The history of god, religion, and the state.

God is just an invention of tyranny simply put in general terms. In the ancient beginning in order to gather random masses across the planet living off the natural land to do the bidding of a tiny minority of conspiring individuals who's aim was acquiring power for themselves they needed a way of convincing or coercing the majority of the planet to comply within their constructed forms of organization.

Since the majority of the world's population was and in many cases still is ignorant these conspiring individuals invented the concept of god and in order to give themselves power they devised the convenient notion of divine revelation in which this imaginary being they fashioned called god spoke only through them.

Eventually overtime the city or urban center was created where these god wielding individuals would forage constantly new victims across the wilderness countryside to enslave into utter servitude and bondage with the agricultural revolution. The first articles about the state and government all across the globe were theocratic in that all kingdoms were in concert with the wishes or approved mission of god(s). Kings were said to be either descendants or servants of god(s).

Of course everybody at the top of this pyramid of the emergence of historical tyranny knew that god(s) was an elaborate imaginary or fictional abstraction created to control and enslave the masses. Only the stupid peons, useful idiots, and sheople came to believe that such an imaginary abstraction was real.

The first human cities or urban centers were created by religious priesthoods.

The first kingdoms and governments were dominated by religious priesthoods.

The earliest governments were entirely theocratic in their origin. Their so called morality and ethics purely religious ones in origin.

Their goal was to create stairways to the heavens to be closer to god(s). This was at least the created metanarrative of the priesthoods.

The priests themselves in charge didn't believe in god(s) privately themselves as they knew it was all imaginary, fictional, and elaborate concocted forms of bullshit but publically in order to exploit, control, and manipulate the masses for their established social hierarchy they very much did believe because of necessity.

To have an urban center and maintain the agricultural revolution a social hierarchy unparalleled to all others had to be set up. Quite frankly people had to be enslaved in order for it to work and function under the heel of the priesthoods.

The priesthoods made their first armies whose sole mission was to travel the surrounding countrysides and round up all free independent people living off of nature in their primitive existence. These people would then be enslaved in order to maintain the concept known as civilization.

These people would never again come to live in a free and independent existence ever again. The priesthoods made sure of that by that of enforcement.

Rebellions occurred and people fought off against the priesthoods for a time but then eventually the crafty priesthoods amongst their imaginary god(s) developed religious law striking down divine retribution and eternal damnation against the very soul of wild and free primitive man chaining him with multiple invisible chains.

Religious canons and civic duty became inseparable.


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Amen.

LaughingMan wrote:

Eventually overtime the city or urban center was created where these god wielding individuals would forage constantly new victims across the wilderness countryside to enslave into utter servitude and bondage with the agricultural revolution. The first articles about the state and government all across the globe were theocratic in that all kingdoms were in concert with the wishes or approved mission of god(s). Kings were said to be either descendants or servants of god(s).

No, no. You have it the other way.

The first hero was so powerful and valourous, and made such conquests, he couldn't believe he did it. He couldn't believe it was his own might and courage. He tried to find a cause and attributed his power to a God. This phenomenon is called the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Later it evolved into the belief that Kings were descendants of Gods, and even later, this was used to justify power even when no power was present.

Not every aristocracy is evil and superficial.

I agree to an extent with the OP, but these ideas are so regurgitated and bastardized.

Something to consider: Rules, laws, norms, etc are necessary for any organization to function. Even in little tribes, there are rules and hierarchy. A tribe or nation without rules, that permits rape, murder, theft, etc will fall apart, real fast. Rules and laws aren't, always, born of Machiavellian malice, but rather necessity.

In regards to God/Spirituality, these concepts are universal and primeval in origin. They go way back to the early humans. The early humans, aware of their inevitable death, imagined another life after this as a way to alleviate their anxieties. God is a product of self-consciousness; thoughts seemed foreign, alien - like someone else was speaking to them. Schizophrenia was, probably, associated with divinity.

To reiterate, these concepts aren't, of necessity, malevolent schemes to dominate and obtain power.

Guest wrote:

I agree to an extent with the OP, but these ideas are so regurgitated and bastardized.

Something to consider: Rules, laws, norms, etc are necessary for any organization to function. Even in little tribes, there are rules and hierarchy. A tribe or nation without rules, that permits rape, murder, theft, etc will fall apart, real fast. Rules and laws aren't, always, born of Machiavellian malice, but rather necessity.

