Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old September 8th, 2010 #1
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default (Unfinished but very long) Review of "The Christ Files"

[A reader in Australia sent me this book, which I promised to review. I wrote this months ago, didn't quite finish it, have lost my train of thought, so might as well post as I will never get back to it. Even so, 90% of what I had to say is said is in this, and perhaps discussion will bring back the one or two things I'd intended to sum up with. This review will ultimately be copied and stickied in the books section.]

The Other Round File: Reviewish-Flavored Notes on John Dickson's "The Christ Files," by Alex Linder

The Christ Files: How Historians Know What They Know About Jesus, by John Dickson, Blue Bottle Books (2006)



Thinking about Jesus is thinking about thinking, about evidence, about what you accept or reject and why. This thing called 'Jesus' is the perfect test case for examining your own ideas about what constitutes solid mentation. 'Jesus' was a guy or guys or fictional character or composite character living or created 2,000 years ago. What are we to make of the thing, its surrounding stories, and the featherless bipeds who yawp and yodel after it?

The obvious starting point for thinking about Jesus is doubting that he performed the miracles claimed for him. But the best way to begin thinking about Jesus is to ascertain the likelihood it existed at all... My personal starting point is assuming that Revilo Oliver is likelier to be right than wrong when he asserts that Jeboo was a fictional composite of at least three Jesuses. I think this because I have read much Oliver and found him wrong on very little. I am predisposed to accept his verdict unless I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While Jebus fanatics are legion, they question the nature of their hero less than pigs question the ingredients of their slop. The porcinical essay at least a sniffle-sniff before diving in; the Jeboozers admit of no delay. Boozus! they hop and stamp and clap and bow. They love him. They don't think about him. Someone once said that to love something is to take it seriously. By this measure, Christians love Jesus as much as post-Christian liberals love niggers, which is to say not at all: it's just another device they can use for feeling good about themselves and thinking bad of and on others. To say that Christians are despicable reality-haters probably doesn't go far enough, but, going in, recognizing their perverse and actuality-averse behavior and mindset seems a good bias for a normal man to start with. Whatever else may be said about 'Jesus,' he's certainly the type who would appeal to his followers - an all-forgiving douchebag who doesn't exist any more than the miracles-breaking-all-known-physical-laws he's said to have performed.

Really, arguments about Jesus - spoiler alert! There's no proof he existed, and no proof of his miracles - are proxies for reality - do you think reality exists, or is an option to be contrasted now and then with your nogginal notions? If you believe that what you want to believe is more important than anything else, you are very well qualified to waddle up to the christian trough with the other piglings.

Now, as you can smell, we're just warming up here. We're making some christian-zest, the same way Rachel Ray makes lemon zest! We're rubbing the religious idiots, to be redundant, across the grater of right reason. Our goal is to see what's in 'em, and what they're made of. What they smell like, what they taste like. Let us take them in the spirit one of their unmanliest excuse-makers, C.S. Lewis, demands they be taken in: they aren't kidding. They really mean it. The Comeback Kid really existed, really did the things he claimed, and really spoke the truth about his mission. Let us take christ-insanity seriously enough to reject it if there's no reason to accept its claims are true. To cut these notes short, there isn't. There is no reason in this book or any other to believe a single word about Jesus written by any of the editors who created the stories in the Bible, nor any apologist who commented on those cobblings later. Christianity can be safely dismissed as lies. The main concern of the White man, in relation to Christ-inanity, ought to be to protect himself and his kind from the utterly pernicious mental and physical effects of Christians and their doctrines.

***

This is a cute little book. Its cover is black, with a big yellow or chartreuse fingerprint on the cover by way of design. The book is 101 pages, written by an Australian, a scholar, and a Christian. He has a look common to American Christians, particularly Baptists - a big block-shaped head, no neck, and a look of amiable affability. Now, this guy is no dummy, being a historian at a university in Sydney, but he's still of the doubting-is-dancing school, no matter how mild his tone. Christians are mild in tone these days -- the pros you see on tv -- only because they're inferior in power to their mockers, by which I don't mean me, or other normals, but jews. The Christies know that anything appearing dogmatic they do in public will be used and abused by tv jews, so they're as careful as they can be to keep an evergreen smile of liberal tolerance on their mugs, even as their eyes dart fishily, prowling ever for sucker-converts and semitic-critics. John Dickson "lives in Sydney with his family," the back cover informs us, and "spends his time researching, writing and speaking about life's big questions." Well, isn't that fruity.

The first way to review a book... pardon me. The second way. The first way is to eye the cover suspiciously. Then pinch it, and flip it with two fingers. If you haven't absorbed any poison, the next thing to do is to look left and right, then raise the book to your nose. Inhale as you rifle the pages under your thumb, like an epithelial flip book. Why? Well, as used to be generally known, the black marks on the pages called words began life as thoughts in the minds of men...or in this case, christians. As christians tend to be evil and filled with lies, the blackness of their thoughts tends to survive general printing and copying, so that even the millionth issue is, if not ripe then more than faintly redolent of decomposing skunk cabbage. Books excreted by the christ-insane, thus, are the rotting of something rotten when healthy - a sort of zwieback of malicious and misleading mentalicizing. This book, while not entirely without essence du zombific goodness, is nevertheless not as stinky as it might have been, for one reason: the author doesn't even try to claim things he can't. Now that is mere honest modesty for a normal man, but, again, we're talking about a christian here. People who believe other people raise up from the dead, walk on water they don't turn into wine, and spam eternal salvation on future generations without their consent - little things like obeying the rules of logic and evidence hold no unmagic power over them, so it's worth mentioning in the instances one of the christ-insane takes them into account, even if only to enhance marketing to normals.

