>
>
> ever notice that in Matthew, jesus is reasonably nice and pleasant
> before he goes to jerusalem, whereupon he turns into a judgmental
> madman? to be sure, jesus isn't entirely likable thru much of
> matthew. often, he seems impatient with the dimwittedness of his
> disciples. he's like a smart jew who often wonders, 'how did i end up
> with such morons as followers?'. this is especially true when he
> relates the parables. at one point, he's about to lose it when his
> knucklehead disciples fail to grasp the metaphoric meaning of 'yeast
> and dough'. jesus was probably thinking, 'how can jews be as dumb as
> polacks?' still, jesus is humane and understanding with his obedient
> disciples, poor folks, sick folks, and such. he's even sociable with
> the local rich who are little fish than big fish. and, jesus is
> mostly decent with religious scholars and other such folks of local
> towns.
>
> jesus really gets pissed when he enters jerusalem the big city and
> meets the Big Fish rich folks, Big Power Elders, and Big Book Rabbis.
> 'don't judge lest you be judged' no longer applies. jesus pretty much
> calls for their blood, for them to be torn limb from limb--if not now
> than soon with the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven. why would this be
> so?
>
> it's tempting to argue that jesus suffered from megalomania linked to
> a superiority-inferiority complex. generally, superiority complex or
> inferiority complex is easier to manage than superiority-inferiority
> complex(SIC). someone with superiority complex feels rather confident
> in looking down on the world. take gore vidal or bill buckley. or
> richard dawkins or christopher hitchens. all are privileged, snotty,
> arrogant, smug, and/or contemptuous folks. even as leftists, vidal
> and hitches are of the haute intellectual variety. they think they
> know everything and feel inferior to no one.
> in contrast, inferiority complex is more problematic for the afflicted
> but still makes for emotional and social consistency. such folks feel
> they suck in life and accept their inferiority.
> but, SIC is likely to lead to a kind of bipolar quality in a person.
> a SIC-afflicted person feels superior and thinks he should be
> respected by the world. and they feel genuinely good and act decent
> when people praise them, love them, suckle their toes, and so on.
> but, when they come upon hints or evidence that they are not so great,
> they become bitter, angry, hateful, judgmental, and downright mean.
> a person with superiority complex doesn't feel the need to have All
> the Power or All the Glory. regardless of what the world thinks, they
> feel good about and sure of themselves. they don't need others to
> massage their egos to be constantly reminded of their greatness.
> as for inferiority complexed folks, no amount of compliment or love
> will convince them that they are worth much. they feel miserable but
> secure in their miserableness.
> but, SIC folks really really really feel good when people grovel
> before them, worship them, praise them to heaven, and such. and, they
> really come to believe in their highfaluting greatness. but, there is
> still a seed of doubt within, and when they encounter people or
> situation which fertilizes the seed of doubt into full awareness, they
> panic and turn all crazy.
>
> SIC person cannot long tolerate his equals--how can there be equals
> when he is the greatest?--and, he certainly cannot tolerate his
> superiors--how dare anyone be superior to he? if some people have
> more power, wealth, respect, or etc than he, the SIC person feels it
> must be only thru nefarious means since he and only he is the Great
> Pure Noble Man.
> such people strike out at the social order for total power, total
> respect, total glory, and/or total victory. since it sounds ignoble
> and selfish to seek power for one's own glory, he claims to do it for
> The People, Justice, the Truth. they feed on the envy and hatred
> among the misguided inferiors against the false superiors. the
> inferiors are seen as misguided because they haven't yet been turned
> onto the gospel of one-and-only messiah. and the superiors have false
> qualifications to be rich, powerful, and/or prestigious since Real
> Respect is only belongs to the one-and-only messiah.
>
> though jesus was a wise man, a great man, a noble man, a courageous
> man, and such, he was also a megalomaniac firebrand if we go by the
> Matthew Gospel. we must ultimately respect him because he walked the
> walk as to what he was gonna do for mankind and the world, but his
> psychology wasn't much different than that of other SIC folks of
> history.
