Anti-marketing

The more I learn about business, the more I’ve come to believe that marketing, as in, actively telling people why they should buy your product, is bullshit. Marketing is overselling. If your product is good, there is no need for you to oversell it. A good product spreads by merit of being good: no word like word of mouth. If you depend on google ads, your business model sucks.

So I’ve come to the conclusion that I should incorporate that same attitude in selling Jimianity. Instead of convincing people that this new religion is the bees’ knees, much better to keep my mouth shut and use it’s secrets to my own advantage. Let people figure out the religious angle for themselves.

Originally I thought I had to pitch an active sale, because after all that’s what Paul did with Christianity. But it just doesn’t feel right. I have wondered what the difference is between me selling Jimianity and Paul selling Christianity. My best guess is that at the time of Paul writing, Christianity was already spreading like wildfire. So Paul’s letters were not so much door-to-door marketing as they were a matter of letting people know: yo, this Christianity thing is going to happen either way, if you get on board now you get an early bird discount, here I’ll show you how.’ Paul was not selling Christianity to people, he was explaining Christianity to people who already bought it. Since we’re not in that situation, I don’t see the use of me proselytizing like Paul. So I won’t.

If it remains to be seen whether a product is good, people need to test it on their own. And if, after testing, the product indeed is good, word of the product will spread on its own. In neither case is marketing required. I do believe that is all I have to say on the topic of marketing.

The Liar’s Guild

I thought we were done with leftism, but I still have the itch to write on the topic, so I guess not.

In the future, leftism will be seen as an evil heresy that marks the downfall of a civilization. After all, that is exactly what it is. It’s like with commies: no such thing as a good commie. Equally, no good leftist.

The current problem is that leftism is in charge. If evil is in charge, everyone is incentivized to say and do evil stuff. Hence the cancer of popular culture, of all modern forms of art.

Luckily, we are working on this. We have the cure for leftism cancer. But it takes time. Takes a lot of time. Trump pulling off a coup is a matter of years, perhaps decades, but to replace a religion is a matter of decades, perhaps centuries. It’s an inter-generational thing. So, need patience. Spread some good memes, allow truth to get out, and wait. It is a patience thing.

But in the mean time, you’ve still got to deal with these power-hungry leftists believing the arc of history bends towards their insanity.

The way I’ve lately started thinking is of leftists as the Liar’s Guild. Leftism is overt lying. Some people just are natural liars. Not that many people, maybe 10% of population, and really I am pulling that number out of my ass. But a non-insignificant minority of people are what I’d call natural members of the Liar’s Guild. They lie, connive, and stick knives in backs. They smell weakness the way rats smell cheese and jump on top of it. They shout ‘honor!’ but never act like it. It’s a type of person. The archetypal leftist, the card-carrying member of the Liar’s Guild.

Of course, rule number one of the Liar’s Guild is to always deny being a member of the Liar’s Guild. Once it is accepted dogma that leftism is and has always been an evil heresy, suddenly no one will be a leftist. Yet the Liar’s Guild will always be around. And you can always recognize them through their actions, through the look of evil that passes over their faces.

Now, the truth is that the Liar’s Guild is not out to literally kill you when you turn your back to them. In fact, you can get into the Liar’s Guild if you want to. They’re always open for new members. One can make a very decent living in the Liar’s Guild, if you know what to lie about and what lies to avoid.

But it’s hard, because no one will tell you what is the lie and what is the truth. You have to figure it out by yourself. And you can’t trust anyone. After all, everyone in the Liar’s Guild tells you they are your best friend. But the moment your chips are down, those same ‘friends’ will drop you harder than the bass at a hardcore party. What did you expect? It’s the Liar’s Guild, dummy! Get involved, get fucked. No honor nor loyalty among the Liar’s Guild, despite eternal protestations of all its members that they are the most loyal and honorable folk around.

I dunno.

I guess this is also me writing off my personal experiences. I used to have this recurring… Dream.. Or vision.. Of myself clawing out off the depths of hell, a sea of black arms pulling at my legs. Dramatic, but that’s what I saw. It was unnerving.