In regards to God/Spirituality, these concepts are universal and primeval in origin. They go way back to the early humans. The early humans, aware of their inevitable death, imagined another life after this as a way to alleviate their anxieties. God is a product of self-consciousness; thoughts seemed foreign, alien - like someone else was speaking to them. Schizophrenia was, probably, associated with divinity.

To reiterate, these concepts aren't,  of necessity,  malevolent schemes to dominate and obtain power.

Religion does indeed seem go far, far back and has split multiple times. Makes one wonder why the christianity and Islam,and such, are such "latest rage" even today.
Im no expert on religions but I really have a hard time swallowing that there has been so many - why would the latest incarnation of worship & moral code be the "best" or even the "right" one? Im not sure I understand it completely , or even as one should, but, I think Satyrs views on morals and how it ought to be used destroys all these moral codes - why would one go back to an inferior system? But I can see the allure - as Satyr mentions; the chimp, the Nihilist, the retard, or whatever he says , wants a solution! I too came here looking for that solution.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I always like Pascals wager, even if its stupid, becuase, just because.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Im definitely no math wiz, but he makes it look like a pretty good idea to pick up a religion. Maybe this is what is luring all these people in EU to convert to islam, and in USA to be "born again" ? Pick up a religion, "just because", its better then have no religion."

Montesquieu, Religion, and the State.

Quote :

"The Hebrews began as a rather wild and free nomad people, who originated (like the Romans) out of a unification of tribal bands of fugitive slaves and brigands. After a conquest of Canaan, this tribal confederacy for a considerable time dwelled in an egalitarian agricultural society. But this society was eventually conquered by, and subsequently broken on the wheel of, Assyrian and then BabylonianPersian despotism; the subjugated nation managed to survive as a people by following their priesthood in embracing an imaginative religion of extreme devotion to a deity who demanded "a heroism of servitude," and promised in return a consoling ultimate vindication (of which the book of Esther reveals the underlying wish fulfillment-see again Persian Letters #I 19).

Moral causes form the general character of a nation and decide the quality of its spirit more than do physical causes. One can find a great proof of this in the Jews, who, dispersed over all the earth, raised in all ages, and born in all countries, have had numerous authors, of whom one can scarcely cite two who have had common sense.... [A]mong this crowd of rabbis who have written, there is not one who hasn't had a petty genius. The reason for this is a natural one: the Jews who came back from Assyria were almost like those captives delivered from Algeria, that one paraded in the streets; but they were more crude, because they were born, and because their fathers were born, in slavery. Although they had an infinite respect for their sacred books, they had little understanding of them; they hardly understood the language in which they were written; they had only the traditions of the great miracles that God had carried out in favor of their fathers.

Ignorance, which is the mother of traditions, that is to say of the popular miraculous, created new traditions; but these were born with the character of the spirit which produced them, and took again the tincture of all the spirits through which they had passed. The savants, that is to say the people whose heads were filled with these crude traditions, collected them, and, since the first writers of all nations, bad and good, always have an infinite reputation, on account of the fact that they have always been, for a while, superior to those who read them, it happened that these first and miserable works were regarded by the Jews as perfect models, on which they formed and have ever since always formed their taste and their genius." [Pangle, The theological basis of law in Montesquieu]

Quote :

"In his most important single pronouncement on the accomplishment of Mohammed, Montesquieu observes that the testimony of the Roman historians shows that they found the "peoples of Arabia" to be "idle, peaceful, unwarlike"-and thus ripe for subjugation. The Roman attempt at conquest under Aelius Gallus failed, despite the pathetic military weakness of the Arabs, on account of various accidents that overtook the campaign. But the Arabs were eventually compelled, under the pressure of the warlike Parthians as well as the Romans, to submit to becoming auxiliaries of the one and the other. It was from this humiliating legacy that they responded, with a thrill of revenge, to the new type of despotism to which they were called by Mohammed:

Nature had destined the Arabs for commerce; she had not destined them for war; but when these tranquil peoples found themselves on the borders of the Parthians and the Romans, they became auxiliaries of the one and the other. Aelius Gallus found them a commercial people: Mohammed found them warriors; he gave them enthusiasm-and behold, conquerors! (21.16)

Although "it is an unhappiness for human nature, when the religion is given by a conqueror," although "the Mohammedan religion, which speaks only by the sword, continues to act on humans with that destructive spirit which founded it" (24.4), Islam attracts to it the very people it conquers, by offering them a share, as subordinates, in a dominating despotic spirit:

