Here is how Christianity started according to Eric Zuesse

Jesus of Nazareth started a new sect in Judaism. He was then crucified by the Romans in approximately the year 30. The Romans crucified him because he claimed to be the King of the Jews. The Romans crucified everyone who made that claim (there were others who made this same claim). All of these men were crucified because the Romans had appointed solely the Herodian family to that kingly position. For anyone else to claim this title was automatically viewed as being – and it actually was – sedition against Rome. This is why Jesus was crucified by the Romans, for sedition. (Though the Gospels say that Jesus was crucified for violating Jewish blasphemy laws, that was a lie, as will be documented and explained in this work.)

Jews were at that time a conquered people, who had lost their independent nation of Israel, and who were being ruled by these kings appointed by Rome. Moreover, Jesus taught that the Law came from God, not from Rome’s Emperor or Caesar, and this made his sedition especially threatening to Rome’s continued rule over Jews.

Consequently, if for no other reason, Rome actually had little other choice but to crucify Jesus, as a public example and warning to any Jew who might similarly challenge Rome’s authority to make the laws, and to appoint the kings.

Furthermore, according to Josephus’s Antiquities 18:2:2, Rome appointed not merely the Jews’ kings but also the chief Jewish priest, in Jerusalem, Caiaphas. If Caiaphas advised his people to tell (his actual employer) Pilate to kill Jesus, as is alleged in John 18:14, then this wouldn’t have been done “so that one man should die for all the people,” as that Gospel alleged, but instead done to halt and block any spread of such sedition. And it also wouldn’t have been done to suppress “blasphemy” against Jewish laws, as is alleged in Matthew 26:65 and Mark 14:64. Pilate’s job wasn’t to assure “that one man should die for all the people,” nor to suppress blasphemy against Judaism; it was simply to crush sedition. Moreover, Jesus did not blaspheme against Judaism; he taught Judaism; he was, in fact, a recognized rabbi. He never abandoned Judaism. The idea that he did was created, starting twenty years after his death, by enemies of the sect that he had established.

Jesus’s disciples were followers of this convict who had been executed by Rome for sedition. Rome was wary of them.

Furthermore, Jesus’s disciples were poor people, not serving or affiliated with the owners of most wealth, the ruling Roman authorities.

This historical background is essential in order to understand why Jesus’s remaining followers, in Jerusalem, were vulnerable both politically and economically.

Shortly before Jesus’s crucifixion, he appointed his brother James to head the young sect. (Though the Gospels say that Jesus appointed Peter as the group’s new leader; this, too, was an intentional falsehood, documented and explained herein.) James took over leadership of this Jewish sect. Within approximately three years after Jesus’s crucifixion, Paul joined the sect. Then, three years after joining, Paul traveled to Jerusalem, in order to receive missionary training specifically from Peter, who was the sect’s chief missionary selling this sect to Gentiles, or to non-Jews.

Peter had had only modest success converting Gentiles to join this Jewish sect, but Paul became the star missionary or salesman to the Gentiles. In fact, Paul brought in such a great number of new members, so that soon most of the sect’s members were actually Gentiles who had been converted to Judaism by Paul.

As the years went by and Paul brought more and more Gentiles into this sect throughout the Roman Empire, he was bringing into the sect a wealthier and less threatening-to-Rome class of members, people who hadn’t been raised to believe that God and not Rome was the ultimate arbiter of the laws. Paul collected funds from these higher-social-status people to maintain and support the very weak-status disciples in Jerusalem. Consequently these disciples grew increasingly dependent upon Paul.

However, this soaring number of new members who hadn’t been born as Jews created a problem for the members who had been so born: These new Jews weren’t circumcised. According to the Jewish legend, which as Jews they all believed to be history and not myth, Judaism had started at Genesis 17:12-14, with God telling Abraham: “Circumcision will be your signature on our agreement [God’s agreement with the Jews], a physical sign that our covenant is eternal.” In Genesis 17:14, God said: “No man who is uncircumcised will be one of my people.” God’s agreement was thus only with circumcised men; no uncircumcised man would be one of God’s people. Then, in Genesis 17:19, God made clear that this would never change; he said: “This agreement will extend through all future generations – everlasting.” Abraham complied, and thus the Jewish covenant began, according to the Jewish legend. In ancient cultures, and in cultures that are pre-literate or maybe just becoming literate, “signing” a contract (like the contract with God, which is the Jewish covenant) was sometimes done “in blood”; and the signature in this case was done on a private part of a man’s body, a part which moreover represented the future; it represented coming generations: the penis.

