Basic Dimension
http://sexualreligion.blogspot.com/
Number Archive
In Greek mythology we clearly see a relation between gods and sexual roles:
Assumption 50: The polytheistic space of gods (in the archetype of God) exists of five sexual dimensions. With two dimensions, heterosexuality is opposed to other sexual roles. With five dimensions it concerns the following hierarchy:
But if it concerns monotheism as specific male religion, then this main factor is the last remaining conscious dimension in religious space. Then, this dimension is the ultimate shrunk of sexual or religious space by testosterone. Also then the religious dimension 'monotheism' equals the sexual dimension 'sadomasochism'.
This means any polytheistic space of gods will collaps into a single monotheistic vector by the influence of testosterone. And a female space will always be polytheistic under estrogen. Why? Because this perfectly describes the state of human nature. And remember, females are part of 'other sexual roles' and are conscious and empathic about their own sexual role, of course.
So, if gods are sexual roles, we build a bridge between sexuality and religion. It is our view that religious space is equivalent to sexual space in the heads of males. Religion is the eternal form of sexuality. Though religion gives another meaning to the sexual domain, it uses the same space:
The eternity dimension of sexuality:
Next, we relate combinations of sexual roles to religions. They are combined through the human quality of empathy:
Or sexual roles on a religious scale:
Thus, we connected sexual connotations to religions and then converted religion into sexuality:
Since, our assumption is religion belongs to the sexual domain:
Monotheism compresses 'other sexual roles', while polytheism expands gods into sexual roles:
Next we place this five dimensional religious space into the male's head:
The space of gods
Again, higher mammals living in groups together have next ordering of sexual roles:
The power relations between sexual roles are determined by nature and give their place in the hierarchy. But this can be changed, as we will see with Christianity.
In the Alpha male model all sexual roles are in the conscious, besides bestiality what is not consciously supported. And sex with other species does not happen much:
But in human polytheism, bestiality (God Pan) is also empathically embraced in the conscious:
With monotheism we totally run into difficulties. Muslims only acknowledge the heterosexual male superiority of Allah. This means all other roles must be black:
Polytheism
Muslims are right, Christianity is no monotheism. If Jesus is the son of God, He must be divine himself. Then Christians have two gods to worship. And they do. Two antagonistic sexual roles: God = male heterosexuality and Jesus = other sexual roles, together include the whole sexual spectrum:
But Christianity is more complicated:
Semi-polytheism
In Christianity bestiality is not empathically supported in the conscious but is suppressed in the unconscious. Homosexuality is a special case, because it is conditionally suppressed in the subconscious until gays acknowledge their sin and do penance. On the other hand it is embraced in the conscious for the homosexual clergy, who do penance by conviction implicitly. This complication is not given in the picture below:
Semi-polytheism was an excellent opportunity for the homosexual clergy to take over the power from the Alpha male, which was just a trace in the brain inherited from the animal world. And so, it happened. The homosexual clergy pretended to take charge of the tasks of God on Earth. But in fact it was a seizure of power and Christians tumbled in this coup with their eyes wide opened.
On the other hand: The role of Jesus has supplanted God. That is why it is called Christianity.
Homosexual schizophrenia in Christianity
Christians empathically experience sexual roles in the conscious, but suppress bestiality in the unconscious. Split sexual identity emerges between homosexuality from the clergy, which is the leading group in Christianity and other gay citizens, who are insulted and denounced until they are creeping from sin and penance. Christianity is playing chess with sexual roles:
Christianity has been embraced by proud polytheistic Western peoples
In the evolution exogamous peoples embraced polytheistic religions. But Western peoples also embraced Christianity:
1) because of its respect for 'other sexual roles', except bestiality.
2) because of the rejection of inbreeding and incest.
3) but most importantly, because of the promise of life after death in heaven of the parallel universe.