>
> consider hitler. hitler loved animals such as dogs which were so
> devoted to him. he was kind, decent, and appreciative of those who
> were utterly loyal to him. just as jesus told his followers to follow
> him to death to the end of their lives, hitler expected his followers
> to follow him to the very end. so, hitler actually could be a nice
> guy with people who were his inferiors. he was totally sure of his
> own greatness. a great person cannot have equals and certainly
> couldn't have superiors. so, hitler had to be fuhrer, and nazi
> bigshots who'd been his compatriots had to play subservient roles. as
> long as you were loyal to the fuhrer, he liked you or even loved you.
> but, if you, intentionally or otherwise, indicated that he was not the
> greatest man in the world, hitler went into jeremiad mode. he ranted
> and raved against all the 'false prophets' of the world, especially
> the jews and Big Powers perceived as being manipulated by jews.
> hitler's speeches were diabolical and deranged because the main target
> of his rage were the false superiors who ruled the world outside
> germany. just as jesus, upon reaching jerusalem, used words like
> 'vipers' and 'snakes' to describe the powers-that-be, hitler ranted
> against the false superiors around the world. hitler were especially
> alarmed by jews because the jews seem to disprove most convincingly
> the idea of 'aryan' superiority. jews were smarter and more talented,
> and hitler simply could not accept this. he suffered from SIC. he
> wanted to believe that his people--led by him--were the very best but
> jews were the great doctors, mathematicians, scientists, etc in
> germany and austria. so, he felt murderous toward the jew.
>
> in a way, this really began when hitler arrived in vienna, an personal
> event comparable to jesus's arrival in jerusalem. until then, hitler
> had suffered fools--students and teachers he didn't like, his petty
> bureaucrat father, etc--but they were small potatoes. he generally
> felt superior to all the yokels of his hometown. he only closely
> associated with kids who looked up to him. as for others who didn't
> show him any respect, hitler saw them as permanent backwater townies
> who would never amount to anything. he saw himself as great, a
> natural superior, as lohengrin and siegfried rolled into one. he was
> gonna make it in vienna. but, when he arrived in vienna, he found it
> dominated by the false rich(pompous bourgeois), the false
> powerful(stuffy aristocracy), by false culture(ugly modernism), and
> false intelligence(Jewish).
> the idea/vision of a pure german culture that he had nursed in his
> youth was dashed. vienna was not the capital of germanic culture he
> dreamed it to be. it was filled with foreigners(lowlife slavs),
> controlled by wealthy venal jews, and left to decay by corrupt
> austrian aristocracy that cared only for its selfish interests than
> for german civilization.
>
> similarly, jesus found jerusalem no longer a city of (jewish)godliness
> but one contaminated by roman-ism, money-ism, paganism, and
> collaborationism. for jesus, the sadduces had been seduced by pagan
> power and had sold the jewish temple to the false gods and to
> moneymaking. hitler saw the austrian aristocracy this way. he saw
> vienna as really ruled by Jews while the austrian monarch was just a
> corrupt collaborator-puppet of Jewish Bankers. and, he saw a germanic
> world being overtaken by serbs, hungarians, croats, czechs, and even
> lower types. hitler wanted the germanic world cleansed, just like
> jesus wanted the jewish world cleansed. they went about it in
> different ways, but they had similar psychologies and similar
> visions. in his action, hitler was more like muhammad, seeking thru
> war and conquest a new german-dominated world order. jesus chose the
> spiritual-subversive path whereby his death would have an infectious
> viral effect on the world order and destroy all the enemies of the
> (jewish)godly order. hitler wanted to destroy the enemy thru the
> iron fist. jesus wanted to destroy the enemy thru the velvet virus.
> jesus thought his example would be carried out by his disciples. his
> viral vision would spread and spread until the kingdom of heaven was
> at hand. when that day came, there would a mass bloodletting 100x
> worse than WWII. only the select would survive and inherit the
> world.
