web analytics
Axiology Judeo-reductionism

The Christian problem

encompasses the Jewish problem

No subject is so dangerous to address among White nationalists as the Christian religion.

Christianity became a Universalist religion with a special mission to transform the Other into the Same. The seeds of egalitarianism—albeit on the religious, not yet on the secular level—were sown.

Many Whites make a fundamental mistake when they portray new civil religions as part of an organized conspiracy of a small number of wicked people. In essence, civil religions are just secular transpositions of the Judeo-Christian monotheist mindset.

—Tom Sunic

______ 卐 ______

What white nationalists call the Jewish Problem can only be fully understood as the consequence of an Aryan problem. The “Aryan problem” is a form of deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values, a point that most nationalists, especially the monocausalists,* find too hard to digest.

Start here and if you like it see this PDF.

See also:

The Red Giant

The historical Jesus

Hitler on Christianity

Nietzsche on Christianity

Pierce on Christianity (I)

Pierce on Christianity (II)

Nietzsche on the Aryan race

My two cents:

On Erasmus

The biggest struggle of this century is not only the fight against the Jewish Race and their biological weapons of mass destruction. It is the fight against the personal Jew which all of you Christ idiots have.

—Axe of Perun


* Monocausalism is the orthodox view in many white nationalist circles that Jewish influence in our civilization is the sole cause of white decline. Monocausalists do not believe that there is a Christian problem or that whites, including atheists, agnostics or new agers, are wired the wrong way as a result of the programming of Christian meta-ethics through the last millennia.

The “Christian problem” does not only refer to Christian dogma, but also to the moral grammar of what we are calling “secular Christians,” a group that could even include the anticlerical Jacobins. See the entry “The Red Giant” linked above to clarify this apparently paradoxical issue.

The universalist mindset (“Catholic” means “universal”) that allowed the Jews to take over our media, a process that started right after the French revolutionaries emancipated them, is the primary infection—the Christian/Secular Christian problem. Jewish depredations in our society, a secondary infection; and the current Islamization of Europe, a tertiary infection.

From this point of view the religious malaise that afflicts the West today is, in order of seriousness: (1) Christian ethics, (2) Jewish subversion and (3) the mass migration of Muslims and non-whites in Europe and the US.

47 replies on “The Christian problem”

You fail to understand the relationship between power and ideas. It’s a trivial formality for elites to transform a society’s trajectory through adapting, reforming, and shifting the emphasis of the society’s memeplex. The shifting power dynamic of the elites are the tectonic plates and the attitudes and initiatives of the society are the mountains and valleys.

To blame or reward something as complex and monolithic as “Christianity” for anything is farcical. When the Catholic priesthood controlled society in collaboration with the nobility then you had a noble and pan-European Christianity which celebrated Rome. When the mercantile peasants rose to the fore, Christianity was politically castrated into a swarm of irrelevant Protestant denominations and all serious business occurred in the Lodge. At this late hour, Christianity compels us to invade Uganda and stabilize things to the point that we can open up some pipelines and set up some Burger King franchises there.

It’s not that ideas don’t matter. It’s just that the only ideas that really matter are ideas relating to the nature of power, metapolitics, and what Evola refers to as the “Occult War”. If you don’t get those ideas right, none of the rest of your ideas matter. As long as we have no martial, managerial, or mercantile power, our being correct and our influencing the process will remain little more than standing in a river splashing water upstream. To actually redirect the river requires terraforming. It requires understanding how mountains and valleys come to be, and controlling the landscape itself.

The overarching Christian memeplex and the more sturdy hierarchies are as fine of vehicles for the Restoration as any, and Jesus of Nazareth’s “Sermon on the Mount” is a clear and concise answer to the Jewish Question, the Capitalist Question, and every other question we’re faced with in this decadent and derelict age. It’s a primer for resisting corruption. If we had benevolent elites with true power who were as resistant to temptation and corruption as Christ and his early followers, then we would triumph over our enemies as decisively as he and they did.

The task before us is threefold: Raise up a benevolent elite, invest real power in that elite, ensure that elite is incorruptible. In the hands of elites who are neither fools nor scoundrels, universalism means honoring human dignity while respecting tribal and sovereign boundaries and identities. In the hands of elites who are neither fools nor scoundrels, the aspects of Christianity which you purport to be fatal will be no less fatal than they were before foolish and hostile elites fashioned them into ideological weapons against us.