***

This short book's point and mission are to persuade you to take the gospels seriously, and to persuade you that serious people take them seriously. It's all very owly, if you recall the srsly graphic. If you read the bible to take its whiff, the impression made on a normal white man is that it was written by some very nasty people, people very familiar with lying and deceiving. The art put into the wording can't hide that the bible is easily the nastiest book ever written. The bible is very similar to de Sade in that the brilliance of the style, in places, only accentuates the unwholesomeness of the subject. The bible appeals primarily to intellectual cretins and the conforming tasteless. The bible is a book of lies cobbled by semitic slicksters to fool and bedizen the doltish masses. Intelligent men who believe in the bible do it either because it makes them money, or because they lack imagination. Remember that 19 out of 20 men aren't leaders. They are followers. Just as people who praise jews never do it because they actually like them, only ...

The bible is believed and beloved of the same social class that likes professional wrestling. There is art in the wording, but it can't can't change the nature of the nasties what cobbled it. Christianity is a movement of social bowels, an exaltation of all that is lowly and disgusting and untrue. You know how a medicine is made worse by improvement? By making some nasty tasting but helpful elixir "better" by adding a sub-commercial quality flavor for it? Christianity is very like that, except its heart is not helpful, but deleterious. Christianity turns humans into animals. If you take the genes of a worm and a zombie and combine then, the result is a christian - a spiritual dead end rushing off, now, to succor crushed niglets in Haiti. Because we are all god's children. If so, then god is a fucking monster who needs to be slain, not obeyed. Far too little thought has been spent on considering the proposition that the Creator is evil. How can Christianity possibly be a good thing - judging by Christians? Christianity is a pseudo-artistic, dogmatic attack on the only thing that has served humanity without misleading: the ability to connect cause and consequence. Christianity occludes clear thinking, clear reasoning, clear judging, and clear acting. Christianity is occlusion, and its appeal is to the insane and the malocclusive. Just as democracy is ultimately the recognition that the public can vote itself subsidies out of earners' pockets, christianity is the recognition that if enough losers stick together, they can triumph over the winners. Christianity is lie that empowers an evil slice of the smart set to use the stupid set to empurple itself. Christianity is spiritual and intellectual downbreeding. For people with no imagination, lots of fear, overwhelming urge to conform - christianity is a godsend. Christianity offers safety and illusion.

I agree with the author that the gospels deserve to be read seriously, but not because they contain truth or accurate history or beautiful literature. They contain none of those. They deserve to be read seriously because they accurately depict mentalities that threaten normals: the mentality of the jewish liar, the jewish pseudo-universalist, the buhliever. The economic concept of opportunity cost should be applied to Christianity. No more destructive belief ever flourished in White society. The opportunity cost of the semitic balderdash is...unknown. Who knows what kind of healthy societies were made impossilble by the rise of the christian lie? We can only observe that everything good in white nature and society preexisted christianity, and, with luck, will outlast its rapid declension into second-rate voodoo for jungle natives.

***

Chapter two, "The Troublemaker: Jesus in Ancient Pagan Writings" offers a COMPLETE, yes, "complete" "list of Greco-Roman references to Jesus." There are seven (7). Think about that. The guy performed all these remarkable and unprecedented miracles and...there are seven (7) mostly contemptuous or dismissive references to him outside his circle of kikes and converts. What does that tell you? It tells me that Jesus likely didn't exist and certainly never performed any miracles. I mean, is it not astounding that, in a mere eight pages of a 101-page book, the author can afford to list ALL non-christian references to the Main Player In All World History? It kind of argueth against the claims, methinks. What are these references?

#1 Some "Thallos" claims there was an eclipse at some point during Jesus' upsticking. This mention was around 55 AD. Can we not Valley-Girl our eyes and "What-ever."

#2 Some kikey-named "Mara bar Serapion," in a letter to his son, said, "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their Wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished[.]" Says Dickson, "You will notice that Mara does not name the 'wise king'... Yeah. I noticed that. I also noticed the after-therefore-because fallacy. Again, "What-ever."

#3 Cornelius Tacitus (yes, the Tacitus) mentions "in passing" both Jeboo's death and a movement in his name. Says "Dickson," "the text is strongly, almost humorously, anti-Christian in style." Here is what Tacitus, the greatest Roman historian, said of the 'boo and the 'booflers: "Christians derived their name from a man called Christ, who, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate. The deadly superstition, thus checked for the moment, broke out afresh not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but also in the City of Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part ofthe world meet and become popular."

Now, contra "Dickson" there is nothing at all funny about Tacitus' words or his meaning. He means exactly what he says, and he is right. Just look into the faces of the white Christian zombies adopting Haitians, the descendants of murderers of every white they could get their machetes in, and you know exactly what he means. Christianity is poisonous. It is indeed a "deadly" superstition, because it kills minds, first, then societies.

#4 In 110 AD, Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan to ask whether he should keep executing Jeboo fans. Imagine how unattractive the early christians must have been to be executed in light of Pliny's statement that the "sum total of their guilt or error was no more than the following. They had met regularly before dawn...and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as to a god. They also took an oath not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery and adultery, and not to break any promise." Hmm, definite food for thought in that one. Were theft, robbery and adultery pagan-normal, and christianity something new? Or was christianity from day one a sort of Alcoholics Anonymous for losers and criminal scum?

#5 Suetonius, another Roman historian, mentions jews being expelled from Rome in 49AD, "because of the riots they were causing at the instigation of Chrestus." Explains "Dickson," most New Testament scholars, and Roman historians, think Suetonius confused "a slave name 'Chrestus'" with the jewish title christ, the 'anointed one.' I draw nothing from this except if Jeboo existed, he was some minor kike, causing problems in the usual kikey way.

#6 Lucian, who was a Greek lecturer and satirist of the 2nd century, refers to Jeboo as "the one whom they still worship today, the man in Palestine who was crucified because he brought this new form of initiation into the world... Moreover, that first lawgiver of theirs persuaded them that they are all brothers the moment they transgress and deny the Greek gods and begin worshipping that crucified sophist and living by his laws." So, in other words, if Jesus existed, he was a typical troublemaking kike - a liar, a socialist, a universalist-for-non-jews: in other words, he was a typical useless, worthless jew - and seen to be such by white normals.