So, the question is: were these new men, whom Paul had brought in, actually Jews? Not according to the commandment that started Judaism: they certainly weren’t. Circumcision was Judaism’s signature commandment; a man didn’t even qualify to be a Jew unless he had first signed the covenant with God by becoming circumcised, and Paul’s men had not signed. This was in black and white, in Genesis. It was undeniable.

By the time of the 17th year of Paul’s employment with the sect, 14 years after his first visit to Jerusalem, Paul’s congregations included so many members, that James called Paul back again to Jerusalem. In Galatians 2:2, Paul said that what was at stake in this Jerusalem conference was the success or failure of all of his missionary work up to that time. The crucial moment for him had finally come.

If circumcision were to be imposed upon his men, Paul would have lost almost all of them, and the reason for this was quite simple:

Anesthesia didn’t yet exist, and therefore any medical operation was a living terror. This is why few medical operations occurred that weren’t absolutely necessary. The circumcisions of male Jewish infants on their eighth day, in accord with Genesis 17:11, were exceptions. Those infants didn’t even choose it; this was something that their parents did to them. Paul’s converts, by contrast, were grown men. They would have been terrified to be subjected to that requirement. Most would have refused.

In addition, antibiotics and antiseptics didn’t exist; germs weren’t even known to exist; the microscope hadn’t yet been invented. Consequently, the death-rate in any type of operation was very high, due to infections. When death occurred to an infant, it was no major concern, because infants possessed no property, and thus no power. But adult males possessed all the property, and so all the power in society, and therefore Paul knew that he would lose his life’s success if he demanded that his men become circumcised.

All scholars have ignored these determinative realities about circumcision during the First Century, and many scholars have even said that circumcision was only a small concern to those of Jesus’s followers who were trying to convert uncircumcised adult males. For example, Harvard’s Krister Stendahl said (in his 1963 Paul Among Jews and Gentiles, Part 6) that “circumcision … was not a barrier to Christianity but quite attractive to Gentiles, who were enamored of what was Oriental. … Even ritual laws like those from the Old Testament were not a liability but an asset – as any reader of Galatians can see.” He provided no documentation for that opinion regarding circumcision, because none exists: You’ll be investigating Galatians yourself in the pages here to follow, and you won’t find anything in Galatians to support this commonly held scholarly opinion of the innocuousness (if not attractiveness) of circumcision during the First Century – nothing whatsoever there. Scholars don’t have to document their opinions, because (unfortunately), even without evidence, scholars are deemed to possess authority of their own. Only scientists are obliged to cite evidence for their views. (We’re not doing it here in this Summary, but we do it throughout the rest. Even a scientist may summarize.)

James understood that if he demanded that Paul’s men become circumcised, then he’d lose most of his members; and so James, too, didn’t want to do that. Furthermore (as has been noted), Jesus’s disciples were poor people; they were Jerusalem Jews, who had been defeated by Rome, and almost all of the rich people were associated with the Roman regime, and they were Gentiles – uncircumcised. Paul’s congregations were thus contributing money to the upkeep of these poor Jews in Jerusalem. James strongly wanted this financial assistance to continue.

Paul wrote in Galatians 2:10 that at the conclusion of the conference James required only that this money keep coming. Paul seemed, at first, to have had his way.

But then, only shortly after Paul returned to Antioch, Peter came, and, later that same day, other agents from James also came, and they told Paul that James had changed his mind, and that Paul’s men would have to be circumcised, after all. According to Paul’s account in Galatians 2:14-21, Paul responded by saying that the covenant was at an end as a result of Jesus’s crucifixion, and that “a person is viewed favorably by God only by means of possessing Christ-faith, never by following God’s laws [which are set forth in the covenant in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible].” In other words, Paul said that the agreement that God had with the Jews was now replaced by Paul’s “gospel of Christ,” in which a faith that Jesus was the Messiah is all that God requires, in order for a man to become one of God’s people and so go to heaven instead of to hell after death. Paul said, in Galatians 2:21, “If a person is put right with God by adhering to the covenant, then the Messiah died for nothing!”

