Introduction
For someone wanting to read this essay but has never bothered to seriously think through the cultural meanings of the assumption that Western civilization (hereinafter civilization) was built from its two great sources, the phrase "Judeo-Christianity" is certainly something that needs to be defined in advance. Many intellectuals defend the thesis that our civilization has developed to what we are facing and living today precisely from Judeo-Christian roots. That is, under the influence of the Jewish Old Testaments and commandments, and the simultaneous influence of a Christianity of the New Testament, imposed through the incarnation of Jesus, who reformed the Old Testament and laid foundations for a new cult. Of course, practically every intellectual is also aware of the Greco-Roman influence, which is, obviously, crucial, yet it is not even mentioned in the phrase "Judeo-Christianity". How could we think about our civilization without Archimedes' findings, Heraclitus' logos, Plato's and Aristotle's thoughts, Socrates' wisdom, Solon’s democracy, Roman law, Vitruvius' perspective, Ptolemy's geography and optics, countless technical inventions of antiquity, the concept of the number zero and Aryan numbers (which we mistakenly call Arabic numbers) …? Indeed, we could probably list such inventions of the pre-Christian era indefinitely…
When we talk about Judeo-Christian civilization, therefore, we have on one hand all these European spiritual, metapolitical and physical inventions, and on the other the Jewish monotheistic Abrahamic cult. This cult brought religious guidelines to both Romans and us Europeans, but virtually none of the scientific innovations and social organizational concepts listed above. The reason for this is that the Jewish community did not manage to put up any such civilizational achievements until their encounters with (first) the Egyptian, and then the Hellenic culture, as they were pastoral nomadic tribes. The text of De Benoist (with a preface by T. Sunić) provides a quite interesting explanation about this meeting of cultures. To get to the essential points of difference, I must first point out in a few sentences what has changed significantly in recent decades in anthropology and human sciences in general. Almost everything has changed from what we knew until 1954.
This remarkable change came after the epochal shift of the view point from which we now see and perceive the world (holiness ) and from which we also build and maintain the access to transcendence. Since genetic influence was more precisely defined only after the discovery of the genome in 1954 (Crick, Watson), only in recent decades, and particularly since decoding genomic records of different species, was it proven that the whole spectrum of living things has virtually the same genetic makeup. It is also only in recent decades that the importance of the role of genetic research on history, anthropology, sociology, psychology and psychometry, bio-archeology and elsewhere has come to light. The huge percentage of genes that humans and animals have in common further indicates the important role of such knowledge. It is almost unbelievable that mice and humans share 92% of their genes… Even very distant organisms, such as fungi (yeasts, for example), have almost one third of the same genes as human beings! Looking at it in terms of the most basic pairs that make up DNA, however, there are no other or different forms of life that do not have base pairs made up of four basic molecules: adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine. This aspect is all the more important when talking about differences in human cultures, because apparently even small differences in genotype (e.g. chimpanzees and humans share about 98% of genes!) lead to huge differences in abilities and traits. It's not just about physical capabilities, such as the inability of man to climb as skillfully as a chimpanzee, but also other properties that prove significant in the processes of socialization. Chimpanzees, for example, have a far better short-term memory than humans, with researchers finding that they can easily learn numbers depicted on a screen, and then show them in the exact order in which they were represented. Video: (short-term memory of chimpanzees). But when we look at the capabilities of this species, and compare it to the exceptionality of human achievements in culture, even the most primitive Paleolithic man is a true genius compared to a chimpanzee. It is therefore increasingly necessary to see differences in genetic “cocktails” and recognise their impact on certain mutual differences between ethnicities and races, as such a cocktail of genes can bring about considerably different potentials.
If a cannibal tribe from central Australia (a native Australian who lived in Ljubljana for a while once taught me about them) is compared with the population of a mostly Caucasian Australian city, we can also see a huge difference which arose within one species, that is impossible to deny or ignore. Namely, like all other cultures and civilizations, Indo-European culture (that originates from steppe people, agriculturalists from Anatolia, and the old hunter gatherers of Europe) originates in genetic predispositions. And just as other cultures have their own specific genetic "cocktail", our genetic mixture group also has specific genetics, which obviously forms the basis for certain instinctive mechanisms, abilities, traits and, last but not least, a certain culture.

Why are we even talking about this?
As early as the 1960s, in their extremely important and groundbreaking book, ‘The Manifesto for the European Renaissance’, Alain de Benoist and Charles Champetier publicized the actual kind of situation we have today. They identified the main problems of Europe and its civilization, as well as aspects of the decline towards which the civilization of their heirs, the descendants of European people mentioned previously (i.e. whites across Europe, America, part of Asia and Australia), was already heading. They unravel a bunch of causes and connections in the book, starting with the Enlightenment and its erroneous assumptions that were not sufficiently thought through, and culminating in the erosion and disintegration of the spiritual content of European culture through the emergence of liberal ideas and, in particular, communist atrocities around the world. Extremely insightfully, they also reported in the book that liberalism and Marxism have common points in which they share many similarities:

1. They share the same individualism

2. They share universalism and universal egalitarianism

3. They share rationalism

4. They both give priority of the economy over everything else

5. They share the emancipatory value of work

6. They share faith in progress

7. They share the idea of the end of history

8. They both promote the accelerated eradication of traditional communities and their collective culture (where, in some places, liberalism is even more successful than communism)

9. They share the universalization of the production system

All this, however, has a far deeper foundation, that Nietzsche was probably among the first to write about in more detail. A bit later, perhaps less embedded in philosophical discourse, Solzhenitsyn also opened this topic in an extraordinary text “200 years together” (link), and then many other thinkers of the dissident right movement (including Benoist himself, of course, followed by Cesar Tort, and Kevin MacDonald; in several segments these issues were also raised by Tom Sunić and some extraordinary thinkers such as Ron Unz, Gilad Azmon, David Cole, etc. who recognized the role of genetic predispositions and cultural peculiarities in action)
One of the most accurate in this direction is certainly the tweeter Marko Sket, who, despite his rather hermetic language, expands the issues of Yamna culture - the embrace of all those qualities that Kevin MacDonald, or the white race broadly within, describes as "pathological altruism". But any altruism that is not abused is not necessarily pathological, nor does it necessarily lead to a negative outcome. There must be some abuse for the outcome of an altruistic move to be deemed pathological. Here is a link to Kevin's lecture: Kevin MacDonald's lecture on pathological altruism of the white race.