#7 Celsus around 175AD made dismissive comments toward Jesus, saying, like the jews, that his father was Panthera, a Roman soldier.

The conclusion a reasonable man would draw is that Jesus might or might not have existed, but if he did, he was a typical scummy jew, and so regarded by the tiny handful of Aryans who took note of him. Christians appear to have been the same despicable lot at the start they are today. Christians hate reality like cats hate water. Their brain does the same stutter-rejection when it encounters actuality as a cat's paw when it touches liquid. Christianity is lies for losers.

***

Anything good in this book? There are a few things, either correctives to nonsense spouted even by WN, or insight into hoaxes peddled in the jewed mass media. For example, Christian Identity idiots, to be redundant, claim Jesus was an Aryan, and that Galilee, where he is supposed to have come from, was an Aryan island in a Semitic sea. Dickson shows otherwise. He says, "Whatever else Jesus was, he was a Jew - he was born a Jew, raised a Jew, he attended the synagogue, he worshipped at the Jerusalem temple, he formed a band of Jewish followers and he believed he was fulfilling everything the Jewish Scriptures said about the coming Messiah Christ." Of course, if he believed Jesus were not a jew, Dickson probably wouldn't say it, because he couldn't get published. Jews are ambivalent about Christianity. They want to blame it for everything bad, and take credit for anything in it that's good. In the bible they brag about murdering Jesus; today they repeat "Jesus was a jew," a statement they love to place in the mouths of goyish characters in their movies. Nevertheless, a thing may be true, though it come out of the mouth of a jew. Jesus certainly was a jew, whether he came out of the pen, mouth or twat of a hooknosed liar. Dickson says that archaeological discoveries and scholarship have refuted the once-popular notion that Galilee was a Greekish outpost. "In short, the Galilee which archaeologists are discovering is deeply Jewish. The Galilean towns mentioned in the Gospels, such as Nazareth and Capernaum, show no evidence of Gentile influence. [...] Mainstream Judaism is everywhree present in the archaeological record of these cities: (1) the bowls and containers found here are made of chalk or soft limestone, important for Jewish purity; (2) numerous Jewish ritual baths have been discovered; (3) the burial practices uncovered are Jewish; and (4) pig bones are conspicuous by their absence, indicating that the people here obeyed Jewish kosher rules. All of these factors tell us that Galilee in Jesus' day was profoundly Jewish, not pagan. Any attempt to argue for a strong Gentile influence on Jesus' ministry suffers from a complete lack of evidence." The enthusiasm in "Dickson's" words is typical of the Christian gelding, lapping at the mouth and anus of his jewish master. Still, I doubt he is lying. Christian Identity is far past stupid; lack of evidence is proof to CI idiots, to be redundant. Jesus, if he existed, was a kike. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. It was certainly a jew mouth, twat or pen that shat him, his behavior proves it.

Another good thing is "Dickson's" pointing out the anti-church lies in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Since we know mass publishing is run by a handful of jewish houses out of New York, we know that any mainstream mention of christianity will be deceptive or destructive. The church, to jews, is a mixed bag. They hate it for historical reasons, and for practical reasons. The creation of the Catholic church was an earlier, not wholly successful, example of the culture of critique. The church distorted white man's world. Any institution is good, or treated as good by the jew-controlled mass media, insofar as it advances the jewish agenda. If that agenda calls for the destuction of white folk, then any institution that only half follows will be fully attacked. The church is "good for jews" in that it spreads the idea of equality, soul and otherwise, but bad for jews in that it counteracts the promiscuity and general-character looseness they promote through mass electronics. The church is a mixed bag to organized jews. On one hand, its "save the niggers" campaigns dovetail with their ethnically self-interested drive for death-thru-diversity for whites. On the other hand, the church's focus on personal morality works against their believe that general character looseness, and sexual promiscuity in specific, lead to lower levels of 'anti-semitism.' In a phrase, "if they're not screwing, they're anti-jewing" is solid doctrine to kikes, and it explains literally everything you see on tv. So, intellectually the jews are ambivalent about the church. But emotionally they hate it, because, well, they hate everything they don't have complete and 100% control over. This loxism takes many forms, but one of them is spreading mass literature that undermines Christian doctrine and honest history. Just as the jew publishes a million times over a liberal lawyer's mass-paperback featuring a (statistically nonexistent) white-on-black gang rape, the jew publishes a million times over a liberal academic's pseudo-religious broadside against the Catholic church. Anything that undermines Rome the jew promotes, whether false political history or false religious history. Dickson cites ten errors in a single patch of Brown's fiction. It goes without saying that Dickson fails to identify the jewish animus that sees Brown's lies published in the first place. The fact that jews hate Christianity should not be construed to mean that a) christianity is true, or that b) christianity is objectively pro-White. It is neither. Rather, Christianity is a Big Lie, the doctrines of which cut a number of ways, both pro- and anti-White, and both pro- and anti-jew.

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 8th, 2010 at 11:10 AM.
 
Old September 8th, 2010 #2
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
#4 In 110 AD, Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan to ask whether he should keep executing Jeboo fans. Imagine how unattractive the early christians must have been to be executed in light of Pliny's statement that the "sum total of their guilt or error was no more than the following. They had met regularly before dawn...and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as to a god. They also took an oath not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery and adultery, and not to break any promise." Hmm, definite food for thought in that one. Were theft, robbery and adultery pagan-normal, and christianity something new? Or was christianity from day one a sort of Alcoholics Anonymous for losers and criminal scum?
That is an interesting idea.