That was the first time this doctrine, Christianity’s basic doctrine, personal salvation by means of faith instead of by the Jewish means (which is via obeying God’s commandments), had been stated anywhere. It occurred in the year 49 or 50. That’s the occasion when Christianity actually started: the doctrinal break away from Judaism, the creation of Paul’s gospel of Christ. Paul was virtually forced into it, by circumstances, or else he would fail in life; his entire prior 17 years as the sect’s best salesman would have gone down the drain, if he had required his men to go under the knife. In Philippians 3:1-2, he warned his men, “As I’ve said before, I am concerned about your safety,” because “those evil people, those dogs, who insist upon cutting the body,” are wrong, and (Philippians 3:8) the entire covenant is “garbage” (or “dung”), which the Messiah’s death has made superfluous. Judaism was here trashed.

Paul knew that discarding circumcision meant discarding the covenant to which it signed. (A contract doesn’t exist unless it’s accepted; and, according to Genesis 17:10-14, God’s contract wasn’t accepted unless it was signed via circumcision.) But Paul couldn’t afford to tell his men that he was rejecting the covenant on account of rejecting the circumcision requirement – and that he wasn’t really, as Paul claimed, rejecting the circumcision law on account of rejecting the covenant. Paul understood that, if he were to say to his men, “I reject the covenant because I reject the circumcision law,” then his phenomenally successful sales career would end. He would be confessing his own fraud. His followers would reject his fraud, and he’d soon have no followers. An honest statement of his concerns here would have transformed him from a success to a failure in his own eyes, because of this loss of his followers. He would have told them, in effect: For you to be a member of the Jesus (or, indeed, of any) sect of Judaism, you must first become circumcised, because no uncircumcised man is one of God’s people; no uncircumcised man is a Jew at all. They would have left not only Judaism but also his congregations, in order to avoid the terror and danger of an operation. So, Paul never told them this.

Galatians 2:11-21 presents an embarrassed and nervous Paul recounting to the Galatians the event that had actually started Christianity (as noted, he couldn’t afford to admit to them that this occasion was its start); and, in this account, Peter simply lacked the stomach to inform Paul of the bad news from James. Peter instead sat down to dinner at Paul’s headquarters, with Paul’s uncircumcised followers. Then, James’s backup team suddenly arrived, and saw that Peter was dining with Paul’s uncircumcised men, not telling Paul that they needed to become circumcised before they could be authentic followers of Jesus. Peter backed away from the table and seconded James’s demand. This precipitated the blow-up, which caused Paul to assert 2:16-21 – Christianity.

Paul, in Galatians, didn’t mention that James had changed his mind and had decided that Genesis 17:14 needed to be imposed after all in order for Paul’s men to continue being members of the Jesus sect of Jews. Paul simply couldn’t bring himself to admit this, because if his Galatian readers were to be informed that the sect’s leader, James, now demanded circumcision, then those Galatians would be made conscious that by their staying in Paul’s congregations they’d no longer be members of the Jesus sect, and they’d then abandon both James and Paul. They’d abandon the Jesus sect on account of refusing to go under the knife in an era without anesthesia, antibiotics, and antiseptics; and they’d abandon Paul’s congregations because they’d know that Paul’s congregations were in violation of Jesus, and weren’t even Jewish at all; they’d learn that this was really just a hoax. (The case presented in this work will be that Paul perpetrated not just an “error” but a hoax when he created Christianity – that he was intending to deceive; that his deceptions here were the result of careful planning and scheming, not of mere sloppiness on his part. That will be our case.)

Paul and James were now locked in the equivalent of a bad marriage that couldn’t be ended. Divorce was too painful for either to carry out. If James were to announce publicly that Paul’s men were no longer his followers, then James’s poverty-stricken group in Jerusalem would no longer continue to receive the financial contributions coming in from Paul’s far better-off Gentile congregations throughout the rest of the Roman Empire. James’s desperate followers had simply become financially too dependent upon the far larger number of Paul’s followers. Thus, James remained quiet about his change-of-mind. And Paul, for his part, continued telling his followers to continue contributing to the group in Jerusalem, because Paul needed the at-least-tacit acceptance by James’s group to continue for a long enough time for Paul’s new faith to be able to go out ultimately publicly on its own, as an entirely new religion, abandoning its Jewish status. If Paul were to become publicly known as being no longer Jewish, then his claim to be a follower of the Messiah would be blatantly fraudulent, since no non-Jewish context yet existed for even the very concept of the Messiah (“Christ”). Paul walked a fine line: he had to preach a new religion, by using terms that seemed to his contemporaries to be consistent with an established religion, when he was actually negating the latter.