Because inbreeding as base for Christianity was rejected, the Romans had to develop the completely new religious formula of 'guilt and penance'. In fact they developed the 'masochistic philosophy' out of Jesus' submissive behavior to his ''Father''.
Jesus and his "Father"
Jesus was in his thirties and apparently had an abnormal relationship with his "father". In the first place he likely would not have spoken about 'God, The Father' if he still had a father. Maybe he had a fatherless upbringing with an identification problem. Maybe a developmental disorder due to lack of a paternal attention. For, this is not normal behavior.
It is weird for a man in his thirties to glorify his relationship to a fictitious father. Now I do not think Jesus was gay because this relationship fits perfectly in monotheism from those days. Jesus has his personality split on the sadomasochistic dimension, on which he chose the masochistic role.
But the God of Jesus was no sadistic personality at all. Therefore, Jesus had a childlike relationship with his fictitious Father in which there was mutual trust.
Well, the Christian God was no sadist but definitely Jesus was a masochist. Then the main difference with Allah from Islam is the God of Christianity can be trusted under all circumstances, without threat or hatred.
This means Christianity gives a different interpretation of the relationship with God. Jesus rejects the sadomasochistic model and sees God as a trustful father. In fact Jesus rejects SM-dyad and accepts Vanilla-dyad, the main difference between monotheism and polytheism.
But if Christianity was pure masochistic in the mantle, Western peoples could not be tightened together as a mammal groups. And this created space for the Christian Church, which fulfilled the sadistic role in the core:
Jesus was a masochist and offered the perfect template for the later homosexual clergy to project their sinner role into.
In history, Christians gave Jesus an increasingly weak and masochistic appearance, here pictured amid androgenic angels. It is about sin and penance but it is worn by masochistic weakness:
Never ever the homosexual clergy realized the odds of a takeover by lesbianism, but just that did happen, not in church but in society. And of course, why not? Since Christianity lost its authoritarian endogamous heart through the Enlightenment:
The Enlightenment was not able to formulate ethical rules to discriminate between cultures. Then, Romanticism got the chance to declare all cultures equal and equivalent. Thereafter, Marxist relativism nihiliated Western culture and abandoned Christianity. Then, women's suffrage distorted the voters landscape and with the help of former Christian masochistic males women came in charge in Western society.
Christianity went on to liberalism, a masochistic religion without a God (policor). In liberalism, e.g. the Democrats in the USA, ethical norms imposed on the population are contrary to their own behavior. Anyway, cutting corners, masochistic latent lesbians were not satisfied with Vanilla-dyad anymore and secretly opted for Muslim SM-dyad.
Since long-time Western exogamous culture is determined by 'other sexual roles', which implies female roles. But originally masochism was not implied. Masochism emerged from Christianity. But it fits very well in Christianity as in monotheism from Islam:
Anyway this is discussed many times elsewhere on this site and we conclude Christians are masochistic, Western peoples have become masochistic in 2000 years.
But Western women never were attracted to the homosexual clergy and with the upcoming Marxist relativism they got their chance to take over Western society. And so it happened. But without a functioning endogamous core mammal groups fall apart into individualism. What also happened in the Western world. Then, latent lesbian rulers of the Western world were looking for a new authoritarian and sadistic core, which they found in Islam:
The transition of sexual roles
First, a masculine female trend developed in which females copied male sexual behavior. It is an underlying condition for the later takeover by aggressive feminists. But it is not more than a logical ordering.