But that was a few years ago. I’ve since paid heed to that vision. I clawed out of the Liar’s Guild. And I must say: I am very grateful. The view is beautiful up here. It’s everything I had hoped for. It really is a world of difference. Once you get out of the Liar’s Guild, they lose a huge chunk of their power over you. I feel like I’ve gained independence, or something. It’s strange, really a completely different way of living.

I still have to deal with members of the Liar’s Guild, of course. But it’s a breeze compared to the past. I make a silent note when someone signals Liar’s Guild membership by talking about the need for government intervention, or when they shit on capitalism or some stuff. I publicly call them out for their envy and hatred when the need arises and am amused when they respond with ineffective indignation. But mostly, I ignore them. I get on with my life, and I am grateful that I can live life on my own terms without fear of grubby black arms pulling me down into hell.

If the devil weren’t persuasive he’d suck at his job

So far we’ve discussed the necessity of good and evil: useful ways to communicate who is on your side and who is not. When someone loudly argues that there is no good and evil, a sure sign that that person is not on your side.

How do you recognize evil?

The nice thing about the internet is that examples of evil are everywhere. Take this mini movie featuring AOC. Show that to any woman, and she can’t help but go: ‘aww. It’s so artsy and sad and hopeful!’

Well yes, of course it is. If the devil weren’t persuasive he’d suck at his job. The whole bit is just your typical propaganda hit piece, but you’d have a tough time arguing that in front of the wrong crowd. Course, the bullshit signs are everywhere. Note the name-dropping of James Hansen like he doesn’t have a track-record of endless bullshit. Notice the frame that fracking is bad, while no one in the intended audience knows what fracking means, just that it kind of sounds like fracturing so surely it must be bad! (It isn’t). Finally notice that the story has no substance: the world is about to end through climate change and only the new green deal can save it, but how it supposedly ends through climate change and how the green deal can save it is kept vague.

It is deliberately kept vague because the world is not ending through climate change which any semi-thorough investigation reveals, and  the only purpose of the green deal is extortion and socialism, which any cursory investigation reveals.

The thing about lies is that they are not true. Which is incredibly self-explanatory, but that is sort of the core of what I’m getting at. A strong man knows what is true. After all, if he could not separate fact from fiction, he would not be strong. When a liar lies, there is no need to engage every single new lie he utters, for all strong men listening into the conversation at some point realize: this guy is lying. That’s just what he does.

Liars prey on the weak, those who cannot discern between fact and fiction, or those who are not in a position to demand distinction between fact and fiction. Without an exposed weakness, liars cannot take advantage of you, because there is no advantage to be taken. It’s like with vampires: they cannot enter your house unless you invite them in. So it is with leftists: keep em out, they stay out. Invite them in, and they will fuck your house up.

Which might sound great, but who invited our current world leaders? You know, guys like Chuck Schumer, who indignantly tells us that Trump can trust him with military intel and that he won’t betray it to Iran, fingers crossed. Liar liar pants on fire. Did you vote for him? I sure as hell didn’t vote for him.

Well, we sort of did. A little bit. Some responsibility can be taken. People sort of get the leaders they ask for. Lenin could not have killed the peasants if he had not prior convinced them that he surely would never kill them. If you don’t want communism, kill the communists. If you don’t kill the communists, and you get communism, don’t act surprised. Now perhaps you’re never in a position to kill communists, in which case you should probably fight to get in the position to kill communists, but let’s for the sake of the argument cut you some slack. Let’s say we accept that humanity has a propensity for evil, and that while it is often contained, sometimes the genie is out of the bottle and evil runs wild through society. In the past two-hundred years, evil ran pretty wild, so we are really overdue to put it back in the bottle. How?

Well, as the saying goes, it is best to start by picking up the hundred dollar bills lying in the street. Change what is easiest to change, what has the biggest impact, like Trump reversing the great centralization. In our case: stop weak people from exerting disproportionate influence, for weak people are more heavily influenced by evil, thus you stop evil from exerting disproportionate influence.