James’s group faded away. But Paul’s blossomed and thrived. One reason why Paul’s group grew was that Paul was telling people that they don’t need to go under the knife in order to win an eternity in heaven; just Christ-faith (as described in Galatians 2:16-21) will do the job. In other words, Paul said that God changed everything after Jesus’s crucifixion, so that heaven was now on sale at a far lower price than in Judaism. No longer did one have to follow Jewish Law in order to go to heaven, but now mere faith in Jesus’s being the Christ was sufficient.

Another reason Paul’s group grew was that in Romans 13:1-7 and elsewhere, Paul and his followers told their followers that the laws they should adhere to weren’t the ones from Judaism’s God, but were instead the ones from the Roman Emperor of the time. Romans 13:1-7 and other passages presented Rome’s Emperors as, in effect, God’s agents upon Earth, imposing God’s will, and legislating on God’s behalf, so that, as Romans 13:5 put it, “You must obey the political authority [the Emperor] not just because, as God’s agent, he’ll punish you for violating the law, but also as a matter of conscience.” This teaching by Paul and his followers was enormously helpful to the Emperors; it served as a huge inducement for Emperors ultimately to impose Christianity throughout their realm.

When it’s understood that the four canonical Gospel accounts of Christ were written not by Jesus’s followers but by Paul’s, both the truths and the lies in the New Testament become fully explained, and make 100% sense. Even the NT’s internal contradictions now make sense, without any exception whatsoever.7 Reality makes sense; only myths do not.

Paul, in his account in Galatians 2, had been faced with an extraordinarily painful choice: either he would carry out his instructions from James and demand that his perhaps thousands of men become circumcised, or else he and his congregations would leave the sect and go off into the future as an entirely new religion, which renounces the Jewish covenant (wherein, following God’s laws is a person’s pathway to an afterlife in heaven), and which replaces that by Paul’s Christian “gospel of Christ” (in which Christ-faith is Paul’s new pathway to heaven). Replacing Judaism – Jesus’s own religion – would be traitorous to Jesus. But remaining Jewish would have led here to Paul’s oblivion, because few of Paul’s men were willing to risk their lives (via circumcision) in order to stay with him. Paul took the path to his personal success, rather than to his personal oblivion. This is what caused Paul to start an entirely new religion, which was custom-tailored by him to become the world’s largest, because it placed heaven on sale, and also because it created for the Roman Emperors a new universal or “Catholic” religion to replace the old parochial and merely local Roman gods.

Already before Paul’s time, the Emperors had been struggling with the inadequacies of their old religion: the Roman gods provided no moral authority for the laws the Emperors dictated; and these gods were also purely local tribal Roman deities, who possessed no authority outside of Rome anyway. Paul’s solution to both of these pressing problems provided the only way to make the Emperors’ subjects – not just in Rome but elsewhere, throughout the Empire – follow the Emperors’ commands as if those commands came from God. (E.g.: Romans 13:1-5.) This solution emerged to become a powerful inducement for the Emperors ultimately to adopt Christianity.

However, in order for Paul and his followers who wrote the Gospels to win support from the Emperors, a way also had to be found to explain Jesus’s crucifixion by the Roman authorities. After all, no Roman Emperor would ever endorse a religion that worshipped a man who was acknowledged to have been executed by one of the Emperor’s own predecessors. Paul and his followers came up with a solution to this problem, too: They alleged that the Jews (despite having been conquered by the Romans) somehow (and they didn’t say how) managed to force the supposedly reluctant Roman authorities to crucify Jesus for “blasphemy” against Jewish Law. This lie didn’t only present in a frighteningly bad light the very thing (Jewish Law) that Paul in Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28, and elsewhere, had said that God was now abandoning in favor of Paul’s gospel, Christ-faith. More to the point here, this lie freed the Roman Emperors from any Deicide charge, that they had killed God. Without this lie, Paul and his people would have stood no chance at all of ultimately winning over the Emperors.