> there wasn't much intimation of such apocalpyse earlier in the Matthew
> Gospel when jesus spoke gently about the 'meek inheriting the earth'
> and about 'forgiving one's enemy'. jesus felt generous and
> understanding when he addressed ordinary folks, poor folks, sick
> folks, local yokels, and lesser rich in the smaller towns. but, once
> he was in jerusalem, there was little talk of forgiveness,
> understanding, and such. rather, jesus began to say blood-curdling and
> hair-raising things about how the 'vipers and snakes' must be
> crushed. he physically attacked people and their property in the
> Temple. he insulted the elders and the rabbis. there was no
> forgiveness and no understanding. there was only firebrand judgment.
> prior to arriving in jerusalem, he's been surrounded by yes-men,
> worshippers, illiterates who could easily be swayed or wowed by his
> miracles or sayings; and even those who didn't show him much respect
> could be tolerated and dismissed by jesus as local yokels or nobodies.
> but, in jerusalem, jesus was face to face with people who were
> confident in their superiority over him--and they had super power,
> super wealth, super connections, super prestige, etc--to back up their
> sense of superiority. this was something jesus could not tolerate,
> forgive, nor understand. he judged the powers-that-be in jerusalem in
> the harshest way. he called for blood. he suddenly spoke of how the
> Great Judgment Day was not far away. he was the Son of God, the only
> true messiah, and all the powerholders of jerusalem were
> bullshitters. the rabbis had stabbed god in the back. jesus looked
> upon them as hitler looked upon viennese power folks and, later, the
> weimar republic folks who were accused of stabbing germany in the back
> in WWI, which for people like hitler had spiritual-national
> significance. when germany lost WWI, many german feelings were
> similar to those of the ancient jews occupied and humiliated by the
> romans.
>
> jesus's personality was shared by stalin and mao too. what made them
> especially dangerous was their SIC. it was their sense of superiority
> which made them pathologically allergic to evidence of their
> inferiority, and it was their sense of inferiority that necessitated
> the elevation of any sign of superiority as god-like. they were
> ruthlessly hostile to anything suggestive of their inferiority while
> ecstactically embracing of anything/anyone confirming their
> superiority.
> this is why hitler, stalin, and mao felt most secure when surrounded
> by second-raters who didn't challenge him. and, jesus also preferred
> second-raters. though christians say jesus was compassionate and
> caring of the poor, igorant, and diseased, they fail to understand the
> self-serving element in all this. by 'serving' the poor and ignorant,
> jesus was essentially serving himself because he knew that the poor,
> sick, and ignorant were more likely to respect, honor, and look up to
> him(like the poor and diseased look upon Che Guevara in "Motorcycle
> Diaries"). we say jesus championed equality, but he did so in order
> to lord over everyone. this was also the fraud at the core of
> communism. for all its crap about equality, it was really about the
> equality of the masses--in servitude to the state--so that the people
> who controlled the state could exert power over everyone else. indeed,
> notice how all demagogues pretend to love the sick, the down-n-out,
> the poor, etc. che guevara loved the poor and sick because they
> looked up to him as god; he knew that the ignorant would be much
> easier to persuade and turn into a commie robot than an educated
> person. there are pluralistic educated people and radical educated
> people; the latter seek superior power in the name of equality of the
> people. they wanna be like an all-powerful warden in a prison where
> everyone else is forced to be equal. 'social justice' equality is
> prison justice.
>
> jesus was more likable in the earlier chapters of the matthew gospel
> because he was around people he could easily feel superior to. and he
> praised disciples who said to him, 'you're so great, you're so holy,
> you're so masterful, you're so wonderful,, etc, etc'. but, jesus
> wanted to hear even more, and peter hit the teacher's pet jackpot when
> he said jesus wasn't just the messiah but the son-of-god.
> and, it was when jesus entered jerusalem that his ego balloon was
> pricked. he entered with the poor and ignorant folks honoring and
> cheering him, but he found out that rich, educated, powerful,
> prestigious folks--romans or jews--didn't care much for his schtick.