Hey Matt, nice to see you here.

I know that item “The red giant” is rather long, but have you really read at least the rest of them, I mean the remaining twelve? I mention this because the focus of my mind-expanding beyond monocausalism is secular Christianity, what Tom Sunic still calls liberalism.

I get your memeplex explanation and you’re right with the plate tectonics metaphor. Very lucid to explain metapolitics. I myself have thought of the river metaphor too many times in my soliloquies.

But I do believe that, following your metaphor, the “secular Christian” plate has been voluntarily being subducted by the secularists, moving under the Jewish tectonic plate and sinking into the Earth’s mantle for self-destruction, precisely due to its basic axiology of enforced universalism and egalitarianism.

In fact, what bothered me the most while reading Esau’s Tears, which recounts the rise of the Jews in the modern world, is how virtually all European Christians in the 19th century were paralyzed before their growing influence not because of the hypnotic powers of the tribe, but because their own morals and deranged sense of decency. (Only Hitler and his übermenschen would transvaluate such values in the following century, what we badly need today.)

And now that you said that Jesus’ disciples resisted corruption, I wonder if you have read what even in the times of Porphyry people were saying about the amazing, and even criminal corruption of both Peter and Paul (link above)?

But even before the memes of Secular Christianity / Liberalism took over, it’s clear to me that Catholicism resulted in an astronomic disaster throughout the continent at the south of Río Grande, as briefly explained in another of the above entries: a process that started in New Spain long before the US was founded.

I know that you are a Christian and that my recipe for salvation—“the prize to save the white race from extinction is apostasy”—will be a hard one to swallow, even when my focus is liberal axiology. (If my Hojas Susurrantes were translated I’d send you a copy: a spiritual odyssey that recounts how my unusually strong Christian faith exploded in a thousand pieces.) But without escalating the discussion that far, what would you respond to Johnson’s points at Occidental Dissent (also linked above)?

Hey Matt, nice to see you here.

My pleasure.

I know that item #2 [editor note: I rearranged the items; he refers to "The red giant"] is rather long, but have you really read at least the rest of them, I mean the remaining twelve? I mention this because the focus of my mind-expanding beyond monocausalism is secular Christianity, what Tom Sunic still calls liberalism.

I’ve read quite a few of them. Some I read long ago. I exhaustively read all of Nietzsche’s works before I had a driver’s license, incuding The Antichrist. Within months of getting access to the Internet at 13, I found my way onto a debate channel dedicated to atheists. I was anti-Christian up until about five years ago, and feel that I am well-versed in the arguments against Christianity from both a Modern and Traditional vantage point.

I don’t say all that to boast of expertise, but to explain where I’m at. There are definitely people who grew up immersed in Christianity and are simply incapable of letting it go even if it were the root cause. I’m not one of those people. If anything, my “wiring” is that of a secular skeptic. I still have no patience for Creationism, sola scriptura literalism, and rank superstition.

I’ll take the time over the next couple weeks to read through the links you’ve provided and offer a more complete reply, though I strongly suspect that a lot of it amounts to condemning Christianity in decadent forms brought about by the decadent elites at its helm. I agree with you about secular liberalism being a bastard offspring of Christianity, just as White Guilt is the bastard spawn of White Supremacism. A civilization of White Supremacist Christians could have broken and become anti-White and atheist within the span of a mere couple decades without it being the product of the old Gods merely taking on new avatars.

But without escalating the discussion that far, what would you respond to Johnson’s points at Occidental Dissent in entry #1? [editor note: ibid. He refers to what used to be the first article]

Not only is a Christianity with a sane approach to identity hypothetically possible and theologically defensible, it exists and thrives in the Eastern Orthodox tradition of having national churches which are in communion with one another. There is a universal brotherhood in Christ, but it’s an otherworldly one. It’s not of this world. In this world, we have our tribes, families, and traditions. Papal imperialism, Protestant universalism, and philo-Semitism are all toxic, but I believe the toxins were introduced within the last few centuries for secular and tectonic reasons.

Sure: take your time.

