy Holocaust People). So, the US policy since the end of the Cold War has essentially been about "Is it good for Jewish Supremacist Power?" In other words, all those Iraqi children were murdered and sacrificed for the Satan Prince of Jewish Hegemony. We might call this wicked prince ‘Paimon’, the evil but triumphant Anti-Christ presence in Ari Aster’s HEREDITARY, an esoteric work that really heralds the emergence and rise of the Jewish Man as the lord of all humanity.
Though Jews speak in moralistic terms — as did the communists and even the Nazis at times — , their sermonizing is merely a cover for their main priority, which is to create a world order in which all of goyim serve, obey, and worship Jews... or else. Unlike Christianity, the ultimate objective of which is to bless all of mankind equally with the love of God and Jesus, Judaism and Jewishness are about the Covenant that says Jews are the best people, most sacred race, and most worthy tribe to lord over all of humanity. Thus, if Christian moralism ultimately works against one’s racial/tribal interests, Jewish ‘moralism’ ultimately works to the advantage of Jews. Notice that when white Christians moralize, it’s about their own failures as Good Christians and the need to redeem themselves in the eyes of God and humanity. In contrast, when Jews moralize, it’s about how OTHER peoples did wrong to Jews and, therefore, must make amends by serving and sucking up to Jews forever and ever. Christian moralism is all-serving, whereas Jewish moralism is, like Nazism, self-serving. In the past, Christian moralism applied the same moral rules to Jews, and that served as a buffer against Jewish perfidy, but current Christian moralism worships Jews(and homos & Negroes) as higher than God and Jesus; as such it is now empty calories devoid of genuine spiritual content.
Indeed, Anti-Christianity is the new christianity. (Jews take umbrage at the notion that the Anti-Christ will be a Jewish Man, but in a way, it’s fitting. After all, if Christ was a Jew, it makes sense that Anti-Christ will also be a Jew. Both Christ and Anti-Christ as Jews would demonstrate that Jews have greater prophetic reach and imagination, for good or ill.) Personally, being a non-believer and lifelong atheist, I have no faith in God, Jesus, Heaven, Hell, Christ, or Anti-Christ. Still, there is no question that the great religions raised profound moral questions, and spirituality is a part of human nature. Therefore, the great religions must be respected(as well as critiqued by modern man) and defended from forces of Satanism. Now, what do I mean by ‘satanism’ when I don’t believe Satan exists? Even for a non-believer, certain ideas and things are clearly sick, demented, wicked, vile, and ‘evil’. When we say something is ‘evil’ or ‘satanic’, we don’t merely mean it’s bad. Indeed, most bad stuff isn’t evil. It’s just unpleasant and wrong. When someone steals, it’s bad but very much a part of human nature as humans evolved from animals who live by the ‘law of the jungle’. Also, lying and cheating come naturally to humans. They shouldn’t do it, but violating rules and codes of conduct doesn’t make one evil or satanic. Evil is much deeper, mysterious, and insidious in its vileness. It’s the difference between killing animals to eat and killing animals just for the sadistic joy of it. We know it’s always bad to kill animals. Even meat-lovers must know it’s ugly business to kill and slaughter so many animals. Still, life lives by consuming other life, and it’s just the way it is. But suppose someone decides to douse an animal with gasoline, light it on fire, and giggle with sadistic glee at the horrible sight. That would be evil. Even more evil would be if such a horrible deed was elevated to sacred status. That would be beyond even evil. It would be satanic, the deification of what is wicked. Aztec human sacrifice was satanic, beyond even evil. If the Aztecs had rounded up lots of people and had them killed for the fun of it — like the Romans with their horrible gladiatorial fights and bloodbaths — , that would have been plenty evil. But they went further and spiritualized their slaughter as an offering to their gods, as a sacred exercise. They must have worshiped the dark lords because only satanic anti-deities would make such demands. Likewise, such is why we are living in the Satanic Age in the current West. It’d be bad enough or plenty evil if the US went around killing scores of people for no good reason, but things are worse