[W]hen an intellectual religion gives us in addition the idea of a choice made by the divinity, and of a distinction of those who profess it from those who do not profess it, that attaches us very much to the religion. The Muslims would not be such good Muslims, if they did not have, on the one hand, idolatrous peoples who make them think that they are the avengers of the unity of god, and, on the other hand, the Christians, in order to make them think that they are the object of his preferences. (25.2)

But the attraction of Islam is only partly explained by the fact that Islamic law comprises rules that to a considerable extent suit, and enable its believers to share in dominating within, the despotic, erotically charged, and voluptuous Near East (see esp. 13.16;14.10; 16.2, 7, 12; 24.3, 17). Still more important in defining the spirit of Islam, in Montesquieu's understanding, is the fact that this religion at its core remains, like Judaism and Christianity, a religion that reacts to, by offering consolation for, the otherwise hopeless misery that so much of the time haunts existence under despotism. In the chapter entitled "temples" (25.3), Montesquieu underlines the attachment of Muslims for their mosques, and the importance of their pilgrimage to Mecca as to a most holy place-in the context of the following general reflection: "In fact, nothing is more consoling to human beings, than a place where they find the divinity more present, and where all together they can give voice to their weakness and their misery.... [T]he divinity is the refuge of the unhappy." In the previous chapter, Montesquieu remarks:

[A] religion that is charged with many practices attaches people to it more than another that is less so: one holds very much to things with which one is continually occupied; witness the tenacious obstinacy of the Mohammedans and of the Jews.... The riches of temples and of the clergy move u very much. Thus the misery itself of peoples is a motive that attaches them to that religion which has served as a pretext for those who caused their misery.

Islam brings its uniquely powerful consolation through offering the perverse and politically destructive hope of a salvation won through laborious, sacrificial transcendence of the requirements of worldly prosperity and ambition:

The Mohammedans become speculative by habit; they pray five times a day, and each time it is required that they engage in an activity by which they throw behind their back everything that pertains to this world: that forms them for speculation. Add to that, the indifference for all things, which the dogma of a rigid destiny gives.

If, in addition, other causes concur to inspire in them detachment, such as if the harshness of the government, and if the laws concerning proprietorship of the lands, make the spirit precarious: everything is lost." [ib.]

Quote :

"The Hypothesis Elaborated as Regards Christianity

It is when he gives thematic treatment to Christianity in all its forms, both Protestant and Catholic, that Montesquieu finally dares to make somewhat more explicit his general hypothesis: "when a religion is born and forms itself within a State, it ordinarily follows the plan of government where it was established: because the men who receive it, and those who make it received, scarcely have any other ideas of regulation except those of the State in which they were born" (24.5). As we reflect on the implications of this for original Christianity, we understand the religious significance of the fact that the first individual historical example Montesquieu gave of a despot (recall 3.9) was the emperor Domitian. For as is well known, Domitian became notorious for his persecutions of Christians as well as Jews, from whom he exacted, "with a peculiar lack of mercy," an oppressive special taxation. Montesquieu quietly reminds us that Christianity began as a cult, within a people, who experienced with special intensity the terrifying status of being victims of Roman despotism.

But the victimhood of Jews and Christians differed only in degree from the long political sufferings of all mankind under the Roman heel. First came the Roman republic, whose "hard and tyrannic government" erected an extreme "despotism" over the entire world outside the Roman citizenry: "in the Roman world, as in Sparta, those who were free were extremely free; and those who were slaves were extremely enslaved" (12.19, 21.14; see also 10.3). "The feebleness of the peoples of Europe, of Asia, and of Africa, and the tyranny of the people commanding, is what unified this immense body"(21.15). So debasing was this enslavement under the Roman republic that the miserably downtrodden, formerly free subjects of the empire actually welcomed, as a kind of relative release, the advent of the emperors, and their enslavement of the Roman citizenry: "the provinces regarded the loss of the liberty of Rome as the epoch of the establishment of their own liberty" (12.19).

This was the world, of universal servility and civic degradation, in which Christianity took hold, Montesquieu stresses (Schaub, Erotic Liberalism, 63). Christianity won the hearts of ordinary people by offering a spiritual escape from, and consolation for, their debased political and social condition.