Greg Johnson said recently that the Protestant strain of Christianity that colonized North America represented a toxic regression in terms of ethno-survivalism when compared to the more “pagan” Christianity in the Old World. It’s a pity that I cannot locate the specific thread. Anyway, this is what Rollory said at Age of Treason last month along the same lines:

I have long thought that Christianity is not a solution to anything, because Christianity, taken to its true logical extremes, is liberalism. Christianity as it was practiced in the glory days of the Middle Ages was half pagan and fully Catholic which is to say filtered through what wiser heads decided the religion should be as opposed to what the text actually says.

Protestantism gets back to the text. Protestants—specifically, the earlier Puritans (and particularly their descendants) and evangelicals now—are the hotbeds of liberalism.

Liberalism is a Christian heresy: it springs up wherever Christianity was historically strongest. (Whether one counts liberalism as cause or symptom is irrelevant, it’s a useful indicator either way.)

We both see Protestant Christianity as a toxic regression, though I believe it has less to do with Christianity “returning to its original form” than to its serving its new masters: merchants and Jews.

After all, British Israelites and Christian Identity adherents read the text quite literally and arrived at conclusions dramatically at odds with what the folks at CUFI have arrived at. Their exegesis is no less sensible than what Pastor Hagee concocts, and yet Hagee travels by jet while CI pastors get around in used pickup trucks. Hagee has his own cable channels to promote himself 24/7, while CI pastors struggle to keep their Facebook and blogspot accounts enabled.

I say it has less to do with the persuasiveness of the opposing perspectives than it does with the usefulness of the opposing perspectives. Not to flatter ourselves, but I believe we make much more persuasive and convincing arguments than the anti-racists. Good for us, we’ve made dramatic improvements in the last few years.

Yet, we’ll remain adrift until we’ve become useful and relevant to an elite with real power. And that’s only useful if we become relevant to a benevolent elite whose interests are integrally aligned with our own. An example of our becoming useful and relevant in a bad way would be in our becoming useful to merchants and Jews who see us as a potential wellspring of rhetorical support and corpses for their designs on the Islamic World…a la Geert Wilders.

I’ve been reading in the last few days The Origin of Christianity, from Revilo Oliver. If you haven’t read yet, it’s very interesting. He relates the relationship between Zoroastrism and Christianity, the latter being some kind of offspring from the former.

So it seems that Zoroastrism is the origin of the universalist religions and ideas. (Gods, there was even a zoroastric sect similar to our modern day marxists).

I’ll give it a look, Llew. By the way, you seem to know Spanish. Have you tried to read the German-Spanish translation of Karlheinz Deschner’s maxmimum opus, Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (The Criminal History of Christianity)?

Nice article about Trayvon at CC, Matt. But I don’t want to comment there for reasons explained elsewhere.

The point of this post series is that monocausalists are just wrong. In fact, monocausalism is the underlying reason that quite a few of these people believe in retarded theories like blaming Mossad for 9/11. They just simply cannot see that in addition to the JP we have a Christian and a Muslim problem as well.

Take for example Catholicism. My mother has subscribed the newsletter Almas (which means “Souls”) for decades. I am fed up of looking at the Almas cover the same Christian theme over and over, ad infinitum and ad nauseam, in every single issue: Catholic missionaries being photographed with poor little negroes in Africa or elsewhere, what I call “the New Jesus”.

This is the sort of deranged altruism that caused the emancipation of the Jews in the first place! And I find it incredible that nationalists don’t want to see something so obvious.

The paradox with “secular Christianity”, as I will start calling liberalism, is that this deranged altruism only gets highlighted once you give up Christian dogma, which is what has been happening in the last decades.

Why do People of Color hate the White Man? He brought them Christianity, and Christianity leads to large Families of Color!!!

Anyway, not just Christianity, but also Nietzscheanity can be used against Whites, when Whites are weak, and non-Whites are strong. They will always use your own ideology against you, whatever it may be. Understand this, and practice the same.

I doubt that Nietzsche would have sided non-whites but anyway: I am not a Nietzschean because Nietzsche’s philosophy (1) is not explicitly racial and (2) unlike his pal Wagner he didn’t name the Jew.