An obvious one is to stop illegal immigrants. Send them back. We pay less taxes, leftists lose votes. Win-win. Another obvious one is to take away the vote from women. Dismantle emancipation. Women, as was stressed in the very first story in the bible have a natural propensity to seek out evil and let themselves be used by it.

ADDED: this is an equally good example. Note the effective priesthood joint venture with the AOC piece. Good narrative consistency.

Time for the good guys to win

Give me a second to enter that stream of consciousness mode where I just randomly type out words until something coherent emerges…

So I was watching this ‘reflecting on 2019’ video by the Dutch leader of the Greenleft, Jesse Klaver. I was struck by a couple of things.

First, it’s a pretty boring video. The man is not charismatic. He has no real interesting thoughts. But, we have to take him serious. Why is that? Because he is the shadow prime minister, the real PM behind current PM Mark Rutte. It’s the typical story of Dubya being a continuation of Clinton policies. Even moreso with Klaver and Rutte: Rutte, supposedly right-wing, in actuality has only done stuff like creating nitrogen laws (nitrogen being the new carbon dioxide), lowering speed limits and raising taxes on gas. All in the name of climate change. Jesse Klaver is proud, and rightly so. Although, of course, being holier than the prime minister, Klaver continually reprimands Rutte for not doing nearly as much for the environment as he should. Typical typical.

Second, the moral highground gig seems to be up. As much as Klaver waxes poetic about young people spontaneously answering the call for warmism, I know it’s EU-sponsored astroturf, you know it’s EU-sponsored astroturf, and everybody in the comment section knows it’s EU-sponsored astroturf. If the like/dislike ratio doesn’t convince you, here’s a selection of the comments:

“Leftist communist shite fascists the greenleft. In part responsible for the death of Pim Fortuyn. Time for Neurenberg 2.0 to prosecute these country traitors.”

“Klaver’s bullcrap is unheard. Holland is a dot on the earth with negligible influence on the climate so to invest 1000 billion in climate is straight up ridiculous.”

“The bullet should come from the right for a change.”

But despite having lost the argument in every possible way, Klaver of course trudges on, head held high. Why would he not? The progressive state church is still in charge, still backed by political power. The tides might be changing, but until then he has a sort of scorched earth gaze: comrades, we must destroy and loot as much stuff while we still have the chance! Makes perfect sense.

Of course, although it makes perfect sense, it is nonetheless sickening. It’s the same thing over and over: envy and hatred masquerading as love. the mouth says ‘we are doing this because we care so much’ the body says ‘fuck you for having stuff.’ Jesse Ferat Klaver is just another stereotypical example in a long line of commies.

That such people exist is no surprise. But that, everywhere we look, such people are in power, that is scary. That is what makes it evil. That we are supposed to take their spiteful, lying opinions seriously, that is scam of modernity. Everywhere we look we see liars, charlatans and bullshit-artists in charge. I am reminded of Halbe Zijlstra, a cuck-right politician who was such a career liar that he on record claimed to have been told by Vladimir Putin, in person, in a Datsja no less, that Putin planned on conquering Ukraine and the whole of Eastern Europe. Of course none of that happened, and Zijlstra, to his own disbelief was relieved of his position of minister of foreign relations.

I also think of Hillary Clinton talking about sniper fire. Of Greta Thunberg talking about disappearing arctic ice. Al Gore about the world ending in eight years. Biden about no quid pro quo. Juncker apparently even in Brussels earned the nickname ‘master of lies’.

Many, many such cases.

By no means are these people representative of all people: there are plenty honest people. But the Western state church simply does not allow honest people to have any influence. They are cast aside, they fail the minimum requirement of bullshit that needs to be spouted.

I think that if there is one thing we can agree on, it is that the time of these bullshitters has to come to an end. It is done, over. The left is morally bankrupt. Let others with better track records try. The Donald Trumps, the Boris Johnsons, the Thierry Baudets. If I have any wishes for 2020, it is that the good guys win and keep winning.