The upper classes too were captivated, not least because Christianity carried further the resigned spirit of world denial that had already become widespread in the demoralized elites through the influence of the Greco-Roman philosophic sects. By the time of Constantine, sects of philosophy had already introduced into the empire a spirit of withdrawal from affairs, that would never have advanced to this point in the time of the republic, when everyone was occupied with the arts of war and of peace. From this came an idea of perfection attached to everything that led to a contemplative life; and from this, withdrawal from the cares and the burden of a family. The Christian religion, coming after philosophy, fixed, so to speak, the ideas that the former had only prepared. (23.21, p. 705)

Under Constantine, of course, Christianity finally became the official religious arm of the despotism-and the Church took on the typical role of religion in despotism: supporting, but simultaneously limiting, the sway of the emperors. Henceforth, "Christianity gave its character to the jurisprudence; for the empire had always a relationship with the clergy. One can see this in the Theodosian code, which is nothing but a compilation of the ordinances of the Christian emperors" (23.21). The official establishment of Christianity went hand in hand with the increasing-though never to ta l or unqualified-predominance of the customs of oriental despotism: after Theodosius, Montesquieu observes, "the mores had changed" as regards the treatment of women as "free persons"; "the usages of the Orient had taken the place of those of Europe. The empress, the second wife of Justinian, was threatened by her first eunuch, history tells, with the punishment that one gives to children in schools" (19.26).

Montesquieu spotlights the tradition of monastic charity that has played so great a role in the history of the Church: "the monks-a nation lazy in itself, and that instilled laziness in others, because, through their practice of hospitality, an infinity of idle folk, both gentlemen and bourgeois, spent their

lives running from one convent to another" (23.29). Monasticism, Montesquieu contends, is born in the hot countries of the Orient, where one is less given to action than to contemplation. In Asia, the number of dervishes, or monks, seems to increase with the heat of the climate; the Indies, where the heat is excessive, are full of them: this same difference is found in Europe.

To conquer the laziness of the climate, the laws ought to have sought to take away all the means of living without work; but in the south of Europe they have done exactly the contrary: they give to those who wish to be idle places suitable for the contemplative life, and attach to them immense riches. These persons, who live in an abundance that is a burden to them, with reason give their superfluity to the lowly people: the latter have lost the ownership of the land, so they make it up to them by the idleness that they make them enjoy; and the people come to love their own misery.

Montesquieu sees the materially impoverishing consequences of the otherworldly Christian commandment of charity further exemplified and compounded by the Church's condemnation of interest-bearing loans as entailing the sin of uncharitable "usury." This is a form of religious legislation, Montesquieu notes, that Christianity has shared with Islam, and that has worked to cripple commerce and the commercial spirit in Europe as well as in Asia.

In book 23, on population growth (which serves as a transition to part 6, on religion), Montesquieu focuses especially on what he understands to be the Church's disastrously otherworldly and lifedenying teachings on the family. "The Church Fathers, who censured" the older Roman laws aimed at promoting childbearing, "no doubt" did so "with a laudable zeal for the things of the other life, but with very little understanding of the affairs of this one." Montesquieu quotes, as an example of the Christian spirit in this regard, the ecclesiastical historian Sozomen's criticism of the earlier imperial laws that had sought to strengthen paternal responsibility and family ties: "these laws were laid down," the pious historian complains, "as if the multiplication of the human species could be an effect of our cares; instead of recognizing that the number waxes and wanes according to the order of Providence."

Montesquieu comments: "the principles of religion have had an extreme influence on the propagation of the human species: sometimes they have encouraged it, as among the Jews, the Mohammedans, the Zoroastrians, the Chinese; sometimes they have shocked it, as they did among the Romans who became Christians" (23.21). Whereas the "pagan Romans had accorded privileges and honors to marriages and to the number of children," the Christians "ceaselessly preached continence that is to say, a virtue that is the more perfect because, by its nature, it should be practiced by very few people." More generally, Montesquieu judges that "where celibacy has the preeminence, there can no longer be honor for marriage" (23.21). Subsequently Montesquieu protests, on similar grounds, and with numerous examples, that "when the Christian religion was born, the new laws that were made"-regarding marital roles, legal separation of spouses, divorce and dissolution of marriage, adultery, and other such crimes-"had less relation to the general good of morals than to the holiness of marriage; the union of the two sexes was regarded less in its civil state than in a spiritual state" (26.9; see also 26.8 and 16.15)." [ib.]