> he was suddenly confronted with people who were not willing to suckle
> his toes and massage his ego. so, his rant against the Temple was
> only partly about corruption and hypocrisy on the part of jewish
> elders and power-holders. it was a huge ego-trip.
>
> generally speaking, SIC was a bigger problem with hitler than with
> jesus, stalin, or mao.
> jesus, stalin, and mao, as radical universalists and egalitarians,
> were more at ease with the notion of being superior special elect
> folks ruling over inferior equalized folks. jesus wanted a world
> where EVERYONE was equally poor and devout. stalin and mao wanted a
> world where everyone was a diehard communist obeying the state. to be
> sure, they wanted to be surrounded by superior talented people who
> could carry out the duties of the mission or the state. but, they all
> had problem with dealing with the best people because people with
> talent pricked their ego and their sense of godliness. so, jesus was
> torn between having loyal disciples and intelligent disciples. on the
> one hand, he was frustrated that some of his disciples were too
> dimwitted to understand his teachings. he felt 'oy vey'. on the other
> hand, he feared that disciples who were too intelligent and free-
> spirited might go off in a different direction or challenge him. this
> was a problem freud had too. the best and most intelligent folks
> around him--adler, jung, etc--went off in their own direction while
> only slavish second-raters were willing to worship freud as god. as a
> result, freud's ideas were soon popularized and vulgarized into 'fuc*
> freely or your balls will explode', which was not what freud meant.
> stalin and mao wanted talented people to work for them but felt
> threatened by their superior intelligence and knowledge. and so,
> stalin got rid of most of the jews in the upper-ranks except
> kaganovich, a dullhead for a jew. stalin wanted people who were (1)
> talented and (2) totally loyal to him, looking upon him as a god.
> this was not easy as those who worshipped him blindly tended to be
> stupid and those with talent tended to have their own ideas about how
> to best run government.
> mao had a similar problem. at one time, he even tried to court
> intellectuals and the like during the Hundred Flowers Campaign. but,
> he soon found out that those with higher learning looked down on him
> as a peasant tyrant. so, mao struck down intellectual folks and grew
> closer to bureacratic folks. but, after the debacle of the Great Leap
> Forward, the best bureaucratic talents--headed by liu and deng--
> deviated from maoism. so, mao turned against the best and most
> talented bureaucrats as 'capitalist roaders' and surrounded himself
> with stupid and blind yes-men and young impressionable red guards.
> (similarly, jesus loved the child-like and lamb-like among people.
> it was not only out of compassion but out of power-lust. he knew that
> the childlike, submissive, and meek would be more likely to follow
> him, obey him, honor him, and see him as The Messiah. in contrast,
> the rich, powerful, and proud were likely to look down on him. jesus
> wanted christ-guards or a jesus-youth movement. he wanted even adults
> to be childlike. he wanted MOST people to be childlike and sheepish,
> but he wanted the vanguard selected by him to lead the movement to be
> sheepish to him personally but aggressive to the rich, powerful, and
> proud.)
> mao accused the bureaucracy of being filled with snakes and vipers.
> he put up a sign that said 'bombard the headquarters'. it was a
> variation of jesus's temple bashing on a HUGE scale. of course, once
> christians took over the roman empire, they also unleased something
> akin to a Cultural Revolution which smashed countless pagan stuff and
> killed a shitload of people. anti-paganism, not anti-jewishism, is
> christianity's greatest historical crime.
>
> so, both stalin and mao were surrounded by second-raters, yes-men, and
> rabidly obedient dimwits. still, stalin was focused and sensible
> enough to surround himself with builders while mao, during the
> Cultural Revolution, surrounded himself with destroyers. but, even
> being surrounded by yes-men didn't alleviate their essentially
> paranoid minds. stalin always wondered if the loyalty of his
> underlings were genuine or put-on; he was especially distrustful of
> beria. and mao felt the same way when lin piao staged a failed coup
> against him.