This longer text was written as a result of the desire to free ourselves within our culture and civilization from conditions which occasionally border on serfdom or even slavery. Almost all of the communist countries were, at least at some stage, large gulags that kept people as a labor force, with most of the population living under conditions of slavery (The Road to Serfdom, Hayek). At the same time, the majority of the population of indigenous people from these countries were completely and openly subjected to genocides by their communist occupiers (Ukrainians, a large proportion of Russian people, Slovenians, Croatians and so on).
A similar de-nationalization is happening today - Slovenia is just one such case, where slowly and consistently many steps are being taken towards the gradual disappearance of Slovenes (considerable evidence regarding the various ways of committing genocide are provided in the book “Slovenes are being extinct” by dr. M. Gams). It is therefore important that we face the phenomena that are hidden from and every one of us as closely as possible. At the same time we also desperately need to learn what sorts of tricks and madness lie right in front of our noses. It is therefore necessary to open a debate on the deeper aspects of what is happening to us.

Saul's fraud, what is that supposed to be?

For a more effective insight into the meaning of the phrase "Saul's fraud", which was launched in Slovenia by Marko Sket (via Twitter @MarkoSket, for years banned by the Twitter Blue Cheka), I tried my best to compile a list of structural ties that explain this phenomena. Some intellectuals renamed the syntagm “Saul’s fraud” to the "Pauline scam", but unfortunately with this they have neglected a very important part of the deception, i.e. the agency of Saul, who was renamed because of his ability to perform in front of each audience in a different way, as he himself wrote in a letter to the Corinthians: 1 Cor 9, 19-22 “19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.”
The levels of "Saul's fraud" play an important role in themselves, as they appear in speech once as politics, second as meta-politics or attempts at metaphysics, third as religious, theological rhetorical formulations or as a revelation, and so on. In any case, the phrase "Saul's fraud" is linked to historical circumstances that were remarkable for the not-so-united Jewish tribes around the time of the Roman occupation of Jerusalem (a few decades after Jesus' death, at the time of the destruction of the 2nd temple). These circumstances put Jews to the severe test of various survival strategies (this is what Kevin MacDonald talks about in the linked trilogy).

A short additional explanation: the phrase in the Slovene language (Savlov nateg), that I translate here to "Saul's fraud ", cannot be translated into "Pauline deception", "prank" nor to "Saul's deception", because it is not merely a one-way deception in which we feel deceived, but it also has a hidden sexual connotation hinted at by the sub-meaning of the word. Namely, we participate in the “game” of deceit and mostly even enjoy it, because it is a game that we went into, both as a victim and a hunter, and in the very act of "hanky-panky" we adopt the role of someone who can experience it as something that liberates tensions. This experience can also be close to spirituality, and Italian Baroque Master Bernini showed us such mixed fillings through his ingenious interpretation of St. Theresa. (sculpture of St. Theresa).

In short, there are several levels in front of us intertwined with one another, which are often blurred and connected with opposing bases on purpose and arise from different sources:
1. from biblical texts (especially if we also include those that were changed over time and translated or rewritten with with different semantic directions and agendas). Several writers have written about these many changes and frauds in texts, including Karlheinz Deschner in a very extensive and detailed study, “The Criminal History of Christianity”.

2. From the later religious texts, synods and other events, which at their core (essence) primarily refer to very different formulations of biblical compilations and sets of texts. We need to acknowledge that these are events and texts that were formulated a long time after the key event took place i.e. the presupposed crucifixion of Jesus and after even less historically perceived and completely unprovable but for Christians an even more essential event of the resurrection (and at the same time historically unknown and practically unprovable, but for Christians essential). These later texts are mainly interpretations and texts that influenced direct events and which shattered Christianity itself into a multitude of divisions causing many long wars throughout Europe. It is of course necessary to mention the schisms that have appeared the almost two thousand years of Christianity. Especially important are the first major schism in the 5th century (Arianism), the great schism between the West and the East in the 11th century, the one in the 15th century with Luther, and then later a schism of the Anglican Church…


3. From texts that were not intended to be religious themselves, but nevertheless retained the structure of a cult character and many other cultural patterns through which they propagated a certain aspect of meta-politics and organization of society to suit the elites in relation to their subjects. I am thinking in particular of texts based on the assumptions of the Enlightenment and rationalism, namely, that it is possible to lead the world in a rational, logical way, referring to science, while retaining those directions that share the same base of assumptions about transcendental as are in biblical foundations. At their core and by their basic intention they are therefore religious (Explaining Postmodernism, Stephen Hicks).

After this introduction, I will list some essential starting points that are necessary for a proper understanding of the phrase "Saul's fraud" and to outline the essential historical circumstances in which the Jewish tribes found themselves when they were occupied by the Roman Empire (but we have to take into account that, at least until 70 AD, the Romans also gave all these tribes considerable autonomy).

- Apparently, the Jewish tribes were in quite serious disagreements about their attitude towards Rome as well as religious issues (at least three major divisions existed as well as a privileged class that was closely associated with Rome; Herod Antipas' father helped the Romans militarily) …

- At least since Alexander the Great, the area has been under the constant cultural influence of Hellenism, and Semitic monotheistic tribes have repeatedly resisted the polytheistic religious principles practiced by the population of Greeks and Romans.

- In addition, Roman occupation and colonization increased the pressure of rebellions and subversions in cities with larger Jewish communities (e.g. in 41 AD, Emperor Claudius responded to the political actions of the Jewish population in Alexandria by banning Jewish agitation in political matters and promoting the immigration of Jews from Syria and Egypt (link). Later, after the uprising, there was a strong military intervention, and in the 70's the Jewish temple in Jerusalem was demolished and many mass migrations of Jews around the Roman Empire occurred. During this period the Jews made up a significant proportion of the population of the Roman empire (some researchers mention a number as high as even 10% of the population).

