>>7571Nothing about ritual sacrifice is "accidental" or "random", like someone decided that it's time to feed the children to Moloch, and everyone "randomly" decided to agree to it, and made a solemn oath that it was an unmentionable. Give me a fucking break. We've seen enough of this sacrifice in the present year, and in the ancient world, this was out in the open. They admitted they did it. You take for granted the Christian injunction against overt ritual sacrifice, when the rule of human history has been that ritual sacrifice is standard, in every tribe, in one way or another. There are tribes and religions where they can acknowledge it's, you know, bad if it becomes a rule. But, ritual sacrifice is always there, and it is prominent in Christianity since they make the symbol the guy on the cross, and invoke a cannibalistic ritual every week.
I have no "historical proof" to claim it is factual, but I have yet to see any evidence that this isn't what humans did in their early existence. Every family marks who the retarded child is and shames them, if they exist. That is what humans did by choice, until it became mandated by tribal society and the Great Taboo. The greatest lie is to claim that humans did anything else as their normative behavior, at that local scale. This is what humans are - any cursory investigation of the children of the human race show this viciousness, until they figure out the hard way (since this retarded race only responds to beatings) what happens when you let that go on. By the time they see enough of it, it's too late. The ritual started.
It is not a rule that the ritual is "natural" or "inevitable", since humans largely avoid doing this, and there is no prescribed "natural cause" for it, other than the taboo regarding intelligence which is constant in all human societies. Even with that, not every human agrees that every "retarded" child MUST die. It is a rule, and a necessary rule, that once someone is "retarded", they can never be redeemed. That is eternal, and to do otherwise is to shirk the ritual humiliations.
The point is that the basis for ritual sacrifice is "retarded", and this is why I was entirely justified to hate forever the human race - for letting this go on, when they understood the results and glorified that, for the thrill of doing so. The way it worked is that anyone who refused would be ritualistically rejected, shamed, ridiculed, and over generations, "screened out", while the most vicious would now be consciously and meticulously selected for. This is what Galton's eugenic creed did, excluding all other values that would be selected for. Galton specifically rejected "points" or any independent judgement, many of which were raised by the aristocratic order who balked at being told they would be bred like dogs.
The only way this is enforced - intended beforehand - is to restore ritual sacrifice to prominence, then make it the sole law above all, then to maximize it and make it a total system. That is the entire point of making the sacrifice a ritual. A mother killing a child who will not survive is not a ritual sacrifice. Even a mother doing this for arbitrary sadism is not. It is the collective will to chant for it that is the basis of the human race as "human" - the first and most holy taboo of their race, that distinguished them from animals, because humans had this symbolic language to chant the koans and knowingly grin about what they were doing. Once it starts, it must become the first principle of the Great Theory that the ritual sacrifice is natural and glorious above all others. This is obviously ruinous, and why humans almost immediately regret the birth of the human race. Yet, it never goes away, because it is always something that humans return to - the "eternal regression to the primordial light", which Theosophy explicitly invokes, as to other Luciferian and Satanic moral systems.
Tribal societies without settlements practice ritual sacrifice and understand its meaning. That is seen today and they will tell you this is something they do, or at least did, and that they understand the reference perfectly. They could relate the concept to the ritual sacrifice Christianity entails, which is going to be one of the first selling points Christianity offers to the heathens - with the Christian hoping the heathen doesn't know of the Christian's actual conduct of hitherto unknown levels of human sacrifice. By now though, most of the world knows what the Christians are, and they're finally capable of calling the cult of the Christ what it is. About fucking time.
I am placing the "birth of the human race" much later than an imagined biological birth of "homo sapiens sapiens" - since I believe the dogmatic interpretation of Darwinian anthropology is made up shit, more than half of it derived from Masonic stupidity. It's less credible than the Yakub story from the Nation of Islam - that's how little faith I put in the scientific racist theory of human origins. What is not controversial is that every human tribe is familiar with ritual sacrifice, and its normalization in civilization is not surprising. Only the naive and those selected to die are told "there is no ritual sacrifice". Eventually, a normal human will ask questions about the society they live in and terrible stories they heard, and some decency in the world compels a human to tell another human enough of the horrible truth to figure it out, and their behavior adjusts accordingly. If you truly think ritual sacrifice "can't happen here", you're not going to make it in life. It always happens - for humans, by the volition of humanity's spirit rather than any natural requirement or an ulterior motive. So far as there is an "ulterior motive", it is that once it starts, it does not end by any decency in humans. Necessity of the ritual itself overrides anything saying no to it once it is activated. The only thing humans can do is escape it somehow, usually by mitigating their contact with other humans. This is how humans become "human" and adopt a greater sense of self - one that is familiar to us and distinguishes humans from animals. If the sense of self existed in a humanity without human sacrifice, or in a human society where human sacrifice is shunted far below its PARAMOUNT value, humans would think of themselves very differently. The "cult of the ego" that prevailed in the 20th century would be a self-evident absurdity at the least, and probably grounds for immediate extermination of the transgressor given what we know about our human history.
If you're going to say, "THAT'S RITUAL SACRIFICE TOO", it is not. It is not ritual sacrifice to defend oneself against a clear and present danger which announces its tyranny proudly. And so one of the dominant arguments for the state, the law, and the general fear of the human condition, is for the leader to say "we are not going to allow this to go overboard, and no one is ritually sacrificed without the chief's tacit or explicit approval". After many cycles of development, this eventually becomes the earliest concept of imperium, which is in more developed civilization an explicit principle. The Romans understood the basis of the entire legal code as imperium, rather than the system of favors which was never enshrined with any legal status. The favors were part of the traditions of Rome and expected as the cultural basis - what made the Roman nation "work" - but at the end of the day, imperium was the final decision, rather than conceits about the state being "nice" or there to be your friend.