I don’t really understand much of what is being said here but I’ll have a stab at it anyway (lol). I understand the hypothesis:

‘that the Jewish Problem can only be understood as the deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values’

I would have to say that the core of the Jewish problem is Usury; and that this was a problem long before the money lending elite invented monotheism (Judaism). They invented monotheism/Judaism for a reason, that is, because it is easier to steal the wealth of the people when the people have only one god to turn to for help. That this god is also the god of the money lenders, and that, in fact, the money lenders are god’s chosen people effectively closes all doors for the people and institutionalizes Judaic supremacy.
We would still have a Jewish problem, Usury, even if the Jews were not able to invent Christianity/Monotheism and spread it across Europe because Usurers was able to thrive in pre-Judaic/monotheistic societies for thousands of years. But the invention and spread of monotheistic Christianity surely has greatly aggravated, and indeed, institutionalized the Jewish problem. So yes you are correct, the ‘deranged altruism resulting from the secular fulfillment of universal Christian values’ surely has institutionalized the Jewish problem into our Western societies. I am inclined to believe that Christianity has been a deliberate Jewish ploy from the very onset, just like monotheism. What Jesus preached at the sermon of the mount is suicidal for any race or culture to adopt! Turn the other cheek, don’t worry about wealth because everything will be ok in the next world etc; these suicidal ideas are surely conspired by Jewish money lenders to subvert Nations.
So I would argue that Christianity was a conspired Jewish false flag from the very start (just like monotheism/Judaism), and that the spread of this suicidal religion was promoted by Judaism and has indeed aggravated the Jewish problem. Christianity has had many centuries to tackle the Jewish problem and has been a complete failure. There is nothing good coming from religious of secular Christianity. It is a key component of the Jewish problem.

If we only have one God, how does that make it easier for us to lose our wealth to Jews? And why did they adopt monotheism also if this is the case? Can you give examples of this or evidence?

Also, the idea that Jews invented Christianity as a way of controlling the gentiles, and that it has only really just started working in their benefit, it makes you sound like you’re of your own shadows, I’m sorry to say. The words of someone who is so paranoid as to make such tenuous and unfounded connections.

At The Occidental Observer Freedom Cobra has beautifully summarized this post:

Here’s a simple flow-chart. Years of research and it boils down thusly:

Christianity founded —> Christianity helps destroy Rome —> Chrisianity made somewhat decent by White efforts —> White people thrive due to their nature —> White people take Christianity to its logical, ethnocidal conclusion —> White Civilization Waxes —> We perish…


We forge a new destiny. See a new vision. Love ourselves again. Care for our own. And, most importantly, do it in a manner befitting our biocultural roots.

To quote Chechar, “The Christian problem encompasses the Jewish problem.”

“Blaming Christianity is a sort of taboo topic in most of the English-speaking WN blogosphere.”

It is a taboo topic in the whole WN blogosphere Chechar.

These folks are ready to speak the unspeakable about race differences and the JP. But they refuse to take the final step and face the fact that if it was not for Christianity perhaps we would not have to be discussing all of these problems now because they might not have happened in the first place.

How can someone advocate for the dignity and self reliance of the White race while operating within a non White, Levantine cult?

How can these people expose the Jews and their race supremacist cult while worshipping a Jew (!) and making extensive use of the Jewish mythology and the Jewish Weltanschauung?!

It is mind boggling!

My view about the core problems facing the White race today is that Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Communism are Semitic and therefore alien, extraneous ideologies that should be consigned to the trash can of History. The differences I see among them nowadays are close to irrelevant as far as our interests are concerned.

Mr. Parrott defends Christianity because he’s a Christian. This is known in American street parlance as a ‘duh’ moment. In other words – of course!

He then defends his indefensible position with excessive verbiage and an egregious amount of fancy words, esoteric “memes”, and so forth. In short, he’s a pedant, and an obnoxious one at that.

I hate to use extremist language, but Mr. Parrott’s claim that a “WN ruling elite” would be just fine and dandy, even if it were composed of Christians is just dead wrong. Christianity is about something that does not exist.

As such, it is no different – in its essence – than voodoo or witchcraft. We do not need voodoo worshippers in WN (as leaders!) and thus we do not need individuals like Mr. Parrott (except as meek and servile followers).

Hold Back This Day: new edition @ $12.95
The Towers of Eden: new edition @ $14.88

yes. parrott’s benevolent elite is purely magical thinking. just like christianity’s myth of jesus walking on water. i might be inclined to consider christianity’s claims when one of them can introduce me to a contemporary who can walk on water.