Envy

Envy is a tricky one.

Some internet theories say all hatred flows from envy. That’s not true. People tend to hate those they envy, but people also tend to hate the weak. Disgust may just as well be a source of hatred. You could theorize that the left hates from envy, the right hates from disgust.

Envy is a very basic emotion. Strangely, it is omitted from the six basic emotion list psychologists like so much. Just like hatred I might add. But I’m pretty sure that envy is universal, recognized across cultures.

On the one hand you could say that envy is not such a major emotion; people feel pangs of envy all the time. For instance, I envy Aidan Maclear for being younger than I am and already getting more comments than I do. But you get over that stuff. You realize it’s no big deal, you’re enjoying your own life.

Then again, envy was the reason Cain killed his brother Abel. Which is basically the second story in the bible, so you might say envy is one of the biggest sins around, second only to Adam’s sin of following a woman’s lead.

After all, you can’t count on people getting over their envy. It’s out of your control. Some people get over their envy and find joy in life, others wallow in their envy for the rest of their life.

I guess the good news is that envy in itself is an admission of weakness, so if you find yourself envied by others you are de facto in a strong position. Of course, that didn’t save Abel.

Sinterklaas and Black Pete

Every year, Sinterklaas visits the Netherlands for his birthday on December fifth, bearing gifts for well-behaved children. Because Sinterklaas is an old man, he is helped by his servant army of black Petes, who are happy, acrobatic, and friendly.

Sinterklaas is a wise and old tradition, rightly copied by Americans who turned him into Santa Clause, although comparing Santa to Sinterklaas is a bit like comparing Ali-Express to Amazon.

Sinterklaas is a coming of age festivity — a shared narrative among adults and children. Adults get to roleplay, kids learn about the consequences of being good and bad, of being rewarded by gifts when they behave well, and, apocryphally, of being hauled off to Sinterklaas’ home country Spain in a burlap when they behave bad.

Most importantly, everyone has fun – many small things make the whole event enjoyable. Think of putting a shoe next to your fireplace where Sinterklaas drops a present (don’t forget to include a carrot for Sinterklaas’ horse). Think of singing the classic Dutch Sinterklaas songs such as ‘Sinterklaas Kaypoontje’ or ‘See gggginds comes the steamboat’. Think of dressing up as Sinterklaas and black Pete with your friends and families, throwing around ‘pepernoten’, handing out presents and having a blast.

The inclusion of Black Petes has always been good. It’s one of those naturally grown cultural traditions that few have had to say out loud, but all know to be good. In the case of Black Petes, the (minor) lesson has of course always been: do not fear black people, for when they are led by a wise man, they are happy and friendly. Black Petes are a way for children to come into narrative contact with negroes, and learning not to fear them, which one may easily do, for many negroes are feral and aggressive.

But just like the left destroyed the last friendly negro cultures in America, so have they destroyed the last friendly negro culture in the Netherlands — black Pete, who was always a side character of the Sinterklaas show, has through the left’s evil been bombarded to the racist center piece, and Sinterklaas is a bigoted white male. The left, like cancer, destroys everything beautiful it touches.

But even though Sinterklaas might be dead in official channels, rest assured my leftist friends, he lives in unofficial channels, in the majority of homes, the overwhelming majority of the hearts of people. And every time you see someone dressed as Sinterklaas on the streets, or someone dressed as black Pete on the streets, know that it is a middle finger to you and your ilk. You will lose, as the left in the end always loses.

Women and sex

It’s not really that I have writer’s block or anything, just that I have no coherent fleshed out ideas to write. Only random thoughts. Maybe I should take a break from blogging. But I dunno. I like reading other people’s blogs. There’s too few good blogs out there. So might as well try to contribute a little bit. How about I write something every two weeks? Sounds good? Sounds good.

What fun stuff is there to talk about. Oh I know.