- Saul and his followers, who had begun to write some of their history in the “Acts of Apostles”, had started by attributing words to Jesus indicating a supposed distancing from political life (instead of politics all their effort was put into religion and so called spiritual life). But at the same time Saul tried to make his political activities as strong as possible, with a network of subversive Jewish groups, “ecclesiae” – kind of antique "NGOs"– who started to criticize and change the “ethos” (meaning custom or tradition). The similarity between Saul and Soros is not so strange at all ... This was a new principle, a renewal of religious principles, but at that time, i.e. at the beginning, it was still quite well-founded in the old Jewish practice, with the addition of some fine corrections regarding morality.

- As a network of subversive communities was being set up throughout the Roman Empire, indeed, as if intentionally simultaneously with the story of Jesus, the Jerusalem Talmud was already beginning to take shape - a collection of very strict and detailed instructions on all areas of life, customs, diet, rituals and other aspects based on Torah. This was a kind of guiding replacement for the Second Temple, which was demolished in 70. AD with ahuge amount of help from Philo’s nephew, who led the Roman army on the ground as the second in command only to Titus.

- After the death of Jesus, his followers partially dispersed and a kind of emptiness was left at the core of the action, as there was no longer anyone left to hold a larger group together and connect them spiritually and organizationally.

- At the same time, members of other sects saw these groups as a nuisance and at least partially persecuted them (most probably hence the initial migration to other places).

- Saul was a temple guardian (sayanim) at that time (around 33 a presumable death of Jesus), most likely a leader among agents who served the Jewish sect of the Pharisees, who at that point were still fairly autonomous (the sect was bound to cooperate with the Romans and therefore, as a Roman citizen, Saul was probably also very useful, while also, as a disciple of Gamaliel, very educated). As a Pharisee, and therefore a Jew, an agent, a guardian of the Jewish temple, a disciple of the high priest Gamaliel, very likely extremely well-educated and in a very high, if not the highest position among the agents held by the Jewish community then led by the four successors of Herod the Great (appointed rulers controlled by Roman governors), Saul must have also been very influential.
Thus, in Hamiltonian terms (link- Hamilton's law), Saul was torn between many aspects of his affiliation: among his relatives, as he was of Jewish descent, among his civic fellow Roman citizens, as he was a citizen of the Roman empire, among the religious identity of the Pharisees to whom he belonged, but also among the imperial polytheistic religious identity because at that time all different groups in the empire had to make offerings to Roman gods, and last but not least, because he was circumcised, so at the same time he was also physically marked as a Jew (of the tribe of Benjamin). Most of his associates and the people he met, or even persecuted as an agent and a Temple guardian, were colonized (romanized?) Jews who had no citizenship and were therefore already in a far worse position than him.
- The conversion of Saul is so similar to other "takeovers" of the most important positions throughout history that it would be a miracle if his work as a secret agent and guard, and his high position with many connections to the top of the Jewish Pharisaic and Sadducean sect, the Roman police, and other people whom he knew as an agent, collaborated with, or persecuted, had nothing to do with this unusual but crucial event in the spread of Christianity.

And probably the most important fact: the first texts about Jesus and the work of the disciples were written by Saul, not by Jesus’s disciples. The New Testament, as the assembled compilation of texts, is misleading, because the texts aren’t set in chronological order. Bible is kind of “collage” or “montage”. Here is a link to the most probable timeline of the texts compiled in the New Testament: LINK.

What good would it have done to promote monotheistic Christianity in the midst of a polytheistic empire? There are several possible answers, which I will try to address here through sketchy outlines, which of course need more study and above all more possible or available references. From the point of view of the Jewish community, which was disintegrating and being attacked from different angles, some change was necessary, and they may have taken a big risk, but we have to look at it from a point of view that is very typical of what the notorious philosopher Alain Badiou (who is also of Jewish blood) calls the "Jewish discourse", a "discourse" in which a divine sign decides the essential course. (Alain Badiou's book, St. Paul, is available at this LINK)

As opposed to the Greek discourse, in which wise men seek truth in the most appropriate connection between logos and being, Jewish discourse is based on faith. I must also add here, as a matter of necessity, that in its archaic age, Greece, alongside ALL the Paleolithic, Mesolithic and the entire Neolithic world until the rise of the “logos” civilization, had a similar "discourse of divine signs".

This is important for understanding what is to come. Alongside Badiou, I am also reminded of another philosopher of Jewish descent, Lev Shestov, and his defense of such a "discourse of divine signs", which is about decisions made on the basis of trust in "signs" rather than on the basis of rational calculations about the chances of success of an intention.

In short, the establishment of an alternative form of religious organisation differed from the classical "Jewish discourse" grounded in the Torah at the outset, but not so much that Jewish communities would had been unable to ignore and transcend these differences in emigration. The establishment of a "Christian" (it did not have this name in the beginning) religion, alongside the rigid structure of rabbinic Judaism, was the establishment of a kind of auxiliary, so to speak "avant-garde", and at the same time more hidden, guerrilla religious activity and movement.

This community had to have people who were prepared (like St. Stephen, who died condemned to stoning and who allegedly said on that occasion: "Lord, do not impute this sin to them") , without any scruple, to commit totally insane acts and extreme activities (1 Cor 1:19: For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise /σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν/, and the understanding of the prudent I will cast away).

They must have identified with Jesus, as the One who was sacrificed by the Father, to such an extent that they were willing to sacrifice their lives at any time and without rational consideration. For such a task there was hardly a man more qualified than Saul, because he knew how to lead a network of people, inspire or brainwash them and, like a soldier, deploy them correctly to the nearness of death.