I've never settled the idea in my mind about the dynamics of the transformation of Christianity pre- and post-Constantine. It had to have been originally a jewish cult, with presense in jewish enclaves in cities throughout the Empire. And it stands to reason that if it were a jewish cult, it were a cult of criminals. The braindead Christian tales of Nero "irrationally" persecuting Christians have never smelled right to me. More likely that these proto-Trotskyists set fire to the city. The Christian spinning is also that the Emperor Titus, the prosecutor of Roman military operations in Judea, and his son and successor Domition, were also "irrational" tormentors of Christians. The intention is always to imply these "bad" emporers were tossing Granny Gum, who sits in the first pew with her family Bible every Sunday morning at Wesley Methodist Church, to the lions for her "faith". Rather it seems the original Christians were garden variety kike troublemakers waging a guerrilla war throughout the empire after the destruction of their "temple".

But those Roman cities were cesspools, and these jews would have been classed with the scummiest elements and moved among them to "fit in," much like the jews did in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries during their communist activity, which was based on distilled Christianity. I can see it having been a sort of "Alcoholics Anonymous" for ancient scum. After all, people who don't make a practice of lying, stealing, etc., don't need to make a big deal about not doing it. Only lying thieves would even consider the notion.

Post-Constantine (and I'm citing him as a convenient point in the chronology), Christians were less a jewish cult and more a White religion. Certain of the notions seem to have appealed to women, and that was apparantly the vector for Christianity to infect the empire, and by extension Europe. I'd think Rome was already sick, probably terminally, otherwise Christianity could never have taken hold in the first place. That it served a useful purpose in people's lives suggests Rome had gone fubar.
 
Old September 8th, 2010 #3
grail
House on the Borderland
 
grail's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 442
grail
Default King Jesus

According to Ralph Ellis in his book King Jesus the New Testement Jesus is a fiction...Ellis found the real Jesus in the historical record,,The real Jesus was a minor

king who ruled over 2 cities on the eastern edge of Syria,,,The real Jesus was a direct decendant of Julius Ceaser and Cleopatra ,and led the revolt againt Rome in 70 AD...He was born circa 15 AD...This King Jesus was a Gnostic,maried to his queen who's name was Martha...Ellis noted that another historian in the past had stumbled unto this histirical Jesus but was too afraid to go public with it....another book by Ellis helps support his thesis,,,that book being From Cleopatra to Christ...

It would appear that the fake New Testement story was a very basterdized version of the true story....as someone who has read many books on Jesus I am convinced that Ellis's King Jesus is the actual historical figure.,,BTW,,I am not a chistian,,,I am a Gnostic...
 
Old September 8th, 2010 #4
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Post-Constantine (and I'm citing him as a convenient point in the chronology), Christians were less a jewish cult and more a White religion. Certain of the notions seem to have appealed to women, and that was apparantly the vector for Christianity to infect the empire, and by extension Europe. I'd think Rome was already sick, probably terminally, otherwise Christianity could never have taken hold in the first place. That it served a useful purpose in people's lives suggests Rome had gone fubar.
Back then, I think christ-insanity was seen as a laxer Judaism. Judaism with the nets down. Something anyone could join. All men brothers. Breaking bread together, talking 'bout da Jesus.

I have the book at hand, going to post a few snips from it.

Last edited by Alex Linder; November 12th, 2013 at 02:40 PM.
 
Old September 8th, 2010 #5
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

quotations from The Christ Files, bolding added by me, it is not in the original

With the exception of Mara bar Serapion, who paints Jesus as a philosophical martyr, pagans saw Jesus as a dissident and religious pretender. His execution was thus well deserved. pp. 23-4

[Ch. 2 is about pagan views of Jesus; ch. 3 about jew views. His point is they are as one in seeing Boozus as a ne'er-do-well.]

So, how did the Jews react to Jesus? The question is complicated. Remember, all of the first believers were Jews (who happened to believe their Messiah had come). For instance, the apostle Paul, whose letters make up a large part of the New Testament, was a Pharisee (a highly observant Jew) who claimed to have witnessed Jesus alive from the grave. p. 25

[Do you suppose a jew who changed his name from Saul would lie?]

The Gospels - the New Testament biographies about Jesus - are also substantially Jewish. Their material comes from Jews who followed Jesus as Jews.

Before we look at the Gospels I want to focus on the four references to Jesus written by Jews who did not believe he was the promised Messiah-Christ. As we will see, some of the harshest criticisms of Jesus came not from the pagans -- who mainly saw Jesus as an oddity -- but from his fellow countrymen. p. 26

Flavius Josphus was a first century Jewish aristocrat, military general and historian (AD 37-100). In his massive Jewish Antiquities he provides an account of the entire history of the Jewish people up to his day. In discussing various Jewish disturbances during the governorship of Pontius Pilate Josephus offers a brief comment about Pilate's treatment of a certain Jewish teacher named Jesus.

More has been written on this single paragraph than on any other section in Josephus' works... Part of the reason for this is that the text, while clearly referring to Jesus of Nazareth, shows signs of Christian 'tampering'. Somewhere along the line a Christian scribe copying out
Jewish Antiquities appears to have added phrases so as to make Josephus' original statement about Jesus (which was probably neutral or negative) quite glowing. Nevertheless, there is a wide consensus among scholars...that Josephus wrote the main sentences of Jewish Antiquities 18.63-64. Let me quote the passage with the (probable) Christian additions placed in square brackets:

At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man [
if indeed one ought to refer to him as a man]. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. [He was the Messiah-Christ]. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. [For on the third day he appeared to them again alive, just as the divine prophets had spoken about these and countless other marvellous things about him]. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out. p. 26-7

[There is also an Arabic/non-Greek version of text in which it may be Josephus himself rather than crissy helper saying Jesus PERHAPS was the messiah-christ. Notice also that jew Josephus blames "the leading men among us, ie jews, for getting jesus executed, whereas modern kikes blame Romans.]

[Two sections later Josephus refers to 'the so-called Messiah-Christ'. Josephus claims Jesus' brother James was martyred by the Sanhedrin about thirty years after Jesus.]

[So, the four hostile jew refs to jesus come two from Josephus, two from the Talmud. Contrast how the christian weanus puts it vs the way WN would.]