There’s this Dutch guy called Tim Hofman. Typical leftist piece of shit. Makes youtube content, gets into fist fights with rich pieces of shit, shoves immigrant kids in the faces of  cuck politicians. The usual usual.

He’s got the tats and the big mouth. So, you’d think this guy would get laid.

BUT, guess what happened? His girlfriend of some years, who is also an aspiring social media content creator, has published a documentary: ‘my sex is broken‘, in which she, no joke, no irony, explores the grand mystery of why sex with her boyfriend just isn’t so good. Naturally, my schadenfreude meter went into overdrive and I watched the documentary with my girl.

Surprisingly, it was pretty good. I thought it was a poignant analysis of dysfunctional modern gender relationships, through the eyes of women.

First things first: Tim Hofman was shat upon like few men are shat upon. Having your girlfriend publicly complain how bad sex with you is destroys all your street cred.

But beyond the public humiliation, a very honest analysis about the general dissatisfaction among feminist women.

‘Honest’ being a relative term: a woman is permanently in denial about what makes her love a man. And so it is with this documentary, which is essentially her ‘honestly’  wondering why her sex is bad, without ever getting to the crux of the question: that she doesn’t really love her boyfriend. The documentary is one big shit-test towards her boyfriend, a shit-test the boyfriend can’t pass, because being the emancipated left-wing prog that he is, he principally refuses to stop her from doing stupid shit. One can imagine their conversations: ‘babe I’m not sure this documentary is a good idea.’
– ‘But honey I just need to express myself! These are my feelings, I feel like I must do this. You support me right?’
‘… Right.’

Poor guy.

After ten minutes of watching, I turned to my girl and said: ‘he just needs to fuck her good is all. This would never happen to us, because I am a sex god.’ Naturally, my girl chided me for being an arrogant asshole, and even more naturally, we had good sex right after the documentary just to prove the point.

Something about the documentary had a very ‘voice of a female generation’ feel. Very typical depressed millenial woman vibe: from the incessant focusing on herself in every camera shot, to the boringly generic talks with a sexuologist, to her genuine wondering: ‘why am I so unmotivated to have sex?’ This is how many many women feel. Depressed, unmotivated, unsexy. Modern women are a sore and unhappy bunch, and it is really not their fault.

Sex, for women, is of utmost importance. A woman who has a good sex life is a woman who can take on the world. For a man sex is like releasing pressure on his ball valves, but for a woman sex is an affirmation of everything she holds dear. That’s why female friends always talk about sex: they love love love it.

But a prerequisite for good sex is that the man she sexes must be a man she is attracted to. And female attraction, as extensively discussed, is fickle. It only blossoms when the man is in charge, and comfortably stays in charge by passing her shit-tests. Then, and only then, will women mysteriously find they are wet and much in love. Until then, you are stuck with an entire generation of women whose sex-lives are non-existent, who cry every other day, who dream of being taken captive by manly foreign men, who take anti-depressants, whose relations are one failure after another, who burn out at work, etcetera etcetera.

It is probably too late for Tim Hofman, who is elbow-deep into egalitarian equalist rainbow feminist emancipation. But, not too late for us.

Jimian paths to power

There’s a hard limit to what can be accomplished debating strangers on the internet. So, let’s look at ways to make Jimian knowledge work in your favor outside the interwebs.

I’ve previously discussed the warrior, priest, merchant, lover model. These shall serve as our starting points.

 

The priestly path to power

Priests gain power by coalescing around a shared story. The story has to be helpful: if your story is that you gain immortality by jumping off a bridge, it is not helpful. A good story cuts reality at the joints.

Essentially, the priest thinks about how reality works and makes his findings work in his favor.

Our story is of course the story of the fall of a civilization. We see a society ruled by corruption, envy and hatred — an unsustainable situation, which has no other ending than crashing into the ground. But we are also the story of hope: vestiges of peace are possible among the rubbles of war. Because of this combination – on the one hand, the fall, on the other hand, hope – we claim memetic sovereignty: our version of reality is the best version. Through people testing out these claims in their own life, experiencing success with it, our ideas spread, and we gain power through the priestly path.