because so many Americans are convinced that their mass slaughter of other peoples is all for the good. It’s really a kind of human sacrifice. According to the likes of Albright, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and now even Donald Trump, it is to fight terrorism and spread ‘human rights’ & ‘democracy’ to other nations, but in truth, it really amounts to human sacrifice to appease Paimon, the demonic Jewish overlord. The US, as cuck-servant of satanic Paimon, is willing to go to any lengths to destroy any number of nations & people to gain approval from Jewish Supremacist Power. Serving Jewish Wickedness out of mere opportunism or sadism would be bad enough, indeed evil. But when Jewish Wickedness is worshiped and appeased day in and day out, the so-called New World Order is truly satanic. Same goes for the Globo-Homo nuttery. Sodomy or Homo-Fecal-Penetration is not good and can never be good. They have no health benefits and serve no biological purpose. They spread disease and lead to all sorts of health problems. And yet, because some men are born-that-way, modern society has decided to tolerate homos and decriminalize their life-style. That was mere badness. But then, this obvious badness was said to be just as (new)normal, rational, and natural as real sexuality. In other words, a dong-up-a-bung was no less legitimate as a sexual act than penis-into-vagina. And we were told a fake ‘penis’ molded from a mutilated vagina or a fake ‘vagina’ molded from a mutilated penis was just as good as the real thing. This was globo-homomania lurching into Evil territory. And then, homosexuality and tranny nonsense — so-called LGBTQ — were said to be deserving of matrimonial consecration and spiritual blessing, and this is where the whole thing became fully satanic. The West went from tolerating to worshiping the obviously bad. Anyone who worships the bad is under a satanic spell. It’d be like eating feces as the most delicious meal. Ironically, Jews who’d historically rejected idolatry made full use of it to sway the goy masses into worshiping Globo-Homomania. Unlike ideas and values that must be argued rationally and/or demonstrated morally, idolatry works merely by sensory association. If you associate homosexuality and tranny-stuff with ‘rainbow’ colors enough times, the idolatrously-inclined will feel and believe, "Gayness is a rainbow!"
Ask yourself this question. Would it be justifiable to sacrifice 500,000 Jewish kids in Israel in the name of global justice? After all, a powerful argument can be made against Israel as a massive violator of human rights. Israel was founded by grand imperialist conspiracy, extensive terrorism, and Nakba pogroms against Palestinians. Israel stole nuclear secrets from the US to build 200 to 300 illegal nukes. Though taking massive amounts of aid from the US, Israel has passed secrets to enemies and rivals of the US. In the 1980s, Jonathan Pollard didn’t act alone. He spied for Israel, and Israel used the stolen secrets to cut a deal with the USSR, then the arch-enemy of the US. Israel also began the Six Day War and occupied Palestinian territories that they still continue to occupy and fill up with Zionist caravans of illegal invaders. There was the bloody business with the USS Liberty. Jewish Neocons and other Zionists have manipulated the US to turn much of the Arab/Muslim world into a hell-hole. In other words, much of inhumane US foreign policy was cooked up by Israel Firsters working in the Deep State. Israel routinely lobs bombs and missiles into Syria and other neighboring nations. Israel also has the Samson option and threatens all of Europe with nuclear destruction if Israel were to fall. Indeed, even the inhuman sanctions levied against Iraq, Iran, and other nations have their origins in Jewish supremacist hatred for any nation or people that might rival Israel's status as the lone superpower in the Middle East. Israel has also worked with Saudi Arabia to aid and arm ISIS and other terrorists in the region. And Israel was once the closest ally of South Africa when Apartheid was still around. Israel even sent nuclear secrets to South Africa, the secrets it had stolen from the US. Jews in the US overlooked the close ties between South Africa and Israel even as they berated South Africa for ‘racism’, all the while ignoring the greater injustice meted out to Palestinians by Zionist supremacists. (Apparently, injustice for Palestinians is okay whereas injustice for blacks by whites is intolerable.)