Thus, securing his support from both the mass base and the Imperial elite, Paul emerged to become the most powerful person in history, the creator of the world’s largest religion, just as he hoped. Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 9:24-25, “Run life’s race so as to win the prize.” For him, winning was everything. “Every athlete in training submits to strict discipline in order to win a prize that will not last; we, however, do it to win a prize that will last forever.” And so he did: his prize has already lasted 2,000 years.

The people who penned the four canonical Gospel accounts of “Christ” wrote into his mouth words expressing the agenda of Paul, not necessarily of Jesus.

And that’s how the moral base of Western Civilization was created: as a hoax.8 This is how Paul dealt with a threat that would otherwise have destroyed what had been, up till the moment, his phenomenally successful 17-year-long career: he overcame it in the only way that was even possible. Moreover, subsequent millennia have demonstrated that his career not merely succeeded, but that it turned out to have been the most successful career ever, because the organization he thereby started became the largest in history, just as he was hoping it would.

Even the Trinity, and the Resurrection, are fully understandable, and will be explained in the following pages, as outcomes from this decision by Paul. (That is to say: those beliefs were essential to the success of Paul’s hoax; and this is why he introduced them, and it’s why his followers fleshed them out in their narratives about “Jesus.”)

Even the word-choices by Paul, and by his followers who wrote the four canonical Gospel accounts of “Jesus,” were carefully calculated by them to fool future generations, and not only their own. For example (as was previously noted), they presented their “Jesus” as having established an “ekklesia” (which is today translated as “church,” though it actually meant in their own time any kind of an assembly, which could also have included its being a synagogue or “sunagoge”) rather than as his having established (as they might otherwise have called it) either a “threskeia” (meaning a religion – which would have made their hoax obvious to their own generation, since everyone in their time knew that Jesus hadn’t started any religion), or else a “sunagoge” (which would have made their hoax obvious to future generations, such as to ours, since future generations weren’t intended to know that Jesus had lived and died as a devout Jew). Paul was the source of all of these brilliant tricks. (E.g., the decision to refer to Jesus’s organization as an ekklesia, and not as a sunagoge or threskeia, predates the canonical Gospels: “ekklesia” is the term Paul used in all seven of his authentic letters.)

Some supporters of religion might consider this to be too harsh an account of the creation of the Christian faith. However, the actual distinction between this account and all others isn’t its harshness, but rather its methodological foundation: namely, that this account is based upon a legal/forensic analysis of the evidence.

This history of the origins of the hoax we recognize as Christianity is documented with full details in the following, in which the people who created that hoax wrote and displayed not only their hoax, but also – under the first-ever legal/forensic analysis of their writings – how and why they did it. Without necessarily assuming their testimony to be honest, but rather “cross-examining” this testimony by placing it under a legal/forensic logical microscope, which exposes both the overtly explicit and the logically implied assertions in these documents, and which distinguishes between these two levels of assertion, this history becomes revealed with stunning clarity, as we shall now see, starting with the first-ever legal/forensic analysis of the most reliable of the Christian scriptures, Galatians, in which Paul exhibits far more than he asserts, and in which his testimony even demonstrates/proves some things that outright contradict, and that thus disprove, some of his claims

Advertisements

Mandela effect in history

It is wrong to say winners write history because history is usually being written by the propagandists before the conflict concludes. After the conflict concludes (it never does) the winners consolidate history from the lies they told to themselves during war.

Before modern media driven by the technologies like the printing press, radio, television, recorded audio/video and the Internet, religions were used to set the social narrative.

For example, the ancient Romans quenched the empire-wide Judean rebellion by:

  • Removing apocalyptic and messianic tendencies from Judaism by only allowing rabbinic Judaism
  • Modifying Christianity of Jerusalem with the help of people like Josephus and Paul “the Apostle”, and by erasing James the brother of Jesus and using the new Roman Christianity as the official state religion.

Modern media changed all that by allowing greater bandwidth, greater reach and easy repetition.

Initially the dominant powers of the world used this new found power to set the record straight and be more objective at least during times of peace towards their own citizens. They tried to delete religion because they thought they did not need it because media was sufficient to set the official narrative which is later catalogued as history.