In a section of the Talmud known as baraitha Sanhedrin 43a-b (dated AD 100-200) we find the following report of Jesus' crimes, trial and execution:

On the eve of Passover Jesus was hanged (on a cross). For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth tobe stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour, he was hanged on the eve of Passover.

The reference to the forty-day advance notice for Jesus' execution is questionable in the opinion of most historians and probably reflects an attempt on the part of ancient authors to emphasise Jesus' culpability. In any case, several details in the passage coincide with our prior knowledge of Christ: his wide fame as a wonder-worker ('sorcerer') and the method and timing of his execution (crucifixion near the Passover festival). The text also makes it clear that it was the Jewish Sanhedrin (the ruling council in Jerusalem) that authorised Jesus' death:
baraitha Sanhedrin is all about the functions of the Sanhedrin. The Christian Gospels say pretty much the same thing, adding that the Roman authorities also played a decisive role. pp.29-30

In a later section of the Talmud (post AD 200) we hear again the rumour that Jesus was the product of his mother's affair with a Roman soldier named Pantera. Hence, Jesus is called Ben Pantera (son of Pantera):

Ben Stada is Ben Pantera. The husband was Stada, the lover was Pantera. The mother was Mary the dresser of women's hair. She has been false to her husband (
baraitha Shabbat 104b).

[...] Perhaps the best we can say is that the statements of Celsus and the Talmud, combined with what we read in the Christian Gospels, testify to the widespread belief that Jesus' conception and birth were not altogether typical.


[Classic crissy gerbilism. He's a believer, but he lacks the guts to say the kikes are a bunch of malicious liars, lying about his lord and savior. Those in the sane sector have no reason to believe any of these mental perverts.]

[From the above summary of pagan/jew-hostile sources Dickson claims we can establish a few things, although not the important ones. We know about the creature: its name, mother, odd birth, activity frame (Palestine 26-36), brother James, fame as teacher and wonder worker, called by some the messiah, time/place/manner of execution, involvement of both Roman and jewish leadership in execution, eclipse around time of execution, reappearing to followers AFTER execution, flourishing cult worshipping him after his death.]

[end of ch. 3, will pick up ch 4 in new post below]

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 8th, 2010 at 03:58 PM.
 
Old September 8th, 2010 #6
Leonard Rouse
Celebrating My Diversity
 
Leonard Rouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: With The Creepy-Ass Crackahs
Posts: 8,156
Leonard Rouse
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Back then, I think christ-insanity was seem as a laxer Judaism. Judaism with the nets down. Something anyone could join. All men brothers. Breaking bread together, talking 'bout da Jesus.
Kind of a turn-of-the-millenium Bahai maybe. The original Abrahamic New Agers.
 
Old September 8th, 2010 #7
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Rouse View Post
Kind of a turn-of-the-millenium Bahai maybe. The original Abrahamic New Agers.
My ignorance is simply too extensive to comment much on these things. I'm trying to get a feel for what those times were like, so I can get what was new and different about the christ cult, but I'm not there yet.
 
Old September 8th, 2010 #8
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

[ch 4. concerns the New Testament. It is more than 2x as long as the chaps on jew-hostiles and pagans talking about Jesus. So, most of the 'evidence,' if you want to call it that, for what we know about Jesus comes from his fan club.]

Professional scholars approach the New Testament as they would any other first century text. They do not treat it as the Word of God, as the Christian Church does, but they do accord it the status of a valuable historical text. p. 34

t is no exaggeration to say that historians...universally regard the New Testament writings as the earliest,most plentiful and most reliable sources of information about the Jesus of history. p. 34

[To me, this is more good reason to believe Jesus didn't exist: he was barely mentioned by anyone who wasn't a christian. Enemies and neutrals barely took notice of him, and that mostly dismissive. They didn't agree on details about him, evidently because either they were mixing stories/people or they just flat didn't care because it didn't matter. Fictional or footnote, I'm not sure which Jesus was, although I lean to the former, but the bottom line is it doesn't matter. Apart from his cult's warping a section of our race's mind, Jesus is irrelevant to our concerns.]

...[T]he New Testament is not a single source at all; it is a collection of sources. [. . .] In historical research...the New Testament is analyzed as a compilation of independent traditions with common convictions about Jesus of Nazareth. Christians need to remember that, although our sacred documents were composed and circulated in the first century, they were not brought together into a single volume...until the fourth century. p. 35

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 8th, 2010 at 04:46 PM.
 
Old September 8th, 2010 #9
Fred Streed
Holy Order of Cosmonauts
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,050
Fred Streed
Default

Mr. Linder, my hat is off to you sir! That was a pure joy to read. The muses were smiling upon you when you wrote that delightful little literary gem.

It kind of reminds me of the best of J. J. Solari's stuff back when he was in his prime, not as vulgar as Solari but something of the same style.

Edit: a link to JJ Solari's blog http://www.jjsolari-vs-you.blogspot.com/
You gotta understand that he is just a shadow of his former self, age, drugs, cheap booze, and wild living took their toll.

Last edited by Fred Streed; September 8th, 2010 at 10:22 PM.
 
Old September 9th, 2010 #10
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,850
Hugh
Default

Christianity is not practiced according the Bible, most Christians have never read the Bible, and only a tiny handful of quotes from the New Testament are used, to illustrate general points.

Thus what the Bible says or doesn't say, is totally irrelevant when it comes to analysing or attacking Christian beliefs, as none follow the Bible.

There are also at least three totally different forms of Christianity, with completely different beliefs and structures.

Catholics and Orthodox resemble each other in only the most vague and superficial way.

Amongst Protestants there are at least a dozen major different belief sub-systems, none of which are based on the Bible per se, or resemble each other very much at all.
Each only extract certain generic quotes to support their points, and leave out all the rest.

Religion serves to promote and preserve ethics, values, morals, family life and culture, and its structures feed, clothe, house and medicate its congregants, and provide the foundations for the replacement government.

