Was Jesus a Roman AP?
A careful and thorough examination of Christian nonviolence. Did Jesus mean to reinterpret the commandment Don't murder as Don't do anything remotely violent? The author doesn't specify a conclusion, but cites pretty good evidence that Jesus did mean the latter.

Survival always requires self-defense. True for bacteria, true for plants, true for animals, true for nations, true for religious movements.

Any entity that fails to defend itself will die or fade out.

It's pretty clear that JC was recommending organizational suicide, though he put it more attractively. Christians were supposed to abandon family and material goods, and Christians were supposed to avoid all self-defense.

In modern times a cult leader who made such recommendations would be instantly recognized as an Agent Provocateur. He would be telling his followers to eliminate their own movement. No modern AP is quite so obvious; instead he leads his organization into destructive and self-destructive activities that make the cause or group look horrible. (See Westboro Baptist, al-Qaeda, ISIS, Al Sharpton.)

When APs are no longer useful, the government lets the court system go ahead and punish them, but the government always acts confusingly and indecisively, washing its hands of the matter. Government doesn't want to discourage future sting operations by making its connections obvious.

Cui bono? Easy. Jews were rebelling against Rome. Rome wanted to divert much of the rebellious energy into a self-destructive movement.

In this case the movement escaped from its original purpose and quickly got rid of the suicidal message. Medieval Catholics were perfectly willing to become the government and use force. Modern Baptists are perfectly ready and willing to use force when necessary.

Now modern Catholics under Antipope Francine are returning to the suicidal rules. Don't kill anything for any reason. This should tell you which side Francine is on.



= = = = =

Later: Got thinking about 'confusingly and indecisively'. Government seems to make a point of revealing a sting, leaving all sorts of tantalizing hints. In the two cases where I was close to a sting op, the APs didn't try hard to hide their real intentions. In 1969 when I succumbed to a police drug-buying operation, the buyer was clearly a cop type and made several blatant mistakes in his cover story. In 1983 when I was part of an anti-nuke organization, the agents identified themselves as "former CIA" and "State Dept on leave". By that time I'd learned from the first situation, and got out.

Big question: WHY do they do that?

Sudden answer: It's just like Nigerian scams. It's a FILTER. When you see an email from Prince Ogunbukwu asking you to help him acquire his inheritance, you know it's fake. This means you're not a good target for the scam. The people who are good targets think it just might be a good deal, so they answer to check it out. Same with APs. If you spot the cop immediately and get the hell out, you're not a good target, so the AP doesn't want to waste his time on you. If you think he just might be a serious drug-buyer or a potential convert to your cause, you're worth the time and trouble of cultivating.

Labels: Age of Stings, defensible spaces

  ¶ 3:19 AM