Quote :

"In the psychology of the European upper classes "the modification of the soul" that is honor wrestles with a strong Christian rival. Not only the ubiquity of Christianity, but especially the clergy's hold on most educational institutions, exerts a spiritual influence that subverts honor: "honor is a prejudice, that religion labors sometimes to destroy, sometimes to regulate" (4.3 n.). In what is his most revealing pronouncement on the spirit of his own contemporary society, Montesquieu laments the resulting massive "contradiction" in the education of the young. The crucial chapter (4.4) is entitled,

"Difference in the Effects of Education among the Ancients and among Us," and reads as follows:

Most of the ancient peoples lived in governments that had virtue as their principle; and, when it was in full force, things were done that we no longer see today, and that astonish our petty souls.

Their education had another advantage over ours; it was never contradicted. Epaminondas, the last year of his life, spoke, heard, saw, did the same things as he did when he was of the age when he had begun to be instructed.

Today, we receive three educations that are different or contradictory: that by our fathers, that by our teachers, and that by the world. What is said to us in the last upsets all the ideas of the first two. That comes, in some degree, from the contrast that there is among us between the engagements of religion and those of the world; a thing that the ancients did not know of.

The modern European monarchic soul, in sharp contrast to the ancient republican soul, is trammeled by the fact that what chiefly shapes it-the principle of honor, the education by "the world"-contradicts, and is thereby in varying degrees drawn into question and impeded or debilitated by, the previous, childhood teachings received from (religious) schools or teachers and parents or household. From the latter the young hear different versions of the morality of biblical religion, with its demand for humble abnegation of self and transcendence of worldly ambitions and worldly satisfactions.

Montesquieu of course refuses to countenance the possibility that this betrays a natural resistance of the human heart to self-indulgent pride, and a natural inclination toward the call of the Christian conscience. He insists that the evidence requires interpreting Christianity and its educational effect as an alien, accidental, or historically generated intrusion into what would otherwise be a more integral and strong monarchic personality. And Montesquieu finds himself, as a teacher, compelled to try, through his book, to help diminish the power of the alien intruder-to help his young readers find their way to surmount the contradiction that rends their hearts." [ib.]

The 'paranoid' person - or 'delusional' - attributes some malice to the natural world as a result of ignorance. The default position one takes when they feel forced to respond to some threat they are ignorant of is that of personifying the threat - granting it all the human powers one could imagine and perhaps even more from there. Viscerally, the paranoid experience this by _just knowing_ they are not in control and having a fight or flight reaction to it. If they cannot understand its nature, they will behave as if it were the worst they could (as rationally as they are capable) imagine. Rationality sets a limit upon possibility, as it is an ordering mechanism. What one attributes to devils and gods, another more refined/rational person may attribute to unobserved malicious rational actors - such as aliens or 'elites'.

The majority of the world has no care for an individual or what they think - but there are still those miniscule (in the largest scope) parts which do care for the individual in some positive way. Compared to 6 billion people, one or two parents are not a lot in perspective. In fact, it is by having parents or an idea of a parent alive (like a God or state) that enables them to think of reality as _absolutely_ indifferent and try to fight against it (instead of flight/humility). Without some protecting parental figure, they would be resigned to humility against this world they perceive - they would humble themselves. Whenever something about reality brings to their attention the fragility of their guardian, they respond predictably with fight or flight.

States are one extension of this guardian mechanism, which provides a basis, a home, from which one may secure resources for a group synergy which collectively raises the standards of living and power of all accepted within the state, the citizen. Investments in the state grow and becomes entrusted by its citizens to protect their interests. A warrior, then, fights for legacy secured in the state or his family at home. However, with order, there also comes limitations which inevitably limit some people in an undesirable way (for them). This resentful class can be duped by ideologies promising a lifting of those restrictions. [Side note: Right-Wing America are the true liberals, disliking restrictions - wanting an open slate for their masculine endeavors. Women on the Right support their father/family in their endeavor, from respect for the security of their future as a family, discriminating against groups which would like to limit their family's amibition/power.]

One is typically expected to respect the state like they do their parent: their parents being the parts which make them up, having experienced the same and sharing their own historic nurturing (in the form of genes, as well). The state, as a parental entity, must have a basis for this respect. When it ceases to arise honestly and naturally - from a shared history like ethnicity or some standard (Spartan/Aryan) - then, as it imposes cultural and economic change on the populace, it must attempt to clean the historical 'anachronistic' canvas from the individual to maintain the new order and prevent uprising.