Churches are local business, social and educational centres, to which any member can turn to, to recruit supporters for just about anything.

Almost all non-socialist political parties are formed out of "Christians".
No one will ever gain political power by attacking religion.
Thus those who attack it, have no intention of gaining political power, and are irrelevant in the struggle.

Separate from that, we all know, or should know as the smallest bit of research proves, that the Old Testament stories are actually stories, myths, legends, religions from Sumeria, Babylon, Egypt, Canaan etc, and are not originally Jewish.

These were rewritten by Jews, placing Jews in the centre, and relocating the action from say Sumeria to Israel.
For example Noah and the Flood is based on the far older story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which Jews simply rewrote, just like they rewrite classic tales for the screen today, such as with a Black Thor, for example.

We also know that the New Testament is based upon myths etc from Rome, largely the Sun God myths.
Paintings of Jesus and the halo or crown of thorns resemble exactly those of statues of Apollo apart from the clothes, Mary and Jesus resemble Isis and Horus etc etc.

Attacking Christian beliefs, is thus attacking the beliefs of our dead White ancestors.

The only way to understand Christian beliefs, is to focus on what people do, not what they say, and to understand that there is no one Christian belief, and that the term "Christian" is essentially meaningless.
It is simply an umbrella term for White religious beliefs in general.

Self-sacrifice, dedication, courage these are the basis of white religious beliefs.

Bible stories that support these concepts were chosen when the Bible was compiled, in order to unite the various White nations and tribes together, by amalgamating their various religions into one which incoporated all their various beliefs.

However, this failed, as none ever follow that one system, not even the Orthodox who compiled it.

Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, however have very real meaning, as they each follow an internal belief system and structure closely.

Atheists tend to be thick on the ground in socialist countries during peacetime, as the government takes the place of the church.

However, when war and disaster break out, and the government collapses, churches are the only structures capable of keeping people alive.

Atheists then suddenly discover Jesus, and former atheists can be found at the front of the queue praying, and receiving their food, water, blankets and tents donated by Christians most gratefully, as they look outside the fence, and see their former homes smouldering rubble, corpses littering the street, and the whole night outside their area is filled with screams and shots.

Refugee camps are very interesting places.
I'd recommend all atheists go visit one, and then play "Spot the atheist". You won't find any.

Religion survives because of it's money, structures and institutions, it serves to set the standard for behaviour, and former tribal customs, cultures etc have simply now been lumped into "religious traditions".

The main reason religion survives, is because most of those who believe in it and support it, survive.

Atheists die out during wars, along with their arguments.

Atheists would also do well to consider the financial expenditure of churches, funded by donations, currently spent on schools, hospitals, hospices, medicines, feeding schemes etc, and consider how much additional tax and enforced labour they would have to pay and contribute in order for the state to take over those functions.

Socialism is little more than the state taking over those functions formerly fulfilled by churches.

To date nothing, no government, party, ideology or group, has ever outlasted a religious group it attacks, except by forming a rival religion, and converting them away from their former religion.

According to current scientific beliefs, the universe created itself out of fire, which turned into rocks, which turned into living creatures.
And that's supposed to be firstly rational, whilst it is anything but, and secondly an alternative to religion?

WN has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with whatever will ensure the survival of Whites.
If religion does that, then so what.

Pretty much every existing White country, and all that has been built by Whites over the last 2000 years, has been built by professing "Christians", whether they actually believe or not.

There is no atheist society on record that has ever separated from Jews, whilst Christians do so regularly and the secession movements will again result in separation, secession and new countries. They are nothing new.

However, in all societies, Jews have most power amongst and over the atheists.

According to atheists, WN should drop survival of the race as an objective, and instead attack Christianity, thereby isolating the majority of Whites from us, and guaranteeing defeat and extermination.
Christianity has been attacked for 2000 years, to no avail.

That we are honestly expected to stop focusing on survival, until a 2000 year old argument is won by a group of people who believe their ancestors were fire and rocks, is ridiculous.

We should also apparently increase the role and thereby power and wealth of the state, and should remove the one structure that has ever been able to rival the state in power, been able to topple states and empires in need, and which has formed most white countries today, through secesssion, settlement and in need, conquest.

Most atheists are as irrelevant as neo nazis in real life struggle.
They have no organisations, no structures, no money, no power, no capacity to do anything, and are generally ignored.

There is both a creative and a destructive force in the universe.
Whether Christianity or any other religion accurately describes those forces, or deny their existence, does not affect the existence of those forces.

The world is run by religious groups.

Those who cannot understand or accept that, are not living in reality themselves, and will never gain any influence or power to change anything.

They may know that, so to avoid doing anything, profess atheism, so as to use it as an excuse, saying they can't do anything because Christians won't let them, so they will do nothing, but sit and continue a 2000 year old unwinnable argument.

The test will be in times to come, when the invading armies attack, and the state disintegrates, and they and their family are burnt and starving and wounded, and the red cross van pulls up, and asks them to jump aboard to take them to the refugee camp set up by local churches, and the medics jump out to out them onto stretchers and cover them with blankets, and give them medicine and food and water, all donated by religious people.

We will see if they then have the conviction of their beliefs, and turn the van away, and go it alone.

In life, if one wants the publics support, then it is stupid to say and do things that drive people away. One needs to go along to get along in politics.

What people say means nothing.
What they do, means everything.

So far atheists say much, but have to date done nothing.
Religious people have formed countries and governments, and all nationalist parties have a core of religious believers, using the party to further their goal of creating a religious state.

Those WN who want political power, whether we believe in religion or not, would be well advised to leave religion alone, and to focus on doing and saying things that will give us the power to create and enforce legislation, and gain control of taxbases, so that we can secede.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old September 9th, 2010 #11
cillian
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 6,375
cillian
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
Christianity is not practiced according the Bible, most Christians have never read the Bible, and only a tiny handful of quotes from the New Testament are used, to illustrate general points.