Rangel Helms (see my posts about him) says that that gospel fairly tale was copied from another set of fairy tales: Buddha’s walking on the water.

The violent commandments of the OT aren’t problematic, the Semitic ethnocentrism is problematic. The NT lessens the ethnocentrism, but turns the warfare morality on its head.

Amazing thread by very qualified posters, I’m struggling myself with Christianity, I don’t think I ever will have a fix idea on it although HH’s and AH’s approaches (take both Christian and pagan values) seem best options to me at present. AH was in a way a profound Christian and his altruism was not perverted by Christianity, so there must be a way out without throwing the baby with the water (Dutch expression).

My question to Chechar and others is, what would be western civilisation without Christ? Would we still be plundering Saxons, Visigoths and Vikings? How sure are you that those classic values of Greece and Rome would be transported to the Nordic races without the roman church? What proof is there we have superior ADN to apply for creativity and effort of all kinds, in music, architecture, & science without the pattern of the Catholic church laid out for us, to work, sweat out the best of us and stop partying (read Tacitus on the Germanic people prior to Christianization, do not resemble at all the Germanic people of the 20th century).

We will never know if there is a God but we can see for sure that without a religion the Nordic races have not proven much besides Stonehenge. I’m not stating I have any clue how to deal with the JP, with or without the Bible. What we see today is except for some hammerhead pagans, all society is turning their back on the church and are a much easier prey to Juice as when the Catholic church reigned Europe with the credo of Christ to slander the money handlers.

My question to Chechar and others is, what would be western civilisation without Christ? Would we still be plundering Saxons, Visigoths and Vikings?

No. There’s not only the racial factor. There’s the psychogenic factor too. Read this chapter of my book on psychohistory to see why the Germanic peoples won’t go back easily to barbarism in the coming centuries.

The hidden reason is that childrearing methods have changed much since then.

True, but that was NOT his point. It is not a matter of what would happen if Europeans would return to barbarism in the XXI Century, but whether the modern childrearing would have appeared in the first place without christianity. If you cannot point to a trand among pre-christian pagans, be they Romans or Franks, towards leaving the late infanticidal mode, you are stuck with the fact that christianity is the factor that eventually brought us to modern childrearing.

But deMause’s error was to consider Greco-Roman exposure as the main standard to measure child abuse. Isn’t it obvious that medieval Europe was more abusive for children than Pericles’ Athens? Otherwise in the dark ages you’d have gotten the same explosion in arts, science and the humanities than in classical times. Saving a child from exposure only to tell him that he could be burned for all eternity (what destroyed my mind when I was younger) is not exactly a jump to a superior psychogenic stage. Search for the heading “A critique of Lloyd deMause” here:


Your analyse of Christianity is unfortunately superficial. Any serious consideration of the Roman empire will see it was doomed by it’s own decadence before Christianity. Christianity allowed the dying empire to survive further….1000 years further in the case of Byzantium. To the present day in terms of Europe.
The empire was also doomed by the rising confederation of Germanic tribes … whose strength was consolidated by Christianity….through whom the Roman empire lived on ‘theologically’ into something called ‘Europe,’ and not Alamagnia.
You seek easy answers in blaming the surrendered and prostate form of the most sublime (in it’s essence) theology history has ever known, paired with it’s most sublimed and advanced culture…instead of looking for the hard answers that require consideration, study and insight.
It must be noted what of the things the Jews have always hated about Europe, and seek to undermine at every turn, in every sphere? ~~ ‘Christianity’. Why would this be?
As for Protestantism; ‘Lutheranism’ never succumbed to the depredations of the confused universalism and Imperialism mated with utilitarian mercantilism created and spread wholly by the English church…. a more advanced and deadly Venetian system. Lutheranism was the seed bed of Europes greatest philosophers, scientists and musicians, as well as the Prussian military spirit and Nationalist Socialism.
Nor do you look for the guilt on our own hands, most specifically English mercantile theology and utilitarianism – The English project required the destruction of Europe without thought, and the seeds of all the modern theological and philosophical traps laid by the Jews were acquired hand in hand with the English imperial project, whose elite most readily identified with Judaism and remain today the template throughout not just the West, but the world.
The Jews are guilty of most everything levelled at them, what’s more they want you to know it… it’s a force multiplier for them. The rot of the church is thorough, it is completely disarmed, headless. But it is not the cause.

