Apr 1, 2020, 2:54 PM
Over the past few years I have worked very hard on comparative religion, and have come to understand why we desire it and how it fulfills those desires by a spectrum of means from the rational to the emotional.
I was trying to solve a number of problems:
- The means by which judaism, christianity, and islam are taught and argued are the same means by which marxism, socialism, postmodernism, feminism, and the denial of the nature of mankind are taught and argued. So I was searching for a legal means to prevent the use of this method of teaching and arguing while preserving the good of christianity. This resulted in the same answer Thomas Jefferson came to when he compiled The Jefferson Bible. This Jefferson bible presents us with a Jesus who is ‘pure’ and free of dogma. And I discovered that while this is possible it is not tolerable. And because it is not tolerable it is impossible.
I care only about the generations of our european religions. Including prehistoric natural, ancient heroic, and medieval Christian. And I care about preserving all three generations of them because of one of our unspoken secrets: european tripartism and trifunctionalism. When christians use this method of teaching and arguing against me or my work it makes me very angry – because I understand that this method is the means by which our civilization has been destroyed by the postwar jewish movement against western civlization. And I this threat is very real, very serious, and we are almost lost.
So between my investigation into how to eliminate the abrahamic method of teaching and arguing, and between my frustration with the frequent use of this method by christians who were agitated by my investigation, I created a great deal of friction between the faithful, philosophical, and empirical Christians.
- I want to outlaw false religions that seek to destroy christianity, our philosophy, our science, our law, our civilization and our people. In particular, neigher Judaism nor Islam are religions – they are means of warfare from within masquerading as a religion. Early Christianity was likewise a means of warfare from within – we merley managed to ‘civilize it’ over the centuries after it was introduced to europe.
I want to restore the religion to its political competition to the state, and restore its responsibility for birth, age of maturity, marriage, family and – at least – early education, and death. The state has proven too fashionable and religion’s value is in defense against the fashions and folly of the age.
These three challenges are the reason for the conflict we have created between those of us who practice empirical christianity in the natural law, and those that practice spiritual and theological christianity.
I advocate that we speak faith in matters of faith – the spirit, and law in matters of law – the material. And that if we attempt to cross those lines we must engage in deceit. And deceit is neither moral under the natural law, or moral under christian ethics.
So we must continue our prehistoric practice of Tripartism and Trifunctionalism, which is the continuous balance of power between the Military, Law, and Faith.
And in short, deliver unto God and Caesar each as his due.
There is no place for theology in court.
There is no place for court in faith.