So, given all these facts about Jews and Israel, would it be morally justified for the US and the world to economically sanction Israel to the point where 500,000 Israeli children are killed by malnutrition, starvation, and disease? If we believe in universal justice, and if good decent humanitarians like Madeleine Albright believe it was worth it to kill a half-million Arab kids(as a lesser evil) to counter the much bigger evil of Saddam Hussein, then shouldn’t the same moral logic apply to Israel? If killing 500,000 Arab kids was 'worth it' to pressure Iraq to become a better nation, then wouldn't it be worth it to kill 500,000 Jewish kids in the hope that Israel will be a nicer and kinder place for Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims in Israel, West Bank, and neighboring nations(as so much of the violence in that part of the world in recent years originated from Jewish agenda that more-or-less guides the totality of US foreign policy)? But if someone were to suggest that even 50,000 or 5,000 or 500 Jewish kids should be sacrificed for the greater good of the region, most people in the West will scream ‘Another Holocaust!’ Such mindset suggests that a Jewish life is at least worth 1,000 or 10,000 Arab lives. Believing it’s justifiable to kill 500,000 Arab kids for a better Iraqi future while believing it’s horrific to kill just 500 Jewish kids fora better Israeli/Palestinian future would be a case of brazen hypocrisy and moral blindness. If indeed all lives are of equal worth, why is it okay to sacrifice countless Arab lives but unacceptable to ponder even sacrificing a few Jewish lives for a better future?
But there is something even worse in the whole equation. All those dead Iraqi kids weren’t really the result of a humanitarian policy, however misguided it may have been. It was not like the US(and Israel) were willing to use ‘necessary evil’ to bring about a greater good in the region. Zionists wanted Hussein crippled or gone, but they had no desire to see a powerful and prosperous Iraq as a democracy. After all, even a prosperous democracy can be anti-Zionist. The fact that the US developed as a democracy didn’t make it any less war-mongering than most autocratic empires. And this is why what we consider a failure in Iraq, Libya, and Syria are really successes in the eyes of Yinon-ist Jews who want to see the Arab/Muslim world in constant turmoil. That means all those Iraqi kids perished not due to some flawed humanitarian foreign policy but due to Jewish Supremacist plan to sacrifice any number of goy lives to gain greater advantages for Israel and Jewish globalist power. It would have been tragic enough if all those Iraqi kids died on the altar of misguided humanitarianism, but the truth is their deaths were the result of diabolical satanism of Zionist megalomania. I call it satanic because what is brazenly Jewish Supremacism is revered and worshiped as the highest form of humanitarianism by idiotic Americans. Jews spread horror in the Middle East, North Africa, and Ukraine; they use their influence to force sanctions on Iran and to restart a ‘new cold war’ with Russia. They do all this in the service of Jewish Supremacism that is as repulsive as Nazi-German supremacism during World War II, but they’ve managed to wrap their demonic agenda with the veneer of ‘humanitarianism’, ‘war on terror’, and ‘spreading democracy’ that so many childish Americans have come to worship. With their control of media, cuck goy politicians, finance, and academia, Jews can create a false narrative for countless suckers. If Nazis ruled Current US and spun all their supremacism and imperialist wars as ‘spreading democracy’, ‘fighting terror’, and some such nonsense, the chances are so many Americans would swallow it hook, line, and sinker.