Then, lesbian feminists took over society without knowing they constituted a new and trendsetting sexual role which misformed society by women's suffrage. In our model, they rejected the homosexual clergy and became the new God of Western society:
And now this mammal group lost its endogamous core. Western society had become exogamous in mantle and core. No sexual bounderies were left and sexual mingling was propagated with any people in the world. There were no cultural bounderies left. All cultures were equal and equivalent, because the Enlightenment had failed to give ethical rules to discriminate between cultures:
Nowadays totally insane and immoral Western society is based on this ethical flaw on which also the European Union is based:
Christianity has transformed society into matriarchy. See the bonobos:
Summarizing:
A mixed exogamous/endogamous culture is always based on tension between the exogamous mantle and the endogamous core. This is the Alpha male model:
That is natural law for mammal GROUPS as a modus vivendi:
Changing this model by deletion of the endogamous core will cause endogamies to fall apart into complete individualism. This is quite normal in nature, because all mammal groups are only temporary manifestations of the more fundamental law:
And mammal groups have always to form this compromise:
Left or right:
If this basic law is neglected but individuals still want to form a group, they will look for a new authoritarian sadistic endogamous core. And that is the reason for the Muslim immigration in fading Christianity:
Western society is a fading Christian flower in which the exogamous mantle has captured the endogamous core.
The endogamous core can be compared to the male kin bonded lineage from primate groups. These groups stay together and exchange juvenile females from the mantle with other groups:
What happens is the Christian Church, the core of Christianity has disappeared as if the male kin bonded lineage has gone and now there is no reason left to keep the group of Christians together. But because individuals are tied together by numerous bonds, groups must stay together though the authoritarian Christian Church has been driven out of the core.
This means the primal law of nature cannot do its job since it is compromised by the group which does not fall apart. Then, there is only one solution and that is to look for another endogamous core, for the SM-dyad from Islam:
.jpg)
http://sexualreligion.blogspot.com/
Number Archive
 |
| Greek gods |
In Greek mythology we clearly see a relation between gods and sexual roles:
Assumption 2: Gods are sexual roles.
Not all gods, of course, only them with a sexual connotation which may also include sadomasochism, the core of human sexuality. As an example, monotheistic gods can be scaled on this dimension.
Above assumption is needed to transform religion into sexuality. Then, if gods are sexual roles we may order them on a sexual scale. Our next assumption is male heterosexuality is the primus inter pares:
Assumption 1: God is a sexual ideal projection of higher mammals in the alpha male. He personifies the role of polygamous heterosexuality.
 |
| The God pan is described as amorous; a lusty phallic god of carnal gratification. He possesses a powerful kind of magic that inspires rampant sexual energy in whomever he chooses. Pan was known to chase and seduce countless nymphs, shepherd boys, and other goats in ancient times. https://greekgodpan.wordpress.com/tag/paganism/ |
Above assumption is needed to transform religion into sexuality. Then, if gods are sexual roles we may order them on a sexual scale. Our next assumption is male heterosexuality is the primus inter pares:
Assumption 1: God is a sexual ideal projection of higher mammals in the alpha male. He personifies the role of polygamous heterosexuality.
Then, the following arrangement of sexual roles reflects the ordering of strength between the sexes:
Assumption 50: The polytheistic space of gods (in the archetype of God) exists of five sexual dimensions. With two dimensions, heterosexuality is opposed to other sexual roles. With five dimensions it concerns the following hierarchy:
1: First God: male heterosexuality. [Alpha male]
2: Second God: male homosexuality. [homosexual clergy]
3: Third God: female sexual roles.
4: Fourth God: pedophilia.
5: Fifth God: bestiality.
In which sadomasochism (sexuality) is equivalent to monotheism (religion):
.jpg)
Thousands of human gods must be interdependent vectors in the 5-dimensional sexual space. And the vertical main factor of this religious polytheistic space must be monotheism on which all dependent god-vectors project their sadomasochism, the primal sexual impetus from mankind:
In which sadomasochism (sexuality) is equivalent to monotheism (religion):
.jpg)
But if it concerns monotheism as specific male religion, then this main factor is the last remaining conscious dimension in religious space. Then, this dimension is the ultimate shrunk of sexual or religious space by testosterone. Also then the religious dimension 'monotheism' equals the sexual dimension 'sadomasochism'.