Christianity, like all altruistic social organisms in the west, was penetrated by forces intending downfall. It was also polluted by keeping the Pentateuch, or Old Testament integral – like keeping the word of satan along side that of God, yet not mentioning it to the unsuspecting reader.
You fellows mean well, and I respect your views,. but you are falling into the trap laid out for you. Saving Europe means saving it how it is…not how you imagine it to be in some pagan or futuristic age.


I wanted to recommend this book to you.

I know there are some Christ cranks who are sympathetic to National Socialism and try to claim that Hitler was either a Christian or at least cared about saving Christianity. The book above contains numerous excerpts from NS speeches, articles, etc from the period 1936-1939 which make quite clear what their true intentions for the Christ cult were and just how aggressive they were about paving the way for its demise.

Thought you might be interested in this:


Lots of useful information about early Pauline Christianity. Among other items:

1. It was almost entirely an urban movement.
2. Jewish involvement was even more prevalent than formerly believed.
3. It enjoyed support from women, immigrants, and the middle class of the time.
4. It most certainly was universalist and cosmopolitan and did much to undermine ethnic and tribal identifications.

Sounding familiar?

“Here issues of doctrine must be addressed. For something distinctive did come into the world with the development of Judeo-Christian thought: the linking of a highly social ethical code with religion. There was nothing new in the idea that the supernatural makes behavioral demands upon humans-the gods have always wanted sacrifices and worship. Nor was there anything new in the notion that the supernatural will respond to offerings-that the gods can be induced to exchange services for sacrifices. What was new was the notion that more than self-interested exchange relations were possible between humans and the supernatural. The Christian teaching that God loves those who love him was alien to pagan beliefs. MacMullen has noted that from the pagan perspective “what mattered was … the service that the deity could provide, since a god (as Aristotle had long taught) could feel no love in response to that offered”. Equally alien to paganism was the notion that because God loves humanity, Christians cannot please God unless they love one another. Indeed, as God demonstrates his love through sacrifice, humans must demonstrate their love through sacrifice on behalf of one another. Moreover, such responsibilities were to be extended beyond the bonds of family and tribe, indeed to “all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ” (I Cor. 1:2). These were revolutionary ideas.” [Stark, The Rise of Christianity (Princeton):86]

“In my judgment, a major way in which Christianity served as a revitalization movement within the empire was in offering a coherent culture that was entirely stripped of ethnicity. All were welcome without need to dispense with ethnic ties. Yet, for this very reason, among Christians ethnicity tended to be submerged as new, more universalistic, and indeed cosmopolitan, norms and customs emerged. In this way Christianity first evaded and then overwhelmed the ethnic barrier that had prevented Judaism from serving as the basis for revitalization.” [Stark, The Rise of Christianity (Princeton):213]

The purpose of early Christianity and modern leftism is the same, creating a diluted, mixed race of mongrel, with a lower then average IQ and keeping them enslaved with religion, so that the Jew can more easily maneuver between the cities.

Too bad for the Jews the heretical judeo-christian islamic sect broke out of the barbarian hinterlands and broke the spell of the racial jew, but not the spiritual jew. Islam is not judaism in race, but it is in spirit. Never forget that.

The problem with Christianity is that people do not understand the Jewish mind behind it. To understand the New Testament, one must understand Jewish culture, history and religion. Of course the Jews make no effort to enlighten the ignorant goyim on these subjects. In fact they prohibit the transference of their religious texts under penalty of death!

The Conspiracy of Man

Forward: The Tabernacle and its sacrificial system

[admin’s note: The rest of this long comment has been moved: here]

The problem with PEOPLE is that they do not understand, that much more than the Old Testament and Judaism stands behind New Testament and Christianity. Old Testament consists of 39 books, of which only about 12 are quoted in the New Testament. Of that number some are quoted multiple times, others only once. There are also fake “quotes” from OT, which is clear if one follows and checks them all. There is a lot of “Paganism” of Hellenic or Persian origin in the NT, including a God-Human born of a Virgin, “12 apostles” and typical Greek miracles. Even the parable of poor Lazarus and rich man is Greek in its origin. But most people do not understand it, so brainwashed they are by their “theology” or “Sunday schools”…

A question that has long fascinated me is why the Bible is considered relevant today when other books of the same vintage are considered archaic curiosities. What I discovered is the power of the Bible. The Bible is truly the most powerful book ever written, a veritable cookbook of recipes of how to control, not merely people, but entire civilizations. Rod Serling’s Twilight Zone episode “To Serve Man” is a perfect metaphor for what has transpired. Since Serling was himself Jewish, there may be more to this metaphor than mere coincidence. People simply cannot read the true intent behind the Bible’s facade.