In their struggle against the Greeks and Latins, from the Jewish perspective the psychological tactics (similar to some of Sun Tzu's tactical wisdom) of making Roman and Greek invaders sacrifice their lives for the Jewish faith and ancestors of the Jewish lineage was kind of the ultimate goal.
In this sense, too, Saul was the right man for the job. He was well-educated, spoke excellent Greek and Latin, and had citizenship and good connections on the Roman side. It really is the best for a soldier to persuade his enemy to kill himself, or at least to subdue his enemy, and thus completely let himself be taken over. Saul was also a master of military tactics in this respect.
In terms of his own techniques of persuasion, Saul did not exactly seek rational explanations and ways of persuading people on the other side through "Greek discourse", i.e "logos" or "gnosis", but (as Badiou, who devoted the aforementioned book to this subject, notes) he renounced proof altogether, and acted as if he were the bearer of the Truth, which one does not question, since it is a "sign" and a "revelation".
With this discourse, in the midst of the Hellenized world of logos, sophia and gnosis (reason, wisdom and knowledge), Saul opened up the most ancient aspect of religion, through which, evolutionarily speaking, all mankind has passed. Because of evolutionary bottlenecks in the patterns of tribal behaviour, tribes with even "blind" trust in the leaders of a group, with common cults, faith and which were as homogeneous as possible because they also followed tradition of their common ancestors, had a much better chance of survival.
Blind faith (blind trust) in the decisions of the leaders led to increased participation and thus to higher chances of survival. Or, vice versa: if a group did not have this kind of trust, it died out. This is "blind faith", the basic principle of believing in the one who establishes the field of shared power, and it occurs both from the point of view of power and from the point of view of submission to the will, which is transmitted through "signs" from the deceased common ancestors to the living.

There are a bunch of such religions, which date back to different periods. Who does not knock on wood? Who doesn't think of a superstition they picked up as a child from some grandmother? Who doesn't notice the number of magazine articles on various aspects of superstition and the compulsion to believe in the most unbelievable stories (evolutionarily psychologically interesting - mainly women's magazines) from the USA to Japan?

Even the best scientists are not immune to superstition. There is a short anecdote of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Niels Bohr, who had a horseshoe hanging in his apartment; when asked if he was superstitious, he replied, "I am not superstitious. I am not superstitious. But they say that a horseshoe is good luck even if you DON'T believe in it."
Another possible answer to the question, "what would be gained from establishing Christianity?"- also from the point of view of the Roman state - could be the possibility of establishing a structure to unify the very diverse cultures that made up this vast empire. Of course, the Roman emperors may not have been thinking about this in Saul's time, but in any case such unification was an option that actually came to the elite incredibly quickly, given that so soon after major tensions they began to accept Christianity as one of several religions (by the 3rd century the majority of Christians were still Jews). In fact, from the point of view of the emergence of Christianity, and the relatively small population of Jews, it became the state religion in the vast territory of Rome incredibly fast.

Unlike earlier religious divisions, and the freedom of the tribal cults of the time, the Christian religious community required a completely unified religious ritual and a belief in only one God. With relentless aggression typical of the Levantines, and Zealot exclusiveness, they also banned all other religions surprisingly quickly by introducing drastic penalties (e.g. executions or confiscation of all property if anyone was found to still worship Roman or Greek gods) into the universal Roman law that had been de facto until that point (something similar is happening today when intolerantly exclusionary human rights law are imposed on the peoples of non-Semitic, steppe origins - who, for the sake of brevity, we will somewhat incorrectly call Yamna here - under the banner of a false universality of inclusiveness).

What are the essential components of "Saul's fraud" that even today prevent a sovereign sense of national selfhood, a free trust in the instinct of our Yamna soul, and an open expectation of elevating the community in a spiritual and cultural unfolding that we humans. as "beings of being", actually need in our lives? (https://www.eupedia.com/genetics/yamna_culture.shtml#Autosomal_DNA)

In a final summary of these schemes of Saul's deception, I will try to define as many aspects of this "deceit" as possible, but at the same time, throughout this part of the text we must be aware that these were initially only patterns that have been shaped progressively and ever more directed over time. Such elements have been changed through different aspects of interpretation, but always in relation to the potential gains and possible dominations that have emerged as opportunities due to serious transcendental gaps in the defenses of the Yamna cultures (mostly R1b or R1a haplogroups). I myself see these clusters of "deception" that were initiated as spruces from which (like common ancestors or some surrogate archetypes) different variations of many others, but similarly conceived, seduction and "fraudulent" projects then evolved.
1. Perhaps the first place can be given to the aforementioned proto-faith, a kind of magical “vraja” through which all forms of human societies have passed, and the ancient Greek myths and their prophecies, which were read as omens (i.e. the "discourse of omens" according to Badiou), were no exception to this. During the ascension of Greek culture, however, the ancient Greeks began to abandon them and rather cultivate them symbolically through theatre and art, and then later, in the classical period, channel them into philosophy and gnosis - that is to say, through knowledge and science, which were, in fact, able to shape the world around them far more accurately, to subjugate natural givens and to foretell events with greater accuracy than "reading omens" from the cut livers of sacrificial animals.
In this Hellenised world the reinvention of (Saul's) "discourse of omens" thus opened up a profound source which each of us instinctively knows and feels through genetic memory as that primordial religious feeling, the "blind faith", the "irrationality", and the "trust" in the "omen" as a "revelation", mixing fear (hence sacrifice) with an infinite trust in a good way out of the predicament.