Assumption 175:
Reincarnation delivered the immanent gods for polytheism, which gods filled the multidimensional physiological space of gods in the human brain, corresponding to the five sexual main dimensions of sexual power: heterosexuality, homosexuality, female sexual roles, pedophilia and bestiality. Therefore gods are sexual dimensions too. Of course other gods, originated from natural disasters, were projected also on these power dimensions of the space of gods. Thousands of human gods are interdependent within this rank of five. Monotheism is a forced truncation * of this domain, which divides the space of gods into sadomasochism and remaining dimensions.
* Truncation of sexual dimensions is not the same as statistical explanation, for now no empathy develops for unconscious and suppressed 'other sexual roles', causing cultural psychopathy and generating masochism hate and masochism fear against victims.
Religious space lies in sexual space and has the same rank=5:
Assumption 68: In humans, the number of interdependent gods (n) in the polytheistic space of gods (rank=m=5 vectors) in the archetype of God (rank=p=5 factors) is unlimited, with the SM-dyad as principal component (main factor) (p=1). SM-dyad is called 'monotheism' otherwise. With male testosterone this space will be gradually restricted to only one conscious dimension (p=1), the SM-dyad or Allah-construct, named otherwise monotheism or sadomasochism. Remaining (m=4) components are relegated to the unconscious. But in case of estrogen all sexual factors (p=5) remain unaffected in the conscious of women.Notice beforehand, we place empathy with sexual roles in the conscious, and suppression of other roles in the unconscious:
So, if gods are sexual roles, we build a bridge between sexuality and religion. It is our view that religious space is equivalent to sexual space in the heads of males. Religion is the eternal form of sexuality. Though religion gives another meaning to the sexual domain, it uses the same space:
The eternity dimension of sexuality:
Notice, sexual roles in the conscious are empathically acknowledged and persons belonging to these roles are seen as subjects, as human beings. On the other hand, sexual roles suppressed in the unconscious belong to persons seen as objects, as tables and chairs.
Then, we arrange religions on a sexual scale:
Or sexual roles on a religious scale:
Thus, we connected sexual connotations to religions and then converted religion into sexuality:
Since, our assumption is religion belongs to the sexual domain:
Monotheism compresses 'other sexual roles', while polytheism expands gods into sexual roles:
Next we place this five dimensional religious space into the male's head:
The space of gods
 |
| Notice sadomasochism equals monotheism = male heterosexuality |
The power relations between sexual roles are determined by nature and give their place in the hierarchy. But this can be changed, as we will see with Christianity.
In the Alpha male model all sexual roles are in the conscious, besides bestiality what is not consciously supported. And sex with other species does not happen much:
But in human polytheism, bestiality (God Pan) is also empathically embraced in the conscious:
With monotheism we totally run into difficulties. Muslims only acknowledge the heterosexual male superiority of Allah. This means all other roles must be black:
Polytheism
Muslims are right, Christianity is no monotheism. If Jesus is the son of God, He must be divine himself. Then Christians have two gods to worship. And they do. Two antagonistic sexual roles: God = male heterosexuality and Jesus = other sexual roles, together include the whole sexual spectrum:
But Christianity is more complicated:
Semi-polytheism
In Christianity bestiality is not empathically supported in the conscious but is suppressed in the unconscious. Homosexuality is a special case, because it is conditionally suppressed in the subconscious until gays acknowledge their sin and do penance. On the other hand it is embraced in the conscious for the homosexual clergy, who do penance by conviction implicitly. This complication is not given in the picture below:
Semi-polytheism was an excellent opportunity for the homosexual clergy to take over the power from the Alpha male, which was just a trace in the brain inherited from the animal world. And so, it happened. The homosexual clergy pretended to take charge of the tasks of God on Earth. But in fact it was a seizure of power and Christians tumbled in this coup with their eyes wide opened.
On the other hand: The role of Jesus has supplanted God. That is why it is called Christianity.