Little did they know, that religion arises from other human needs, like the need to be pure, and the need to live on a world with a heroic story, the need to live in a meritocratic hierarchical kinship while being treated with dignity.

The Internet set the stage for new religions to take form from first principles now that the elites killed all religions.

At first, they tried to simply remove God from the Roman religion, and distill what was left into liberty, equality and fraternity.

Once people had the liberty to choose, i.e. discriminate, and thus create inequality, this new religion split into one that seeks liberty and another that seeks equality. But they soon realized people needed neither liberty, nor equality and not even fraternity. They wanted to live in a meritocratic hierarchy, while being treated with dignity.

Thus from the war of liberty vs equality we are seeing a new religion being born which uses the Internet and its quirks as its media.

The elites are quick to crush these new religions within the Internet but are failing miserably.

These new religions have their own history, and they fight each other much like Roman polytheism vs Judean monotheism, mutating each other into accepting each others ideas.

The future is unknown, and we don’t remember our past.

But we are sure nothing has changed.

Why Linus Left

It is my belief that Linus was forced to leave because he fought the microcode updates from Intel.

This last microcode update was explicitly forbidden from reverse engineering or even performance monitoring. Linus fought it and now he has to face accusations of bullying.

Performance monitoring is usually disallowed when the update contains some operation which through side channels like temperature will leak the private key.

Thoughts on the book Caesar’s Messiah

Jews had a history of believing that they lost wars when they didn’t listen to their prophets. Jews also had a history of believing that even some of the Gentiles that invaded them were the Messiah. For example, Jewish contemporaries of Alexander the Great thought Alexander was the Jewish Messiah. Source

Roman senator/historian Tacitus says in his Histories 5:13 that:

Few interpreted these omens as fearful; the majority firmly believed that their ancient priestly writings contained the prophecy that this was the very time when the East should grow strong and that men starting from Judea should possess the world. This mysterious prophecy had in reality pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, as is the way of human ambition, interpreted these great destinies in their own favour, and could not be turned to the truth even by adversity.

So even senator Tacitus thought Jewish prophecies were actually about Vespasian and Titus.

Given that the Ancient Romans invaded at a time when Hellenistic Judaism was popular, I wouldn’t be surprised if Roman invaders also tried to become a Messiah in the eyes of Jews much like how Greeks achieved it. Combining this goal with the goal of creating an explanation for Jewish defeat without losing Roman legitimacy, by inventing a Messiah Jesus that first preached peace & non-violence but later had a second coming in the form of Titus Flavius that used extreme violence as punishment for not listening to the first coming of the Messiah, does not seem that far fetched.

Romans already had a history of engineering and modifying religions in the lands they invaded, so it is not entirely beyond them to do this.

As for Pauline epistles, Galatian 3:16 shows Paul who is supposedly a student of Gamaliel, and a Pharisee of Pharisees does not know enough Hebrew grammar to know Hebrew has no singular for seeds, much like how English has no plural for sheep. This embarrassing mistake by Paul could have happened if Paul used poorly translated Greek source texts of the Old Testament, and his ignorance of Hebrew points to the idea that he was probably at best a Hellenistic Jew. This and his claims that the Justification by Faith has replaced Sinai-tic revelation and attempts to deeply modify Jewish beliefs, and supposed disagreements with the Messianic Jews points to the idea that at the very least he wanted to change Judaism, to become more accepting of the all-powerful polytheistic Roman culture that is taking over. At worst, Pauline attempts to change the Messianic Jews seems exactly the kind of thing Atwill predicted happened when the Gospels were written.

The Messianic Jewish rebels were a major menace before and AFTER the Second Temple was destroyed. In the Kitos war that happened after the destruction of the Second Temple, these Jewish rebels killed 460,000+ Roman citizens. Some of the areas with the heaviest massacres were left so utterly annihilated that others were made to settle these areas to prevent their complete depopulation. See Kitos War.

Only very few people have successfully managed to fight back Rome and live to tell the tale. See what happened to the Druids who resisted Rome, they were so thoroughly destroyed we are not even sure of what they believed. Jews outlived the Roman attempts to erase them. I can see how menacing the Judean rebellion might have been to Rome, given that Judaism survived that time. They will have tried every trick in the book to quench the non-stop rebellion, even to the extent of modifying their religion by inventing Christianity.