2. And it is this "way out of the conundrum" of one of the most acute everlasting problems of human consciousness, that is, the finitude of life, which has in itself become one of the first items in any belief, that has been resolved by the re-enactment of the ancient patterns of resurrection from the dead, in which Saul directly placed the "resurrection of Jesus" as the key event - something which Saul presumably experienced himself during his encounter with Him on the road to Damascus.
Let me list here some of the mythological resurrections that we know from other religions (not all resurrections are the same, but they are the same in terms of their primary, original desire for immortality and the desire to be raised from the dead and joined with one’s beloved tribesmen, ancestors and descenants, and experiencing the one’s mystically sunbathed/o-svet-ljen world/svet again):
Osiris from Egypt (c. 5000 years old), the Epic of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia (c. 4000 years old), the Dionysus (about 3300 years old - by some estimates more than 5000 years old), Dumuzid, as a forerunner of Adonis, also from the period of the very beginning of "history" in terms of the invention of the written word... Of course, we must not forget Jonah (who was swallowed by a whale and came out of the whale, so to speak, reborn). This ancient Jewish myth is particularly important because among the oldest paintings and sculptures there are all kinds of allusions to eternity, a new birth, or the special power of God to protect people from death, and through this we can see that, in the early period, Christians were not particularly concerned about specific theological questions regarding the differences between Jesus and other similar myths, but were basically concerned with the passage to a pleasant paradisiacal afterlife and to a new life.
Initially, the myth of a joyful passage to the afterlife was also an essential message in the dissemination of the Christian doctrine among non-Jews. And the question of whether the uncircumcised were even allowed to be members of this faith was a matter of dispute among the followers of Saul's ministry themselves. In the earliest statues of Jesus, he looks very much like Apollo, and partly like Adonis (also indicated by the often-mentioned Myrrh plant), because it is very likely that the main effort of the early Christians to gain a following was to claim that Jesus was the one who healed them with miracles and assured them of eternal life after death. For more than 600 years, Jesus appears as a beardless, almost androgynous young person who works miracles. LINK to a documentary on the depictions of the early Christians.
3. Promoting equality in a sense that was unacceptable in any society under any system or government at that time. Namely, the encouragement of individuals from all strata of society to sell their possessions (Acts 2:45 and 4:34), to join groups of "apostles" and preachers of the new faith, and to live in "equality" is certainly present in the earliest texts. "Our desire is not that others might be relieved while you are hard pressed, but that there might be equality« says Saul in 2 Corinthians 8:13. Although at this time Saul was a citizen of one of the most "egalitarian" systems that then existed (Roman law), his subversive move of gathering and associating on the basis of religious affiliation was a kind of "proto-communism" or proti wokeism in which, after the initial accumulation of capital in the community, an extremely strong organisational hierarchy was established. This follows two paths: one is the moralism involved in matters concerning the financial "politics" of the community, and the other is the organisational structure of the "leaders" themselves. An example of how strongly this was present can be seen in the following: “Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. 2 With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.3 Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.” (Acts 5)
Since it is nowhere specifically stated, it must be understood here that this Hananiah had sold his possessions, and therefore the money was in principle actually his property....
Anyone who has had even a taste of communism will immediately find parallels with the obsession of the early Christian Jewish leaders with common property, self-management, and all such concepts in which they demonised the natural inclination and desire to manage one's own property.

At the same time, we can see how early Christians completely copied the structure of hierarchical organisation, otherwise renamed as titles of religious character, from the Roman army (Caesar=pope, governer=cardinal, prefect=bishop etc). So organized in their geo-strategic, territorial logic, they were sent out as encouragers (missionaries, apostles) of religious action. Through the masses of the poorest of the poor (and the support of a few rich men who donated to the communities and became involved in them themselves), this logic, which initially led to the establishment of "churches" (ἐκκλησία actually means a community or group), and later the establishment of monasteries, allowed an ever-increasing influence on the broader environment, and a consequent takeover and monopolistic status, with draconian consequences for people who dared to oppose to it. (I recommend Chaterina Nixey's book The Darkening Age).

5. Sin, as the most basic category, where Saul leans on the dual aspect of the psychological effect of the accusation. First, on deviations from the commandments, which are in principle commandments of the Torah (the 10 commandments of God) and are very loose - in fact they are a kind of redundant, moralizing, didactically imperious device. We can particularly see this when looking at it with respect to the (Yamna) Romans, who, through their development and predominantly natural, instinctive ethos set up an extremely precise legal structure (Roman law) which still serves us today as the basis for all civilized societies.

In short, the threat of “sin” and “sinning” against God is a far simpler argument than the much clearer, highly civilized legal norms of Rome at that time. Otherwise, a very interesting text by Tom Sunić on the relationship to sin can be found here: LINK
We see this aspect in Saul's letters as a constant reminder of the moral norms within which the community should be organized and where a different logic of religious law is encouraged to be set as a legal framework. Divine norms (rules, commandments codified through writing) are internalised to the point of being purely Platonic - we can see them entering into Saul's texts in a way similar to the example of Socrates during his defence in court, where he defends himself invoking the "δαιμόνιον", his inner voice , as divine inspiration. In this way, Socrates is referring to ethos and shields himself from the list of rules and legal norms. But: if Socrates' "daimonion" is uncodified, personal, and is in fact an ethos (as an interplay of custom, character, and self-definition, which is what the word ἦθος originally means), Saul's moral code enters man through the codified 10 commandments - the believer must internalize and at the same time learn that nothing can be hidden from this internalized god, since, in a similar way to, for example, "the divine" conscience, it is within you, even if it comes into your mind through a codified system of commandments.
It is a kind of surrogate structure that replaces the innate ethos and replaces it with a set of commandments, like a digitally coded artificial intelligence spy. But for this replacement, one must be willing to accept a certain initiation, a kind of "neuro-programming". For neurological processes are the basis of what we call "internalisation". In fact, a more appropriate term would be constructing, or programming our thought processes.

6. The second aspect of sin is the literally obscure moral scheme, manifested in a system of rules for external use, which gradually simplified and replaced the complex Roman law before finally turning it into a problematic medieval arbitrary interpretation (with the result of people accused being lynched by the mob). The first Christian communities must have acted as kind of "alternative" and semi-covert rebel groups, which, judging by Saul's texts, had a rather visible tendency to anomie and appeal exclusively to divinely "revealed" justice, even though they lived in an empire whose key element, which tied everything together in a civil sense, precisely was its excellent legal system.
But over time, even "divinely revealed justice" came to more and more clearly resemble a set of Old Testament rules that gradually defined an increasing part of life's situations. It is therefore not very surprising that almost at the same time as the apostles and missionaries of the new faith set out from Jerusalem into the world, the Jerusalem Talmud began to take shape. The almost simultaneity of these two projects is indeed interesting, precisely from the point of view that the Talmud, with its extremely detailed descriptions of rules for circumcised Jews, then apparently formed the basic text (forbidden and hidden from all non-Jews). Thus, despite (or because of) displacement, Jews began to form increasingly less divided communities around this basic text, even if they had previously been almost openly hostile to each other through groups of Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots, new “Christians” and Essenes. And it was Saul who played a key role in carrying out executions, arrests and other such repressive acts.