>
> it should be said that all these fellars--jesus, stalin, hitler, and
> mao--were essentially autodidacts of humble background who nursed a
> certain resentment against the more privileged, better educated, and
> more powerful. none of them were from totally poor backgrounds--
> except for stalin but within the context of georgian society of his
> childhood, stalin was better off than many others--, and they all
> craved rising up in the world. they got some book learning or fancy
> ideas early on and built up utopian fantasies of how society should
> be. they felt superior to the poor and ignorant--most folks in their
> hometown community--and sought fame and prestige in the Big City. but
> once they got to the Big City, they found themselves looked down by
> the better educated, better connected, more 'up-to-date', more
> privileged, more entrenched. they were stuck in the middle; on the
> one hand, they didn't want to be one of the masses who were ignorant
> and dumb. on the other hand, they weren't allowed into The Castle. the
> only way to break in was to rouse up the masses and use them as a
> battering ram against the powers-that-be.
> mao was born into a rich peasant family, hitler to a reasonably
> respectable bureaucratic father, and jesus worked as a carpenter
> before he set off on his mission. jesus resented the powerful rabbis
> who'd been born into and raised in privileged rabbi families with
> connections; he saw himself as pure and true since he was anointed by
> god than by social forces. and, even though mao craved power and
> prestige all his life, he always justified his power in terms of
> manifesting the divine will of the people--a modern variation of
> 'mandate of heaven'. and, hitler scoffed at aristocratic and haute
> bourgeois germans as having received everything on a silver platter;
> in contrast, he struggled and fought his way to the top; he was the
> natural product of the darwinian/nietzschean process whereby only
> those with the toughest will and greatest vision reach the top. they
> all thought in 'my struggle' mode. we wonder if this applies partly
> to marx as well. suppose he had been raised in a truly big city from
> the beginning, surrounded by cream of the crop. though marx came from
> well-to-do privilege, he always felt like an outsider when confronted
> with the true bigwigs of society. he too had to create a mythic
> narrative of struggle aided by some 'divine' force--historical
> dialectics--that would smash all false leaders and prophets and
> establish a new world where marx and his disciples would be the
> masters ruling over everyone else.
>
> though hitler had a similar psychology as the other fellars, he was
> different in one way. though fascism wasn't rightist in the
> traditional sense, it championed the idea of hierarchy. so, hitler
> didn't feel that society should be equal. he didn't want nazi germany
> to be made up of superior men at the top with everyone else being
> equal. he wanted a society of many layers of hierarchy. so, hitler
> didn't simply want to be more equal than others. he wanted to be
> surrounded by people who were superior. he didn't totally want to
> smash the existing order. he wanted to save it by ridding german
> society of 'false leaders', especially the jews. hitler thought, 'why
> should the german masses be ruled by institutions controlled by jews
> who were not deemed to be germans'? similarly, jesus wondered, 'why
> should jerusalem be ruled by romans, greeks, and other freaks?'
>
> hitler wanted to be surrounded by superior folks, and the idea of
> superiority/hierarchy was a big thing throughout german society. even
> so, hitler didn't want superior folks to deviate from his idea of
> germanness or whatever. hitler soon found out that many of his most
> devoted followers were nutters--even crazier than he, like
> streicher--, dopey-eyed dimwits--like hess--, or boors--like SA thugs.
> some of the more talented folks--goebbels and himmler--were not
> pleasant company. as for the most educated, intelligent, and talented
> people of germany, they didn't want much to do with nazi germany--for
> the most part anyway. most nazi artists sucked. but, there was albert
> speer, an highly talented architect and cultured man. he was a rare
> find because he was
> refined/respectable, intelligent and talented, and genuinely admiring
> of hitler. he was to hitler what chou en-lai was to mao.
>
> SIC applies to castro and che as well. not so much to osama as he was
> born to super privilege, into the inner circle of saudi politics and
> wealth.
>
>
>
>
>