If it was justifiable to kill 500,000 Iraq kids for a better tomorrow, then it’s justifiable to kill 500,000 Jewish kids for a better future. If you say it’s absolutely unconscionable to sacrifice Jewish kids — 5,000 or 50,000, let alone 500,000 — for some higher ‘humanitarian’ objective, then the same logic must apply to Arab children. And yet, the very people who wouldn’t abide the killing of 500 Jewish kids shrug their shoulders about the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi kids. (By some estimates, the number of dead Iraqi kids is considerably smaller, but let’s keep in mind that Monster Albright accepted those figures when she said it was WORTH IT to kill so many.) There is tremendous cognitive dissonance in the Jewish-controlled West. We are told that the Shoah taught us that life is precious and sacred, but in emphasizing Jewish tragedy uber alles, the end-result has been that Jewish lives are deemed 'more equal than others' and especially precious. Thus, all efforts must be made to 'save' and 'protect' Jewish lives. Furthermore, any number of goy lives may be sacrificed if doing so is deemed beneficial to Jewish lives. So, ironically, the anti-supremacist lesson drawn from the horrors of WWII became perverted into Jewish supremacist idolatry. The lesson Jews took from the tragedy is not "Having suffered so much, we Jews want to make sure that same thing doesn’t happen to other peoples" but instead, "Having suffered horribly and having gained moral status as the greatest victims of all time, ANY MEANS is justified to prevent another Jewish Holocaust." And so, if Jews see Hitlers and New Nazis everywhere, the West led by the US as lone superpower must do everything in its means to crush the new Axis of Evil, even if it means 100,000s or even millions of goyim are ruined, destroyed, or left dead. Paradoxically, ‘preventing another holocaust’ has led to more holocausts around the world. To save and protect the precious Jews, we must take their warnings seriously about ‘new hitlers’ and ‘new nazis’ and use endless sanctions and military might to starve, bomb, and terrorize people on Earth as sacrificial offering to the holy-schmoly Jews. How truly sickening.
How long can Jews and the world carry on like this? Also, aren’t Jews aware that they're are antagonizing all the world? Muslims and Arabs hate them. Even Saudis who are allied with Israelis hate them and carry on with the charade because of Sunni-Shia rivalry. As time passes and as more Europeans wake up to what Jews are up to, there will be a return of ‘antisemitism’ on the Continent. And given Jewish perfidy, there are more and more people on both the Left and Right who are noticing that it’s the JEWS who are behind the curtain in the Land of Poz. Also, the anti-white propaganda pushed by Jews have led to blacks hating Jews. Blacks may be stupid, but they are not dumb; they see that Jews are the most powerful and privileged among the privileged whites. And even though Vladimir Putin is good to Jews and protects them, most Russians surely feel bitter about Jews as they know what happened in the 1990s, and they know it was the Jews who were behind the ‘new cold war’, the sanctions, and the mess in Ukraine. As time passes, who will like the Jews? Wouldn’t Jews be liked IF they chose to be decent and stop with their supremacism, imperialism, and hegemonism? But apparently not. Jews are now so addicted to power and wealth that, deep down inside, they probably feel that they can’t be good Jews. Sure, they use media to project the image of the Holy Jews, but their behavior and attitude are totally contrary to the human spirit. Thus, Jews will continue to act the Big A**hole and prepare for a world where they will be resented and even hated by most groups. In other words, Jews have wagered on a future world of anti-Jewish hate than pro-Jewish sympathy. Jews feel that their insatiable egotism and powerlust will eventually drive various goyim against Jews. After all, if Jews decided to act good and decent, they will lose much of their ill-gotten wealth and greedy power. So, Jews must continue to act like George Soros, and that means increasingly alienating just about all of goy humanity. Then, how could Jewish Power survive in a world of increasing anti-Jewish animus? This is where Jewish Satanism kicks into high gear and conceives of all sorts of policies and agendas — mass immigration, divide-and-rule via Diversity, globo-homo, jungle fever, interracism, white cuckery, emasculation of Western Man and Eastern Man, endless wars in the Middle East, mass deaths by opioids, skankery, and etc. — to create a world of such chaos, disorder, and confusion that the goyim the world over won’t be able to be sober, serious, and united in their resolve to finally do something about the radical evil of Jewish Power. And of course, their mountain of money means they can buy up all the hacks in the valley. By now, most US politicians must know that Jewish Power is vile and venal. But they want more shekels thrown their way, so they go along with Jews-as-holy-schmoly act. Buying all that influence is very expensive, but money is something Jews are never in shortage of.
This is probably because they were in fact murdering, torturing savages given to human sacrifice. Why this is thought especially reprehensible is a mystery. The Romans sacrificed large numbers... so that the public could enjoy watching them die, crucified large numbers, and poured molten lead down the throats of criminals. In the European witch hunts, sort of 1450-1750, some 500,000 were killed depending on whose numbers you accept... The Tudors hanged criminals, cut them down still conscious, opened their abdomens and removed their bowels while still alive... . And of course everybody and his dog put entire cities to the sword, from Joshua to Hiroshima. Despite their best efforts the Maya could not keep up with the moderns.