The avoidance of sin was therefore also the most prominent structural lever in the attainment of the most desirable goal: eternal life in the perfect bliss of the afterlife, which could be attained by any individual, regardless of his condition, class and or circumstances in life.
It is perhaps not superfluous to add that from the very beginning this internalised union with God had the seeds of a nihilistic individualism, away from kin-being .
The individualism of modern societies is nihilistic on two levels: firstly on the level of apparent freedom and, at the same time, on the level of completely commanded opportunism in adapting to the community.
7. Individualism in its transcendent sense is always, in the first instance, the excerption of an individual from a certain society, in which the individual removes himself from the lineage and places himself in relation to the totality of the transcendence. For this kind of access to transcendence he has to disregard all those who, in this stream of lineage, are like the sea on which he, as an individual, is but a single wave. But with individualism we arrive at the idea that this individual is literally detached from this sea of lineage.
This detachment is to be found both in Platonist ideas and in certain mythological parables. For in many myths we find this drastic opposition of lineage or the complete abandonment of the generic. The original myth of Cain and Abel itself has such a pattern. The Old Testament parable of Abraham sacrificing Isaac could be similar, since both parables are directly opposite to the survival instinct:
34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. 37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. (Mt 34-38)
In short, the individual bond with God, which transcends even the strongest emotional bond, the closeness to one's children, parents, brothers and sisters etc, rests on a Platonist schema in which the most important relationship is the relationship to the "eidos" (the figure as the concept or essence). For Plato's eidos (character, concept, essence) is the only true reality and, unlike the material copies of the heretical ("mimesis" as a copy, snapshot) of abstract origin, it is a kind of divine conception, since this basic character does not change, neither arise nor disappear, neither multiply nor perish, but is the first and eternal. And even if Aristotle is fencing himself off from his friend Plato in his very position on truth, when he speaks of the fact that "truth must take precedence over friendship" (at least among philosophers), he again takes the same approach in this concept: namely, he again puts a conceptual starting-point, or the concept of "truth", before friendship; that is to say, it is quite similar to the reality of the eidos as the pre-supposition of everything else.
The overcoming of the logos, truth or character-concept at the point where the instinct of the bond of descent operates is by its logic anti-natural, but at the same time not everyone is capable of overcoming the obstacles of instinct in such an anti-natural way. In evolutionary biology, there is even the aforementioned Hamilton's Law, whereby biologist W.D. Hamilton demonstrated "kin selection", according to which statistically all creatures are willing to act more altruistically towards those creatures that are more genetically similar than towards those that are less genetically similar (LINK).
The maxims of Aristotle quoted above and the ideas of Plato have been directly translated, almost half a millennium after the time of these philosophers, into a mythological setting in which, of course, truth is not just truth as a best available explanation but the "Truth" /capitalized/. In such a scheme of thought, friends are no longer friends but apostles/ those who are sent on a mission to proclaim this "Truth" about the priority to be given to a concept over one's child, brother or parents. Each individual (even if he is not a philosopher) must therefore place himself in a position where his relationship to the concept of God as the one primordial origin of all, happens as something that takes the individual out of the sea of lineage (kin) and places him as an individual soul (also a Platonic concept) in direct relationship to the abstract source of all that is created on earth in a mimetic way.
8. Another aspect of Saul's deception is the belief in the progress of linear time that will be fulfilled at the end of history, which in its fractal derivations has spilled over into virtually all aspects of modern forms of these basic principles. The cyclical perception of time, more natural to Yamna peoples and traditional wisdom, is almost nowhere to be found anymore. Perhaps also because of the scientific derivations of modern physics, in which, with Einstein's theory of relativity, time has been linked to space and has come to be seen as a time-space continuum, while at the same time time is now taken to be an irreversible category. (By contrast, time in the mythological world is almost always cyclical, and linked to the cyclical processes of nature.)

In conceptualising time as a linear, irreversible dimension, there is always an analogy with the idea of a beginning and an end, thus making the mythological scheme considered a telos - a completion , and fulfilment of the divine plan. The liberal version of these mythological schemes is the idea of constant progress and fulfilment in the idealized forms of future worlds. De Benoist also shows this version in relation to the equally idealistic, utopian communist ideas of the end of history, which is completed by the introduction of "paradise on earth" or "the end of history".

9. Universalism:
At the origin of the conceptual frameworks described above, in which mimetic copies in the form of mundane objects, things, people, and animals are created out of the deeper reality of characters, ideas, and concepts (eidos), there is an innerheld universal principle. This principle does not supposedly change - it’s always the same anywhere, anytime and in anyone. It is presumed that it works the same everywhere and every time and can be seen as the core of everything. Aristotle's assumption that we are all equally capable of seeing the truth and behaving according to his race, as if being a Greeks ourselves, also speaks to this view. In any case, it is necessary to ask: who was Aristotle referring to? Who did Plato have in mind? In the horizon of their assumptions about universal wisdom, did the two aristocrats of philosophy could have in mind the barbarians whose civilizational achievements were stuck in the Neolithic, or even the Mesolithic and Palaeolithic, on the peripheries of the Greek colonies?
By overlapping of these 500-year-old Platonic premises, Saulian universalism is bound with some of the direct consequences of these philosophical positions. At the same time, because Saul theologically rested on Semitic monotheistic foundations (upon which all the Semitic Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - rest, all of which presuppose their God as "the god of all gods"), he would not have even had to go beyond the boundaries of the Semitic mythological world in mythologizing a single "Truth" (without any need for proof or reason), and he would not have had to take ideas directly from the field of Greek philosophy when it was not explicitly necessary for the uncircumcised to understand him.
In fact, the counter-arguments are even reversed: namely, that Platonist concepts have their source in Semitic monotheism, which of course does not hold water, because even at a time when Plato's Academy was still active, and Christianity had even been accepted as an official religion, it was still regarded as a Jewish religion by the Greeks and Latins, and to a considerable extent ridiculed and despised. The texts of Julian the Apostate, the texts of Celsus, and the anti-Christian text of the legendary physician Galen, amongst others, show this attitude remained for at least 600 or 700 years after Plato and Aristotle died.
Universalism therefore originated with the ancestors of the Yamna people (more exactly, by Europeans of haplotype R1), and was further manifested in the constant desire to expand their colonies by means of the introduction of a common culture with so many different peoples (Hellenism, the later Roman Empire, and the subsequent forms of empires throughout Europe and even later in the Americas - all of these Yamna-civilizations included different peoples into Yamna based culture). At the same time, in Saul's time, the Roman principle of this unification was a legal, juridical order and culture derived from similar polytheistic cults and customs cultivated by the descendants of the Yamna people from Persia and North Africa to the northern parts of Europe. This was very similar to the building of Hellenism as a unifying culture in the time of Aristotle (Aristotle certainly had a great influence on Alexander of Macedon, who actively ensured this Hellenic cultural unification through his military and organizational unification of a multitude of small states).
Saul was born in a fully-Hellenised Roman province and, although he moved to Jerusalem, which was then also culturally steeped in a Hellenistic cultural background, he had to reflect on his Semitic cultural scheme in a similar way as to Philo of Alexandria: monotheism in a way that must be necessarily tied to the universal principle of theo-logos/ eidos, such as we find in Plato.