Thus what the Bible says or doesn't say, is totally irrelevant when it comes to analysing or attacking Christian beliefs, as none follow the Bible.
Quote:
Christian adj. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
I overheard a homeless guy talking to himself once, he said, "The Devil believes in God, it's not enough to believe, you must obey". This struck me as being quite accurate. It's easy to claim to be this or that or to claim to have a set of beliefs, but actually having them is a different matter.

So if christians are only vaguely familiar with the teachings of jesus the christ, then how can anyone take them or their beliefs seriously? They aren't even serious about their beliefs.
 
Old September 9th, 2010 #12
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cillian View Post
So if christians are only vaguely familiar with the teachings of jesus the christ, then how can anyone take them or their beliefs seriously? They aren't even serious about their beliefs.
For all Hugh's maundering, they don't have any political power either. I mean, how embarrassing is it that you are the 90% majority in a country and you have to withdraw from the "public" schools because they teach something you don't believe? Then some clown says you don't get political power by attacking them. I guess he's excepting the jews from that judgment. You know - the ones who own and run the country and shit on christ-insanity every chance they get?

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 9th, 2010 at 02:48 PM.
 
Old September 9th, 2010 #13
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,375
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Streed View Post
Mr. Linder, my hat is off to you sir! That was a pure joy to read. The muses were smiling upon you when you wrote that delightful little literary gem.

It kind of reminds me of the best of J. J. Solari's stuff back when he was in his prime, not as vulgar as Solari but something of the same style.

Edit: a link to JJ Solari's blog http://www.jjsolari-vs-you.blogspot.com/
You gotta understand that he is just a shadow of his former self, age, drugs, cheap booze, and wild living took their toll.
Well, thanks, Fred. I have not heard of Solari but look forward to reading him.
 
Old September 9th, 2010 #14
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,850
Hugh
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
For all Hugh's maundering, they don't have any political power either. I mean, how embarrassing is it that you are the 90% majority in a country and you have to withdraw from the "public" schools because they teach something you don't believe? Then some clown says you don't get political power by attacking them. I guess he's excepting the jews from that judgment. You know - the ones who own and run the country and shit on christ-insanity every chance they get?
Alex, claiming that Christians have no power, then blaming them for the downfall of the White race, is somewhat contradictory.
Why aren't atheists leading the way then, and showing how it's done?

Jews have little power at local level, one should not mistake infighting between Whites for Jewish manipulation.
Jews have only been around for 3000 years, Whites for hundreds of thousands probably.

Whites happily butchered and raped and plundered each other long before Jews came along, do so where there aren't any Jews at all, and will do so when there aren't any Jews anymore.
It's just on a lesser scale, and less damaging.

Whites don't all get along, and never have.
Look at this very forum.

The Fabians consist of just on 5000 people, who have formed the Labour party in Britain, and regularly rule Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

635 people pass the laws for the federal government, and another one signs them off.

Oligarchies are the norm.

There will be what there always has been, lots and lots of small city states, controlled by oligarchies of White families, ruling over other Whites who do as they're told.

You don't have to convince me, or the members of the forum of your arguments against Christianity, you have to convince the Whites where you personally live, and then get them to give you power, and money and support.
How's that working out so far?

How many ngo's and statutory organisations have you chaired?
How many years have you chaired a mainstream political branch or constituency?
How many laws have you affected?
How much money do you move around on municipal, county or state budgets?
How many public and organisational meetings do you hold each week?
How many secessionist movements do you support?
How many campaigns do you participate in?
What is your plan for your living area and how are you achieving it?
If you aren't even on the exco of your local ratepayers association, then of what value is all the talk?

Since religious people usually kill those who oppose them, they need to be taken seriously.

One needs to distinguish between traditional churches, which are communities or tribes, and the megachurches, which are businesses.

Traditional churches are usually self sufficient, or trying to be, and see attacks on them as an attack on the tribe.
Megachurches are a power base of often tens of thousands of people, if families are included.

Both put people into power, but traditional churches last for centuries, megachurches die with their founders.

Politically, nobody cares what atheists think, or what people who don't vote think.

They are simply not important politically, and we are involved in a political struggle, over control of governments, legislation, and taxbases.

Christians do have large support, lots of money, massive organisational structures and capacity, and do have political power.

They don't need atheists support, and what they do or don't do decides your future.
__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
https://canvasopedia.org/wp-content/...Points-web.pdf
 
Old September 9th, 2010 #15
Remote
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 59
Remote
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
I mean, is it not astounding that, in a mere eight pages of a 101-page book, the author can afford to list ALL non-christian references to the Main Player In All World History?
True.

But it is also possible that so little exists-- and that what does exist is largely buried within the Church Fathers' refutations-- because when the Christians got control of the decaying Empire, they simply destroyed what they didn't like; and perhaps what was closer to the time of Jesus was more damning, and so less acceptable to keep around.

Anyway, having studied this a bit recently (and feeling compelled to run my big mouth when my opinion was not requested), I just wanted to chime in to say that I can't accept a 100% mythical Jesus, although I am totally fine with the notion that he is a largely mythological composite figure. I do think that there was a man, named Jesus, who was an anti-Roman agitator and apocalyptic messianic Jew (probably a member of a radical Essene sect and perhaps a Galilean bandit), whose image was softened up by Marranos and Hellenized Jews and conflated with other, earlier, Jewish religious teachers and aspiring messiahs, some of whom were also named Jesus. (I saw a figure somewhere that claimed about 1 in 10 Jewish boys at the time of Christ were named "Yahweh Saves" -- Yeshua, or Jesus, or Joshua; all the same name; the same name as the guy in the Old Testament who 'saved' the Jews by supposedly genociding the Canaanites. Instructive, that.)

And Saul-Paul (whatever in the world he was, exactly-- schizoid Jew or perhaps even Roman spy provoking divisions within rebel groups) was largely responsible for the invention of the transcendent Christ, who got mixed up with the mystery religions (like Mithraism and the Cult of Cybele) which his mystical version of Jesus sort of sprung from to begin with, and which he pimped to the Roman gutters and to the mongrels in the Provinces.