Christianity was in fact nothing more than a Jewish revolution against established Judaism of the second temple period. The rebellious Essene, standing in direct opposition to the Temple and its sacrificial practices, attempted to replace YHVH, represented by the Kohein Gadol or high priest, with a priest called Yeshu. While Margaret Barker does not name the Essene, she expounds upon this idea at length in her discourse on Temple Theology (MargaretBarker.com). Yeshu was purposely sacrificed as the final paschal lamb to end the need for sacrificial atonement, thus denying the Temple its primary source of revenue. The sacrifice of Yeshu sowed the initial seeds of rebellion against the onerous sacrificial system. A later rebellion, once again fomented and supported by the Essene, brought about the physical destruction of the Temple. In this final effort, the Essene worked both sides of the equation, supplying the Romans with intelligence, while steering the people towards the rebellion that would induce the Romans to destroy the Temple structure.

After the physical destruction of the Temple, opportunistic former Temple authorities, notably Saul of Tarsus, saw an opportunity to takeover the former power of the Temple Priests by reformulating Yeshu into the new YHVH, a messiah who would deliver the Jews from their oppression under the sacrificial system into the new system now lorded over by the former, lesser authorities. It’s an old story in which lower administrators seize the opportunity for a coup d’état. However, the clever ruse had little support among observant Jews who had been Temple followers. So these new powers turned to the gentiles to increase their religion’s base of support. Yeshu’s teachings, based on the esoteric teachings of the Essene, resonated with the altruistic nature of gentiles, so the Christian movement began to take hold among the rapidly crumbling ruins of ancient Rome.

The new gentile Christians soon realized the power held within the abomination of Torah law, now twisted and mingled with Essene esoteric teachings to support their new religion. In time, Christians restructured their religion to conform to the same rules and observances practiced by former, second Temple priests. As in former times, the written teachings, now a book, were unavailable to laymen. Couched in a foreign language the “word” could only be read and interpreted by a special class initiated under specific educational guidelines, hence this new Bible was once again read and interpreted only by Temple, now “church”, authorities. The unwieldy blood sacrifice requiring the exchange of money for animals, was restored in the more efficient form of tithing and indulgences.

One only needs to compare the ancient second temple with the Vatican to see the transference of power and wealth defined within the ancient text. Nothing in the power of the Old Testament had really changed outside the fact that its followers were now formed by a much larger base of gentile believers. Orthodox Jews never forgave this usurpation of their powerful system by Gentiles, hence the reason for their ongoing, ferocious enmity towards Christians.

After the physical destruction of the Temple, opportunistic former Temple authorities, notably Saul of Tarsus…

How? The Temple was destroyed in 70 AD, and scholars say that Paul died around 67 AD.

As I have written previously, Christianity was nothing more than a Jewish revolt against their established religious tradition. Dr. E. Michael Jones points out the Jewish penchant for continual revolution in his book, “The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit: And Its Impact on World History.” Interestingly the book cover has a rendering of the last supper.

Your question highlights the very reason “The Conspiracy of Man” was written as a novel instead of a footnoted, bibliographic, historical account. The question of how many angels dance on the head of a pin continually arises with those who demand a verified account for every Jot and Tittle of evidence. So much time is spent arguing the minutia of leaf structure that the immensity of the forest is never considered. The contradictions that arise over specific claims made concerning the Bible are overwhelming.

Such claims extend to the absurd, like the claim that Jesus was not a Jew, or the latest claim that the entire narration of his life was actually a reconstruction based on the life of Julius Cesar. Worse, however is how these disputes over tiny points of minutia have caused rivers of bloodshed. Sunnis and the Shiites kill each other over Mohammad’s bloodline. Muslims and Christians slaughter each other over the claim of Jesus being a prophet versus the son of god, but what matter these points when the Jews murder everyone because their God granted them dominion over all creation?