Jim is the best example of this: the majority of his recent posts have centered around describing the story of Trump, and explaining in clear, unambiguous language, what is going on. On the one hand he is advising Trumpists, but on the other he is also providing explanations that are obviously true, with such persuasion that it makes his enemies seem completely out of touch with reality, while simultaneously encouraging his allies to add their own ideas to the mix. That is the priestly path to power.

 

The warrior path to power

To be a warrior basically means: to put up a fight when necessary. Putting up a fight comes natural to some men, but for many men stuck in a progressive framework, being a warrior is unnatural. After all, progressives look down on warriors: ‘we’re all part of one consciousness my friends, love peace and harmony, no need for fighting!’ Which of course in practice translates to progs acting like women: friendly in your face, knife in your back.

To be a warrior is to fight people in their face. This can be scary for those unaccustomed to it: fighting makes enemies, having enemies is stressful. But my experience is that fighting comes natural to all men. We are risen killer apes, we would not have survived to this point if we were not able to put up a fight. What’s more, fighting works. Simply by keeping a straight spine and fighting for what you believe gains you respect just by the act of doing it. You might find that some of that respect even comes from your newly made enemies. What’s more, winning a fight opens up completely new possibilities which you had previously thought impossible.

So, how do you win a fight?

Different people, different strokes, I think. Here’s a couple of things I’ve learned:

  • Fighting is strangely effective, sometimes addictively so. It’s much more effective than I’d have believed ten years ago. People tend to avoid conflicts, and tend to think that those seeking conflicts must have some advantage. Hence conflicts having a strong chicken game aspect: he who blinks first, loses.
  • Some fights are unwinnable. For example, when bureaucracy is involved, you’re going to have a very hard time.
  • Sometimes it is just as important to graciously bow your head as to stubbornly keep it up. Similarly, it is sometimes good to graciously bow your head even in victory.
  • It’s a trial and error thing.

 

The merchant path to power

Commies and progs make horrible entrepreneurs, simply because they don’t understand capitalism. Any corporation is only successful to the extent it manages to keep prog infiltration at arm’s distance. Per extension, modern business advice is terrible because it has to be given within a prog framework. Corporations do not work like progs say they do, and while that is of no personal concern when you are yourself not a merchant, if you want to make money, much better to try the Jimian merchant path to power.

The Jimian perspective is that merchants are vulnerable: merchants depend completely and utterly on their customers. If your customers leave, you are done. So merchants, contrary to the prog perspective that they are greedy assholes, are in fact by nature as friendly as possible, and have to if they want to succeed. The customer, not the merchant, is king. Similarly, as a merchant you depend on the goodwill of the state to even conduct your business: there is little point in fighting them, because in a head-on-head confrontation, the state always wins. So again, from the eyes of the merchant, not he but the state is king. Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar.

That is, I believe, the successful foundation of anyone wanting to follow the merchant path to power.

 

The lover path to power

I have discussed this path to power fairly extensively I think. Progs have no sex, divorces and intergender war. Jimians have sex, healthy relations and functional families. Having a good woman by your side is a bliss.

Warrior, Priest, Merchant, Lover

(reposted from AlfaNL)

Archetypes are different parts of your personality, although some archetypes will be more dominant than others. Archetypes are nice, because they are easy on the mind. They are stories, and stories stick well.

Of course there is always the problem of separating useful archetypes from silly archetypes. For instance, every horoscope follows only 1 archetype: ‘woman’.

Here at AlfaNL we accept only the best archetypes. A long time ago I read the book King, Warrior, Magician, Lover by Robert Moore. It’s a book on four male archetypes, per the title. The King is the part of you that rules, the Warrior the part that fights, the Magician the part that uses forbidden knowledge and the Lover is the part your lady likes to see.

Inspired by Jim I have made some improvements, per this blog title.

First, there is, in my experience, not so much difference between kings and warriors. Both fight, both rule, both use force or the threat of force to get their way. King is boss warrior, that’s all. Throw it together under one archetype.