9a. universal equality
In an active, meta-political and institutional sense the only universal "equality" that Saul could see was equality before the law at that time, since Roman law guaranteed this principle in a way that is still today considered by practically all the law schools in the world as the crowning achievement of a universalized social order. And since the conceptual scheme of this equality applied only to citizens and free people, mostly Greeks and Latins, but not to slaves (mostly of other tribes and clans, with many of them Jews), as a Pharisee by faith, a Jew by descent, and a Roman by citizenship, he was torn between these planes of his existence in the most contrasting and also controversial of circumstances. For, at the same time, as a circumcised Jew and a Pharisee, he was also an agent, a guard of the Jewish Jerusalem second Temple, a disciple of the high priest Gamaliel, very probably extremely well educated and in the highest position among the agents that the Jewish community had, at that time governed by the tetrarchy of the successors of Herod (who were set up as a kind of Roman governor with partial autonomy).
With the change that came with his entry to the followers of Christ, relatively soon after the death of Jesus (there are many suggestions that this is a completely fictitious story with no historical basis whatsoever), there was also a change in Saul's name, whereby he could change his identity according to the mission, allowing him to take full advantage of the benefits of citizenship, but at the same time move among Jews, Greeks, Latins etc. as one of “theirs”.
(1 Cor 9:19-22 19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.)

Entering the Christian community was such that Saul was "called by God" to be a guide, a leader. He did not come to them as someone who slowly "climbs" the ladder and earns the position of a leader amongst equals. He came immediately as the one called by God Himself. It is very difficult to find information as to whether there was any witness anywhere to this "event" of Saul falling from his horse and being addressed directly by God Himself, or whether there is any other "proof" about this. Badiou, in his book St. Paul, also denies any need for proof when it comes to the "Event", which, according to him, is a "turning point" in history. Because, in Badiou's estimation, for St. Paul "the debate about the Resurrection is no longer in his eyes a debate between historians and witnesses..." whereupon Badiou suddenly introduces a quite bizarre (but not surprising) comparison with the unnecessity of proving the existence of gas chambers and the Holocaust. "We will not ask for evidence and counter-evidence"... "There comes a moment when what really counts, and what really matters, is to declare on one's own behalf that what has happened has happened, and to declare it also because one can foresee a situation which makes that declaration necessary and which the situation requires".
Some "men" who were supposedly with Saul are not even worth mentioning by name, nor is it written in Acts that they were not to hear anything other than him, only to see a light.. at midday it could have been the sun, who knows? And the humble Ananias (the Damascene preacher) accepted him as such, perhaps because his reputation as an agent and murderer of Jesus' followers must have got to him as well. Fear was very likely present, for this was not some helpless individual, but a trained soldier, policeman and agent who was also extremely capable organizationally, and, because of his previous connections with the Roman military structure, with which he must have been at least partly involved, he also held a dual role meaning he was in contact with Roman commanders and many influential representatives of both Jewish and Roman societies.
Unlike some of the other apostles, Saul defended universalism far more vigorously than his contemporaries; this can be seen especially in his defense of the possibility for uncircumcised, i.e. non-Jewish, people to join as new members of the community.
Such practical and tactical universalism (Yahweh is the God of pseudo-universalism, since He is at the same time the genealogical God of the Jews and the God of all the "Gentiles"; I recommend the book Our God Is Your God Too, But We Are His Chosen People, by L. Guyenot) therefore greatly increased the potential scope and power of the community, and above all, this tactic of special warfare, in which the Jews were able to organizationally encompass and control their enemies, the Romans and the Greeks, was enormously increased.

The equality that the community tried to maintain in the way mentioned above is therefore very ambivalent and quite similar to the equality that we have seen through the last "gospel" according to Marx, when in communist countries the majority population was pounded by poverty, and the "spiritual" leaders of the "new class" or avant-garde, mostly fellow white people i.e. Jews , were dickering around with innumerable privileges and almost immeasurable wealth. This advantage is, of course, mentioned several times, perhaps not explicitly, but referred to nevertheless in various works; but it is certainly maintained as the primacy of the Jews over other peoples, since they are the "chosen" ones.

One of the more interesting stories from the Gospels that speaks of this is certainly the account of the Syrophoenician woman (a Greek) who comes to ask Jesus to heal her daughter, upon which Jesus directly rejects her, thus indicating the priority of the Jews: "Leave the children to be fed first. It is not good to take bread from children and throw it to the dogs." Mt 15:27

9b. A universal code of the culture of death and the culture of life
When examined from a bio-evolutionary perspective, the Abrahamic religions have a similar concern for procreation at their core as other religions. But unlike the highly complex relationships between the female goddesses and the male gods of Yamna origins, the monotheistic, concentrated power in the patriarchal world of nomadic pastoralist tribes allowed for greater cohesiveness and strictly controlled sexuality (hence circumcision) in the semi-desert environment; women who are completely subservient, who practically belong to the master and are completely covered with cloth in order not to arouse greater tensions between men of the same tribe, and the extremely precise daily chores and rituals in the Torah, and even more so in the Talmud and the Qur'an. Last but not least, the extremely high percentage of marriages within the immediate family.
The Yamna people, as Dr Kevin MacDonald explains (link: LINK), have evolved to have a much greater tolerance of newcomers and a greater tolerance of women's activities in the communal struggle for survival, due to the harsh conditions of living in a very harsh environment during the Ice Age. There is also greater genetic diversity, mixing of tribes, greater tolerance in accepting new people into their racial community and a natural instinct of extremely strong emphasis on cooperation and altruism.