The Bible provides an absolute blizzard of inconsistency to the researcher, but then so does all of Jewish history, the Holocaust narration providing the latest case in point. The fact is there is little verifiable evidence available for specific dates or places in the Bible. The only evidence for Solomon’s Temple is the Biblical narration. The Jews, using their typical twisted logic, claim that the detailed Biblical description holds the evidence for the existence of the first Temple. The Bible is an historical account, therefore all necessary evidence can be found within the text. How many are aware there were in fact two Bethlehems? The first well known location is a short distance south east of Jerusalem. The other unknown location is just North of Mount Carmel, very close to what is now the village of Nazareth. The birth of Jesus in the Northern village makes far more sense than his birth in the South, but to reach this conclusion, one must first know of the existence of both villages.

Most Biblical people, places and dates disputed by scholars are gleaned from supporting evidence. Perhaps this explains why Jews are putting immense effort into finding (or fabricating) archeological evidence that will support their claims of antiquity and why they have bought up periodicals like Biblical Archeological Review (BAR). But then why not, they forged Hitler’s dairies to validate their claims of his genocidal program. Paul was ostensibly a former member of the Temple’s authority a “Pharisee of Pharisees.” There is no evidence for the reasons behind his conversion to Christianity. Perhaps he had fallen out of favor with the Kohanim or was officially censored for some forgotten act. In any event, he saw his opportunity when the Temple’s decline became obvious.

Critically, other Temple priests and authorities must have come to the same conclusion. Considering the opportunistic nature of the Jew, can it be believed that all others refused to follow Paul’s lead? Or is it more likely other renegades were simply never noted for their participation in the revolution? There are several other historical accounts that support this scenario. First was the schism that resulted when the Hasmonaen priesthood ostensibly rewrote the Torah to fit their agenda in opposition to other sects, notably the Essene. A current example of this same type of schism is found in the communist revolution when many Jewish authorities, both religious and secular, gave their full support to communism. Both capitalist and orthodox Jews came out in support of a system fundamentally opposed to both religion and capitalism.

In these examples one can readily see the Jews opportunistic nature, they will sell their soul, their mother, and their beliefs, for the right price. For a brief moment, communism seemed to hold such a price for world Jewry. Note the swell of popular support among world Jewry prior to the fall of the Tsarist regime. The destruction of the Russian monarchy becoming a fait accompli, marking the nadir of Jewish support for the communist revolution.

Like the orthodox Jews who supported communism, there were no doubt former Temple Jews who gave their support to Christianity. Therefore, I conclude that Paul was but one example of a larger number of revolutionary and opportunistic Jews embracing an abhorred opposition when the chance for furthering their power (and or wealth) becomes evident. One might then recall the phrase, “The early bird catches the worm.”

The Essenes were a group who saw those living around them as people living in error. They were vegetarians who rejected the idea of blood sacrifice. The Ebionites led by James were a vegetarian stronghold who planned on revolutionizing hebrew religion. Jesus was a extremely liberal version of the Essenes, stressing compassion and forgiveness of transgressors.

It’s great to see there are still people in the cracks pushing this trite. It speaks volumes that all you can do is offer vague rhetoric or alternatively 12 or 13 books that you didn’t write.

It’s always astonishing to learn it took only 1400 years of persecution of Jews before their singular weapon started to work and really only ~1700 before it became somewhat universal.

I’ve destroyed every Judeo or anti-Christian argument since 2015. People like you take to degenerate goons like Pierce who had seven wives and his own self-serving religion.

You know why you guys are on the fringe? It’s because just like CI people, you have to have at least a warped perception of reality. You know why the only successful Atheist was Rockwell? It’s because he wasn’t a goony snake trying to propagate Anti-Christ hatred as White Power.

You’ve obviously done a lot of work, it’s more than I have. The thing is, what are you working for? With the Blockchain, Biometrics, The Breakdown of the Family and The Environment and everything else, especially the power of the enemy, what are you going to do when we’re overrun or Armageddon initiates. At the rate things are going, it’s Second Coming or bust because people like you do nothing positive.

It’s Second coming or bust because in ten years we’ll probably be just as fractured and our communications and prop efforts severely hampered.

Rest assured every Atheist you create, you’ll burn harder.

Comments are closed.