Warriors band together in armies and can wield great power; the power of kings and emperors.

Priest is exactly like the magician, just that the word is less magical. To call people magicians is to flatter them, which I, as one with a prominent magician/priest archetype, should know. Priest covers the load better — a priest does everything a magician does, but weaponized morality is a big part of his repertoire, hence the name priest.

Priests band together in congregations and can also wield great power; the power of memes and religion, which, while not as directly effective as the gun barrel of the warrior, does have the advantage of sticking around long after the warrior has died.

The merchant (or capitalist) is an archetype I missed in the book. Merchants are just out to make a buck. Their dark side is greed, their good side is adding nice things to this world. Contrary to priests and warriors, merchants can not cooperate so well, because every merchant is in competition with every other merchant.

The lover is pretty much the same as in the book; it is the side reserved for the women in your life, the side that lusts and cares and loves. It is much like the warrior in that the lover conquers pussy like the warrior conquers territory, but the lover has a soft inner core that women adore and warriors despise.

Jews and Jesus

I’ve felt little need or inspiration to write posts after the publication of Resurrection of God. The book is good, what I’ll write on here is not going to be as good. But eh, this place is more of an experimentation board anyway. So let’s write something anyway.

I feel like the effects of the book must first take place, so me writing on here does not add as much as it used to. First we set the ground rules, then we grow. My interpretation of the ground rules are in the RoG, and although they’re not the definite and absolute version, they are pretty good, if I may say so myself. And luckily, some others seem to agree. For instance, one friendly reader emails:

Alf.
Thank you for writing this book. Truly. While I had to stop and work through a few areas (and yet to determine if we differ), on the whole yours is one of the most important books I’ve read in decades. I’m starting it again this week, taking a bit more time to process…
I read your blog, and Jim’s, with keen interest. I’m thankful men like you are spreading the truth.

For a book meme to spread it takes time. Marketing, I think, is overrated, in that boomers never had to worry about marketing, and when millenials talk about marketing, they usually talk about faking it in order to make it, because it is getting harder and harder to make it, and makes it easier to make it than playing fair. But naturally, that’s not what this is about, so I conclude that me pushing the book will yield terrible results to compared, y’know, the book actually accomplishing what it sets out to accomplish.

A few people have already completely picked up on the idea and have even taken it further. Notably, ‘who’s this guy and how come his tongue is sharper than Gordon Ramsey’s knives’ commenter Shaman providing a Jewish perspective:

Christianity is the fulfillment of ritual worship; it does away with the dead letter of the law in favor of its spirit, Jesus having an authority no smaller (indeed, greater) than Moses. This notion is rejected by Judaizers, who contend that Jesus could not have had authority on par with Moses’, and that therefore all parts of Mosaic Law are valid today – in explicit contradiction of Deuteronomy 18:18, where a prophet like Moses is promised; who, being like Moses, has divine authority and divine approval to establish a new covenant unlike the previous one (Jeremiah 31:31-32) and to replace the bad statutes (Ezekiel 20:25). Such is the Messiah, the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.

I find this makes complete sense. It is understandable the Jews did to Jesus what they did, but now that the smoke has settled, let us take an honest look at the results:

Christians: conquered America, conquered colonies, invented the industrial revolution.
Jews: centuries of roaming, no home, disliked and surrounded by hostiles.

I mean, c’mon. The results speak for themselves. In hindsight, the Jews obviously erred in rejecting Christ.

Now, Christ was a bit of an asshole, don’t get me wrong. Imagine a guy walking into your temple: ‘Hi folks, I’m Jesus. I have no army, no nation, no crown, but you should just accept me as the son of God anyway.’ Your first response is to shit-test such a guy to death, and that’s exactly what the Jews did. But, in death, Jesus passed the shit-test.

So apart from it being a theological thing, it is also a logical thing: side with the winner, especially considering that the winner was a Jew in the first place. The Jews would be wise to accept the NT as canonical.