Homosexual schizophrenia in Christianity
Christians empathically experience sexual roles in the conscious, but suppress bestiality in the unconscious. Split sexual identity emerges between homosexuality from the clergy, which is the leading group in Christianity and other gay citizens, who are insulted and denounced until they are creeping from sin and penance. Christianity is playing chess with sexual roles:
Christianity has been embraced by proud polytheistic Western peoples
In the evolution exogamous peoples embraced polytheistic religions. But Western peoples also embraced Christianity:
1) because of its respect for 'other sexual roles', except bestiality.
2) because of the rejection of inbreeding and incest.
3) but most importantly, because of the promise of life after death in heaven of the parallel universe.
Because inbreeding as base for Christianity was rejected, the Romans had to develop the completely new religious formula of 'guilt and penance'. In fact they developed the 'masochistic philosophy' out of Jesus' submissive behavior to his ''Father''.
Jesus and his "Father"
Jesus was in his thirties and apparently had an abnormal relationship with his "father". In the first place he likely would not have spoken about 'God, The Father' if he still had a father. Maybe he had a fatherless upbringing with an identification problem. Maybe a developmental disorder due to lack of a paternal attention. For, this is not normal behavior.
It is weird for a man in his thirties to glorify his relationship to a fictitious father. Now I do not think Jesus was gay because this relationship fits perfectly in monotheism from those days. Jesus has his personality split on the sadomasochistic dimension, on which he chose the masochistic role.
But the God of Jesus was no sadistic personality at all. Therefore, Jesus had a childlike relationship with his fictitious Father in which there was mutual trust.
Well, the Christian God was no sadist but definitely Jesus was a masochist. Then the main difference with Allah from Islam is the God of Christianity can be trusted under all circumstances, without threat or hatred.
This means Christianity gives a different interpretation of the relationship with God. Jesus rejects the sadomasochistic model and sees God as a trustful father. In fact Jesus rejects SM-dyad and accepts Vanilla-dyad, the main difference between monotheism and polytheism.
But if Christianity was pure masochistic in the mantle, Western peoples could not be tightened together as a mammal groups. And this created space for the Christian Church, which fulfilled the sadistic role in the core:
Jesus was a masochist and offered the perfect template for the later homosexual clergy to project their sinner role into.
In history, Christians gave Jesus an increasingly weak and masochistic appearance, here pictured amid androgenic angels. It is about sin and penance but it is worn by masochistic weakness:
 |
| Trinidad El Greco |
So, did the Christian Church like homosexuals? Did they embrace 'other sexual roles' like Jesus did? Well, maybe in Christianity homosexuals were not thrown headfirst from the building as in Islam, but do not forget in the Netherlands the Catholic clergy still cut off the balls of homosexual boys in the fifties of last century. Why is that if they themselves were gay too?
The homosexual clergy was the ultimate sinner and saw it as its task to persecute homosexuals outside the walls of the church as kind of penance.
And because they were sinners already, they meanwhile took their chance to rape young boys where possible.
The Christian Church never saw Christianity as polytheistic but as monotheistic. Therefore, homosexuality is the greatest sin, also in Christianity. This, although they have a lot of gods: God, Jesus as his Son, Mary and a lot of holy others. So, homosexuality is a sin inherited from monotheism.
But then, why is the homosexual clergy leading the Church. That is because they are model sinners in Christianity. Without the existence of 'sin' Christianity has no meaning. Without the 'passion of Christ' this religion cannot exist.
Female homosexualityThe homosexual clergy was the ultimate sinner and saw it as its task to persecute homosexuals outside the walls of the church as kind of penance.
And because they were sinners already, they meanwhile took their chance to rape young boys where possible.
The Christian Church never saw Christianity as polytheistic but as monotheistic. Therefore, homosexuality is the greatest sin, also in Christianity. This, although they have a lot of gods: God, Jesus as his Son, Mary and a lot of holy others. So, homosexuality is a sin inherited from monotheism.