A bit on the flesh-and-blood Gospel Jesus (instead of Paul's transcendent Jesus in the ozone somewhere):

Scholars generally agree that the first Gospel, Mark, was written during or just after the Jewish War of 70AD. One can discern through the redaction pieces of a Jewish zealot and political radical Jesus, edited to seem less so, presumably in a sort of propaganda act that would show the Goyim in Rome how the Jews who lived there were not really a theat: i.e., Jesus was just a faith-healing holy man (like other Jesuses), not an anti-Roman seditionist. Despite the many apparent revisions, Mark, as we know it, (almost certainly written by a Jew, and probably in Rome) is the most interesting gospel because it is least affected by developing Christology and because it lets a few things slip. The tale of the Syrophonecian Woman in Mark shows how Jesus felt about the Goyim: they were dogs fighting for Jewish scraps and unworthy of the Kingdom. Jesus is portrayed as a kind of epileptic; Mary, his mother, remarks that Jesus is "out of his mind"-- she apparently forgets that she was impregnated by God and his unusual behavior is Divine.

Most fascinating of all, however, is that "Barabbas", the Jewish rebel who escapes execution at the behest of the mob, in the earliest existing versions of the gospel actually bears the full name: Jesus Barabbas.

Barabbas is Bar Abbas, meaning literally, "the son of the father" (!).

So, you see, Goyim, it was that other Jew named Jesus, Son of the Father, who who was the anti-Roman seditionist-- not the pacifistic faith-healer Jesus, who was a good Jew, like us. We love Rome!

(Also interesting-- and R.P. Oliver mentions it, I remember-- Nero was right. It was 'early Christians', i.e., messianic Jews who set the fire that burned Rome nearly to the ground in 64AD.)

As time went on, and more Gentiles got on board with the help of Paul, and with the hands of Hellenized Jews covering their own asses among the Goyim obscuring the real Jesus, the Jewish Jeboo who hated the Goyim and longed for the fiery destruction of Rome faded.

And that's why Christianity is so destructive: it is a Jewish apocalyptic fantasy of the destruction of the Goyim masquerading as a Greek-ified religion of universal love; belief in Christianity is really the internalization of a immortal Jewish supremacist's desire for one's own destruction.

Lastly, the Church Fathers in the following centuries got rid of everything the others missed that didn't jibe with the then official story.

That's my take on it, anyway, having studied it for about a year now, I guess. The most thorough case I know for for the totally mythological Jesus is by Earl Dogherty in the Jesus Puzzle, whose work is based on an academic scholar's named Wells; and while I think it is obvious that Paul's vision of Jeboo is totally transcendent and uninterested in (and maybe even totally ignorant of) the flesh-and-blood Jesus, it is a stretch to claim that Jesus was totally metaphysical-imaginary and became 'real' later, in light of what scholars know about Essenes and especially considering the Jerusalem Church and Paul's conflict with it and the actual disciples of Jesus, which I guess could be historiography, but sure doesn't ring that way.
 
Old September 9th, 2010 #16
zoomcopter
Senior Member
 
zoomcopter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The goyim reservation
Posts: 4,755
Blog Entries: 3
zoomcopter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
[#1 Some "Thallos" claims there was an eclipse at some point during Jesus' upsticking. This mention was around 55 AD. Can we not Valley-Girl our eyes and "What-ever."
Ha, ha..that's the line I liked the best
__________________
New York fines anyone using the term, "Illegal Alien" in a derogatory manner. Can using the term, "Jew" be that far behind?
 
Old September 10th, 2010 #17
Oy Ze Hate
We're the Good Guys
 
Oy Ze Hate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pediatric Burn Unit
Posts: 4,776
Oy Ze Hate
Default

Alex, you answer the question: "How can a man be good friend to someone he's never met?".

Thanks.

Sorry I never sent you any money.

Super essay! Super! Dripping with the sarcasm and sneer a true intellectual should give to such a senseless and tragic thing as the Christ-insanity. Bravo.

By the way, I see you like Revilo. He always called the Holey Babble the Jew Book. Really. That's pretty fine slang for a man of his day.
 
Old September 10th, 2010 #18
Harry Flash
Sexist Bastard
 
Harry Flash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,123
Harry Flash
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oy Ze Hate View Post

Super essay! Super! Dripping with the sarcasm and sneer a true intellectual should give to such a senseless and tragic thing as the Christ-insanity. Bravo.
All I see is pretentious rhetoric that thinks it has discovered something no one has thought of before. When Linder's theological speculations graduate from Junior High they may be worth something.
__________________
.
 
Old September 10th, 2010 #19
Bassanio
Hath not a Goy eyes?
 
Bassanio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Venice
Posts: 4,287
Blog Entries: 6
Bassanio
Default

Quote:
When Linder's theological speculations graduate from Junior High they may be worth something.
I'm still waiting for theology to graduate from kindergarten.
__________________
The Goy cries out in ecstasy as the Jew strikes him.
 
Old November 10th, 2013 #20
Wergeled
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1
Wergeled
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Streed View Post
Mr. Linder, my hat is off to you sir! That was a pure joy to read. The muses were smiling upon you when you wrote that delightful little literary gem.

It kind of reminds me of the best of J. J. Solari's stuff back when he was in his prime, not as vulgar as Solari but something of the same style.

Edit: a link to JJ Solari's blog http://www.jjsolari-vs-you.blogspot.com/
You gotta understand that he is just a shadow of his former self, age, drugs, cheap booze, and wild living took their toll.
visito il tuo blog ma non riesco a capire le cose intere abbia immesso l. plz darci qualche esempio che davvero facile per noi. hai aggiornato il tuo blog per il nostro facile accesso.
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:45 PM.
Page generated in 0.19276 seconds.