While Atwill may have been wrong about some of the parallelomania he exhibits, I think there is a certainly a case to be made for the claim that Romans invented Jesus the Messiah, and later claimed Jesus was a second God to the Jews who only believed in one God.

Jordan Peterson

One of the core ideas of Mr. Peterson is that ancients viewed as the world as a place to act properly, whereas the modernists view the world as a place of things to be explored with science. He also believes the ancients encoded the ideal ways to act in stories which do not lose meaning over time despite changing circumstances. These stories reappear over and over again throughout time simply because they have the ability to stand the test of time. They tell a common story that I paraphrase thusly:

The ideal way to act is to balance between chaos and order in all realms. Order, and consequent traditions that maintain such order, arise from the chaos of the past. People mindlessly follow such traditions until circumstances change and and then we have to rediscover why, the traditions that helped us, create the order we enjoy today, but are in the risk of losing due to changing circumstances. Once we discover the real reason why traditions used to work, we have to modernize tradition so as to create new traditions.

My personal view of Jordan Peterson is that he is far too optimistic about the human ability to engineer new traditions by understanding old traditions (or as he says it: saving the father from the underworld). Traditions arise from experimentation and variance in behavioral norms of which some survive the test of time by creating societies that stand the test of time. The societies that fail to come up with a workable set of behavioral norms and incentives will perish.

Now that agriculture is industrialized we no longer need half the people to work in it, and therefore more hands don’t mean more food. So we no longer need to make 10 children (of which only 3 would have survived), and that means women do not have to spend their entire lifetime giving birth and raising children, and they are free to be financially independent enough to not need men out of economic necessity but only out of sentiment, which is why other sentiment based lifestyles are also gaining popularity. No longer can children start working as soon as they can sow and reap, so they need to spend their parent’s dime learning for 20 years before they can be financially independent. This makes children expensive, and discourages childbirth and also makes young adults promiscuous before they leave their parents. Fewer expensive children also lead to labor shortages that need to be met using immigration.

The traditions that encouraged women to stay home and be economically dependent to men and raise 10 children, who start working in farms when they are children, and become economically self-sufficient and married in their teens before they have a chance to be promiscuous is no longer relevant.

But other traditions like saying truth all the time, and similar lessons will still stand the test of time.

Perhaps this is a form of saving the father from the belly of the whale or underworld as ancient myths would want us to do.

MH17 is MH370

What if MH370 was renamed to MH17 and filled with dead bodies and shot down over Ukrainian skies using Soviet-era Buk missiles made by Ukrainians (Ukraine was the largest weapons manufacturing place for the Soviets) and said missile attack was blamed on modern Russia led by Putin so as to justify NATO intervention against a pro-Russian government established in northern Ukraine. All of this part of surrounding Russia with NATO weapons and NATO aligned nations.

Tweets predicted MH17 incident 1 month prior: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/malaysia-airlines-mh17-plane-crash-3883544

Also, ever just noticed both MH370 and MH17 are both Boeing 777-200ER models? And MH17 was shot down a few months after MH370.

Its a popular theory in Malaysia the MH370 went to Pakistan because it contained something.

The psychologist counseling the victims is a friend of my friend.

There are Malaysian victims who are completely gone missing to their families. What better way than to recycle those same missing people now dead as passengers of MH17

And now we hear this:

MH370: Four-year hunt ends after private search is completed
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44285241

Case closed. The science is settled.

Blockchain cannot cure Cancer

Anytime there is a new technology that people do not understand, people immediately assume it can solve their problems too. It happened during the Atomic Age, and in the Space Age. This attitude is not to blamed because without it we will never be curious enough to adopt a new technique.

Blockchain can help track and transfer ownership of assets, ensure scarcity or uniqueness of digital information (like votes), and also store information in a way that cannot be altered ever. All of this comes at a price, the auditors of the network has to be paid in an asset managed on the same blockchain, and also everyone has to have a copy of all the information on the blockchain in a way that they too can view its content.

If any of these prerequisites are violated, the blockchain immediately becomes a very shitty database, and ordinary databases will be able to beat its features with ease.