But then, why is the homosexual clergy leading the Church. That is because they are model sinners in Christianity. Without the existence of 'sin' Christianity has no meaning. Without the 'passion of Christ' this religion cannot exist.
Substitution of sexual roles
In Christianity, homosexuality fought the heterosexual God in disguise. The homosexual clergy submitted to God, a non existent Alpha male, just a trace in the human brain. And so homosexuality, the second God became the first on Earth in the absence of the heterosexual God in the parallel universe. And Christians trusted their homosexual clergy, until women's suffrage.
- So, in Christianity the homosexual clergy has become the deputy of God on Earth, because mankind left the Alpha male behind in the animal kingdom:
This coup never happened in full polytheism:
In Christianity, homosexuality fought the heterosexual God in disguise. The homosexual clergy submitted to God, a non existent Alpha male, just a trace in the human brain. And so homosexuality, the second God became the first on Earth in the absence of the heterosexual God in the parallel universe. And Christians trusted their homosexual clergy, until women's suffrage.
- So, in Christianity the homosexual clergy has become the deputy of God on Earth, because mankind left the Alpha male behind in the animal kingdom:
Christianity has been derived from the polytheistic model, but Christianity has suffered substitution of sexual roles. The first and second sexual role were exchanged. The reason is in semi-Christianity more sexual roles were in the conscious than in monotheism.
So, what was impossible in Islam, happened in Christianity. Was this an accidental corollary of semi-polytheism? Definitely not, it was an imposed opportunity. This coup was only possible in semi-polytheism, in Christianity.
Christianity appears to be a strange mixture of monotheism and polytheism. This cannot be accidental. Homosexuality is the canary in the coalmine. Why is that? Because, somehow this weird religious construct was profitable for Christianity.
The holy grail of the homosexual clergy
Summarizing:
- Homosexuality is the second sexual role and in the absence of the Alpha male from the animal kingdom, Christianity automatically shifted from the second to the first role, and heterosexuality - without Alpha male - became the second god.
- But this did not happen in polytheism, so there must be a difference between polytheism and Christianity.
- Changing the order of sexual roles is only possible in (semi-)polytheism with more sexual roles in the conscious. We know, in monotheism of Islam there is no role for homosexuals in the conscious. This because in Islam there is only one heterosexual God: Allah. And now we understand the gay-problematic in Islam. They have no conscious role for homosexuals without declaring Allah obsolete...
Summarizing:
- Homosexuality is the second sexual role and in the absence of the Alpha male from the animal kingdom, Christianity automatically shifted from the second to the first role, and heterosexuality - without Alpha male - became the second god.
- But this did not happen in polytheism, so there must be a difference between polytheism and Christianity.
- Changing the order of sexual roles is only possible in (semi-)polytheism with more sexual roles in the conscious. We know, in monotheism of Islam there is no role for homosexuals in the conscious. This because in Islam there is only one heterosexual God: Allah. And now we understand the gay-problematic in Islam. They have no conscious role for homosexuals without declaring Allah obsolete...
- Without sin, without masochism there can be no Christianity. For, without sin Jesus has no role. So, a sinful person is a perfect Christian. That's why the homosexual clergy has such a prominent place in Christianity. Homosexuality is the most extreme sin for it threatens the monotheism of God.
- As real homosexuals the clergy was aroused by the chase on other homosexuals outside the church. It was a real lust for them. They developed a sadomasochistic strategy persecuting them, meanwhile being in a masochistic subordinate relationship to theirsadistic forgiving God. Being a Christian priest must have been a lustful experience.
- As sinners, the priests had to do penance and what would be better than persecuting other homosexuals and cut off their balls as punishment from God.
- The Catholic Church has been a real porn power house in history.
