The “Neg-ing” Jewish Husband and the Christian Wife

Insights of PUA also explain the persistence of Christianity in general. Here, again, the Church or Aryan assembly as wife of the Jewish God is the relevant metaphor. That is to say the Christian is like the wife with no self-esteem. The Jewish God treats her as he will. He insists her pride is a sin, insists she is fallen, sinful, “negs” her, psychologically abuses her and willfully and consciously terrifies her with thoughts of death and damnation. In the current year, he calls her a “racist,” and threatens her with poverty and ostracism.

Yet the Jewish God, as all living beings, has no actual knowledge of death and is in fact more terrified of these things than others. This is why he has clustered so closely with other Jews, to form an echo chamber, so that all might believe they are “proving” an unseen God, so they might reassure each other that a Jewish dominance on the planet is actually a good thing.

This is why Jews have chosen to worship the reaper Saturn. That is to say they worship him out of fear as an enemy might and not for the love of the father, Jupiter, the Aryan race. Indeed it is this very fear that allowed the proto-Jew the ability to recognize its power to terrorize and control others, when he designed the first prototype of the personal salvation cult. Like the PUA artist, the Jew’s effort is to psychologically subdue another by injecting his own insecurities into them.

In line with this, that fascinating paradox, the “Anti-Semitic Christian,” is best understood as simply the more disagreeable wife who is willing to complain about her husband yet possesses no desire or courage to leave. On one hand her husband is “a Pharisaic Jew,” deceitful, hypocritical and selfish, on the other, he’s “Christ,” benevolent and caring. She “takes the good with the bad.”

Yet this dynamic, where “The Lord” or Jews are ostensibly “above” and exclusive, at least on their terms, is precisely what has kept the Christian “in love” with the Jewish God. The Christian, like the teenage girl, would never love a God that would actually love them back, in action, not merely words, one who would allow their pride. This includes not willfully deceiving or falsely assuring them with “knowledge” he doesn’t possess.

Hence, neither should we present a God that loves the Christian or the pride-less follower. Such a God, the pride-less follower would never love, in any case, and such a pride-less flock is of dubious value, eugenic or otherwise. The God we present has followers who are proud of him, because he is them or, at least, their better selves. Hence they are proud also of themselves. We speak, again, of blood and race, of course.