Why was Mayan human sacrifice 'worse' than the bloodbaths of Western Civilizations? Romans shed blood for entertainment or punishment. Now, killing people for entertainment is ugly and grisly, but it is what it is. Mass spectacle. Romans didn't pretend otherwise, as if it could be anything more than bloody fun. People like to see violence. Lots of people love violent movies and violent video-games. People love to see animal programs where predators hunt down prey. Americans are addicted to violent football and fighting sports. Romans did it for real, with bodies piling up in earnest. But Romans never claimed there was any moral or spiritual dimension to gladiator sports. As for practices like the crucifixion, they were meant as punishment. A bit extreme perhaps but still a tool of 'justice' and power, nothing more and nothing less. Draconian but meant to send a strong message to make people comply with the Order. At the very least, the innocent weren't randomly summoned to be crucified. (It's also worth mentioning that gladiatorial sports could, in some ways, be a crude form of justice, at least according to the movie GLADIATOR. Certain criminals were forced into it. Also, conquered men of other tribes who were spared death were given a second chance to prove their mettle in the arena.)
As for European witch-hunts, while they could be ugly and violent, the point was to hunt down demonic forces and root out evil. Europeans believed that certain individuals were possessed of evil spirits or practiced witchcraft in service to Satan. So, they believed 'witches' must be exposed and punished in the name of God. Witch-hunts were NOT carried out to honor Devil but to ward him off.
As for the Tudors, they certainly had an ugly way to handling criminals, but it was still a form of justice, punishment for bad elements.
In any case, one could put forth moral and/or rational arguments against the practices of the Romans, Christians, and Tudors. One could argue that gladiatorial sports, while fun and exciting, were cruel and ugly. One could argue that hunting witches, though in the name of God against Satan, was excessive and unforgiving(against the preaching of Jesus). And one could argue that the Tudors were a bit too outlandish in their treatment of criminals. Even if we agree that earlier European civilizations acted in ugly, gross, and excessive ways, we can still understand the motivations behind them on the human and even moral level. Romans favored thrill over good-will in their addiction to blood spectacles. And Romans, Christians, and Tudors were overly zealous in meting out punishment or rooting out Evil.
But what is to make of the Mayan human sacrifice? It wasn't for sports or entertainment, which would have been ugly but understandable as spectacle & entertainment. It wasn't to root out evil(as in the witch-hunts common in Medieval Europe). It wasn't to punish the criminal elements as most who were killed hadn't committed any crime. It was a ritual of sacrificing innocents to amoral or even immoral gods. The very cosmology of the Mayans was morbid and psychotic. It believed that the universe is ruled by cruel, uncaring, and sadistic gods who demand sacrifice of the innocent. Against such cosmological psychopathy, no moral or rational argument could be put forth. The culture was demonic and demented at its very core. Christians misused the teachings of the just God. Mayans correctly served their immoral gods who demanded the slaughter of innocents.
And that may have been why no South American civilization achieved traction and longterm viability. They could make art, do math, pursue astronomy, and build temples. But they failed to conceive of a deep and resilient theory or vision of justice. Greeks and Romans, even as pagans, believed in gods possessed of the power of reason and justice, though far from perfect themselves. Apollo and Athena upheld reason, order, and intelligence. Zeus was not without sentiment and, when not indulging his whims with the ladies, tried to be fair-and-balanced with other gods and humans. And even though Jews and Christians stained their hands with blood time and time again, their conception of God was one of power AND justice. In contrast, the spiritual conceptions of South American civilizations were dead in soul. While alive in the arts, architecture, and rudiments of 'science' and math, they failed to bridge the gap between cosmology and rationality and morality. Their gods were all about the whims of power. Civilization after civilization, from Mayans to Aztecs to Incas, they fell into the trap of ritual human sacrifice to appease the appetites of amoral or even immoral gods. When a people believe that even the gods lack souls, they are bound to fall no matter their achievement in monuments and math.
As for modern wars and their massacre of millions, war is hell. Always has been and always will be.