- And Islam is not any better:
- As real homosexuals the clergy was aroused by the chase on other homosexuals outside the church. It was a real lust for them. They developed a sadomasochistic strategy persecuting them, meanwhile being in a masochistic subordinate relationship to their
- As sinners, the priests had to do penance and what would be better than persecuting other homosexuals and cut off their balls as punishment from God.
- The Catholic Church has been a real porn power house in history.
- And Islam is not any better:
Never ever the homosexual clergy realized the odds of a takeover by lesbianism, but just that did happen, not in church but in society. And of course, why not? Since Christianity lost its authoritarian endogamous heart through the Enlightenment:
The Enlightenment was not able to formulate ethical rules to discriminate between cultures. Then, Romanticism got the chance to declare all cultures equal and equivalent. Thereafter, Marxist relativism nihiliated Western culture and abandoned Christianity. Then, women's suffrage distorted the voters landscape and with the help of former Christian masochistic males women came in charge in Western society.
Christianity went on to liberalism, a masochistic religion without a God (policor). In liberalism, e.g. the Democrats in the USA, ethical norms imposed on the population are contrary to their own behavior. Anyway, cutting corners, masochistic latent lesbians were not satisfied with Vanilla-dyad anymore and secretly opted for Muslim SM-dyad.
Since long-time Western exogamous culture is determined by 'other sexual roles', which implies female roles. But originally masochism was not implied. Masochism emerged from Christianity. But it fits very well in Christianity as in monotheism from Islam:
Anyway this is discussed many times elsewhere on this site and we conclude Christians are masochistic, Western peoples have become masochistic in 2000 years.
But Western women never were attracted to the homosexual clergy and with the upcoming Marxist relativism they got their chance to take over Western society. And so it happened. But without a functioning endogamous core mammal groups fall apart into individualism. What also happened in the Western world. Then, latent lesbian rulers of the Western world were looking for a new authoritarian and sadistic core, which they found in Islam:
The transition of sexual roles
First, a masculine female trend developed in which females copied male sexual behavior. It is an underlying condition for the later takeover by aggressive feminists. But it is not more than a logical ordering.
Then, lesbian feminists took over society without knowing they constituted a new and trendsetting sexual role which misformed society by women's suffrage. In our model, they rejected the homosexual clergy and became the new God of Western society:
And now this mammal group lost its endogamous core. Western society had become exogamous in mantle and core. No sexual bounderies were left and sexual mingling was propagated with any people in the world. There were no cultural bounderies left. All cultures were equal and equivalent, because the Enlightenment had failed to give ethical rules to discriminate between cultures:
Nowadays totally insane and immoral Western society is based on this ethical flaw on which also the European Union is based:
Christianity has transformed society into matriarchy. See the bonobos:
Summarizing:
A mixed exogamous/endogamous culture is always based on tension between the exogamous mantle and the endogamous core. This is the Alpha male model:
That is natural law for mammal GROUPS as a modus vivendi:
Changing this model by deletion of the endogamous core will cause endogamies to fall apart into complete individualism. This is quite normal in nature, because all mammal groups are only temporary manifestations of the more fundamental law:
And mammal groups have always to form this compromise:
Left or right:
If this basic law is neglected but individuals still want to form a group, they will look for a new authoritarian sadistic endogamous core. And that is the reason for the Muslim immigration in fading Christianity:
Western society is a fading Christian flower in which the exogamous mantle has captured the endogamous core.
The endogamous core can be compared to the male kin bonded lineage from primate groups. These groups stay together and exchange juvenile females from the mantle with other groups:
What happens is the Christian Church, the core of Christianity has disappeared as if the male kin bonded lineage has gone and now there is no reason left to keep the group of Christians together. But because individuals are tied together by numerous bonds, groups must stay together though the authoritarian Christian Church has been driven out of the core.
This means the primal law of nature cannot do its job since it is compromised by the group which does not fall apart. Then, there is only one solution and that is to look for another endogamous core, for the SM-dyad from Islam:
This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Attibution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence.
No comments:
Post a Comment