Today, Europe has ceased having an ethnically conscious state and turned into one which serves only a few special interests - corporations, multinationals, banks. What was previously safe as a measure of value - genetic similarity/ethnicity - providing a grounding for extending ones bloodline and influence - was replaced with a new measure of value: hedonistic pleasure and capital. To make this an acceptable standard for the human being requires a dumbing-down since a rational person would seek a permanent standard. Morality can be a successful means of enforcing this dumbing-down by making knowledge 'evil'.

Multiculturalism is this lie perpetrated by the state as a means to cover up the future genocide of all cultures within its culture-of-no-culture. It is toward the end of erasing past/history and rewriting it in terms of egalitarianism, hedonism, etc.

Morality can be understood through the difference of age: Infancy, Adulthood, Elderly. All life and organisms are brought into the world (Procreated and Reproduced) into the state of Infancy. A fraction of life will survive and grow to maturity (Adulthood). However many will not. Because of the objective world and cruelty of nature, existence does not "care" if infants are killed or eaten, as they often are in nature. Thus it is rarer that organisms survive to adulthood, and still rarer that an organism dies of "old age". The phenomenon of dying of old age indicates where a specie or group is on the food chain. Most organisms die at younger ages and rarely make it to old age. This is inverted within the protection and security of human civilization, where humans are "entitled the right" to old age (retirement).

So the function, equation, and balance is clear. Infants and Infancy is the standard, the norm, the default view and perspective of *ALL* lifeforms. It becomes rarer and rarer that any individual can grow and 'Mature' to a stage of independence and self-sufficiency. The infantile stage of life is Dependent, upon a protector/guardian/parent. Essentially all organisms provide, protect, and nurture their own youth and progeny (with the exception of parasites who pass the cost of weaning off onto, usually unsuspecting, victims).

When it comes to morality, deism, religion, and spirituality, morality ought to judge infancy and dependent as Weak and Immoral, whereas independence is Strong and Moral. Independence (Adulthood) ought to be Good. Dependence (Infancy) ought to be Evil.

However Judæo-Christianity and the Abrahamic pop religion has flipped this around ("Christianity"). Christianity makes Dependence and Infancy into moral goodness, and Independence and Adulthood into moral badness/weakness/evil. Instead of promoting the spiritual health (morality) of its followers, instead it does the opposite, crippling and ruining them. Christianity, combined with Modernity, actively wants and desires for humans to be kept Dependent, Infantile, Weak, Stupid, and feeding on the tit of society (The State).

This is an Inversion of "objective" morality (Adulthood representing Independence), and also a Perversion of morality. Thus when people talk negatively about The West, western culture, culture of no culture, this is what they are, indirectly, referring to.

Christianity is like a vindictive parent, who because of self-hate, redirects to his/her own child. The parent (Christian) then inverts the nurturing instinct of biology. Instead of raising and growing a child, to become stronger, to become independent, the Christian seeks to stunt, cripple, or clip the development of its own child. The cause and occurrence of this phenomenon is 'Resentiment'. The morally weak majority of the world (the immoral) hate the idea of something or somebody 'Higher' than him/herself, including its own child. Or especially its own child. If there is any type of "moral strength" of individuals, societies, or nations then this Vindictiveness and Resentiment is the opposite; it is the bottom of spirituality, moral weakness.

Instead of raising your progeny as high as possible, including higher than yourself, is a foreign concept to the Christians and Moderns. They are infected with an inverted, perverted morality, including the "God Complex" of Egoism. Moderns perceive anybody "better" than themselves as dangerous, evil, and a threat, if not now then later.

This is why Modern women and mothers use plastic surgery, makeup, cosmetics, trying to compete in Beauty with young women and teenage girls, including their own daughters. Modern women are so shallow, petty, stupid, and spiritually weak (immoral) that they would become jealous that their own daughter is receiving more sexual attention and promise than themselves, even though they are already rotten (physically, mentally, spiritually). The Modern, spoiled, jaded, and resentful, would rather tear down, destroy, mar, and ruin any youth that demonstrates real potential, because that Promise and Potential is a constant reminder of their own failures, their own immaturity, their own stunted growth, and especially their own moral/spiritual void.

The Modern world is pronounced by turning the biological family unit upon itself. For example, some young people will claim to be homosexual, gay or lesbian, to *SPITE* their own parents, and inversely too. Rather than the "Modern Family" being a source of pride, strength, reinforcement, and truly nurturing potential (the new generations), they are inverted, perverted, and corrupted. The Modern/Western family is turned upon itself.

There are too many, countless examples, to choose from.