I myself see the origin or condition of these abilities in a very strong emphasis on compassion, which can be seen, in fact, throughout the entire vertical of the activities of Europeans - from the highly developed arts and sciences to the highly developed legal order and to technical perfection at all levels of functioning. (A separate treatise could be written on this, since such systematic engagement with art, language, theatre, architecture, urbanism, science, philosophy, mathematics, technical culture, etc., is not found in other parts of the world at all, to the point at which the original Yamna or (Indo)European embodiments of these achievements were taken up. Actually, there is a book called Human Accomplishment in which Charles Murray comparatively explores and describes the greatest achievements of mankind, and through this the above claims can be substantiated... LINK)
Through various evolutionary principles (natural and sexual selection, mutation, genetic drift, coevolution, etc.) the eugenic force of the evolutionary stream of descent improves the chances of survival of a group as well as increasing their chances of dominance in encounters with other groups. In these forms of selection and preference, group and kin selection are also very important for group survival dynamics (Prof. E. Dutton gives an amusing illustration of kin preferences: LINK), which are extremely complex and intricate in the human species as in addition to the influences of genetics (and epigenetics) there are also very influential cultural patterns at work.

In the human race, and to some extent in primates, cultural patterns evolve that encourage or inhibit certain instincts, shaping and regulating them in a way that goes beyond (or even partly in the opposite direction to) their raw instinctive force, thus profoundly influencing the dynamics of the development of certain societies.
The encounter of major cultures and their different genetic "cocktails" almost inevitably leads to major massacres or genocides, although of course a relatively peaceful coexistence can occasionally occur, which in most cases eventually results in the disappearance of the less violent or often the less numerous culture.
The cases of genocides around the world, which most of the time are seen as the result of religious or ideological differences, are almost always (also or even exclusively) due to genetic differences. The attacking groups do not necessarily have to be more numerous, since many genocides have been committed by smaller groups against larger groups of people (e.g. the insane ethnic to population ratio of the rulers of the Soviet Union or the little-mentioned genocide of Hindus by Muslim tribes, for example, show a similar pattern) and, in the light of new findings, these examples completely disprove theories about the possibility of a wonderful "multicultural" happy world in which all the world's groups would supposedly work together to "improve the world".
It is therefore very important to be aware of this aspect when it comes to culture and the maintenance of the categories which, within the various cults, signify the superlative, within which a genetic grouping is strengthened in every respect and enables its existence and its place under the sun. It is therefore very important to be aware of this aspect when it comes to culture and upkeeping of the categories which, within the various cults, signify the transcendence. A genetic grouping is strengthened in every respect and enables its existence and its place under the sun by cultivating the access to transcendence common to the whole group, nation or people of the same race.
The meaning that a cult has for a particular culture is of the utmost importance in this respect, since the core of the cult, from the point of view of evolution, is above all the maintenance of the "metaxy-physics "*, the transcendence of the continuous flow of generation, which has neither a clear beginning nor an end, and which, in the flow of care and love for the new-born and for our neighbours, for our world and for our non-universalist sacred, is manifested as the trust, the love, the care, and the transcendent contact of the human being of the same race with the sacredness of being.

Conclusions

When seeking for a logical and meaningful coherence of religious, philosophical, and at the same time common ideological structure that enables larger empires or larger multicultural states to have a more organized common ground, at first sight monotheism is the most favorable for appearing a politically practical way. At first sight, monotheism appears to enable cohesive mental tools in order to maximize the power of presentation of "eidetic" notions, therefore, optimizing the cohesion between all the individual units. The best and simple way to do this is to claim that there is a precondition for the intelligibility and universality of all categories, and that is only one God.

But: what are the notions, “categories” apart from being the concepts, and what are their relations to one another, if not the very concept of the world being a holy place for we were born in it to fulfill our duty of continuation of our eternal Hamiltonian code by continued reproduction of us, its mortals? The conception of transcendence comes from these bonds (and, by the way, in the Slovene language the word ‘faith’ is almost a homonym with the word ‘source’ [vera/ vir]). So, when we conceptualize and think in the language handed down to us by our predecessors, we are in a special field at the source and in the source, especially if the tradition was handed down from ancestors with a devotion that contains an open and pure conscience before consciousness.
The most profound genuine source and originality that belongs to that what is most essential for a being of a person that dwells among his/ her people also brings transcendence to that person via lineage as “kin-being”. And vice-versa: conceptions that have abandoned the kin-being and have shattered the being (as Heidegger “Dassein” or existence) within the kin, betray and give-up this living-transcendence to something non-native, something already dead. (In Slavic languages a church is called crkva or cerkva, which sounds very similar to the word crkniti, or crkovati, which means “die” or “to die”…)
Any traditions that are a substitute of the original in the form of a surrogate lie or those traditions that are simply copied and mechanically handed down, are basically just spells that lead us into hypnosis and entrancement. Such a way of thinking creates society and individuals who are submissive through their prayer, who are fearful instead of being free among the freeman, who give thanks and who are grateful for their participation in “being” as such.
So, when we think of concepts and firm foundations for conceptualization of the world, it is crucial (M. Heidegger specifically elaborated on this) that we also think about the inner wisdom of the linguistic structure in which centuries of experience by many individuals are verified through the broad mutual sharing of these same concepts in every single word of the language.
It is therefore a "logos" in the most fundamental sense of the term, which permeates all that we experience as beings of being. From bare survival, through thought to art. And in doing so we are in a very special, transcendent contact with those who have handed it to us and those to whom by bearing them up and dying afterwards we hand the transcendence, the love, the worries, the hope of a continuation of our kin, the relationships and the depth of meaning of archetypes, sources, a faith in the existence of their future ...

*Marko Sket also introduced the concept of metaxy-physics through Twitter as a kind of access to transcendence in the biological sense (R. Dawkins' digital river), because through the river of genetic connections of the genus we have contact in our own bodies, in every cell, with the whole space-time continuum (as E. Burke also suggests, albeit inconsistently, because he also enters this river of time moralistically, within the Platonic or Pauline (Philo, Saul) metaphysics of Christianity).
https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/12/edmund-burke-eternal-society-stephen-wolfe.html