Edwin’s February 24, 2016 piece hits the nail about what is wrong with race realism, American southern nationalism, the Alt-Right, white nationalism (and I would say, even the speakers of the recent Erkenbrand 2017 Conference).
The ethno-nationalist question needs to be handled with a certain degree of intricacy and delicacy.
Goethe expresses the ideal of ethnos by the phrase: “Outwardly limited; inwardly limitless.” Only by limiting myself within a specific local history, people, language and geographic boundary is it possible to develop an authentic Personality. Only by renouncing political involvement and accepting traditional authority (aristocracy) can I attain an inner freedom. Only from the organic development of a distinct nation held together by blood and soil can I acquire culture and produce works of art (symbols) that transcend earthly boundaries. This notion of individuation as a long heroic journey only for a few is entirely foreign to the mindset of the White American.
There is no question that White Nationalism in all its various incarnations has been an abysmal failure, and that ethno-nationalism, within the European context, is presently the only source of public resistance to the ongoing program of dissolution and displacement implemented by the globalists.
It seems inconceivable at the present moment that the salvation of Aryan man will not involve using the hidden reservoirs of resentment brought to the surface by ethno-nationalist parties, if only for tactical reasons. The European masses at present seem incapable of rising above petty politics to unite under a common banner. Also, the hate crime legislations currently existing in Europe make more radical forms of resistance almost impossible. Consequently, we can conceive of ethno-nationalism as merely a transitory political phenomenon; a temporary stop-gap supported with grave reservations until political conditions (the Plebs) are ripe for truly revolutionary politics.
Ethno-nationalism, considered strictly as a theory, posits a return to a more authentic, traditional way of life, a golden age in which society was structured vertically. There is a romantic element that captures the imagination at a sub-intellectual emotive level, promising a life of meaning beyond the material. The simple argument of allowing the right of self-determination for distinct ethnicities sounds sensible for those that live within the modern world.
But ethno-nationalism in practice poses a number of serious problems:
Secessionists in America assume a priori that non-whites have a distinct separate ethnos and are capable of creating a viable nation state without the active intervention of whites. With few exceptions, racial “realists” believe that some sort of practical accommodation can be made with Blacks and other mud bloods. According to this fantasy, North America will eventually devolve into a dozen independent nations, divided along racial and linguistic lines. In this new political dispensation, Blacks are to be given their own slice of paradise under the sun, free to live among their own kind and to pursue their own destiny.
We are told by self-anointed intellectuals like Spencer, McDonald, and Johnson, that racial separation will be likened to a friendly “divorce”; contra history, population transfers will be “humane” and “peaceful,” with no shedding of innocent blood. Never mind the fact that this new Black Zion will be a grotesque farrago of Western and African culture, a pantomime of political theater, merely resembling the outward form of a state. Never mind the fact that blacks lack the ability to build a modern infrastructure and will face starvation. But no! Our intellectuals tell us that we must not believe our eyes (Africa, Haiti, Detroit). Facts, in this one instance, do not matter. We have dispensed with Christian theology but must still believe in miracles!
Ethno-nationalism, being a by-product of modernity, always panders to the lowest common denominator. Every single ethno-nationalist party in Europe adopts a horizontal understanding of power, claiming to represent the true “will of the people” by defending mass democracy. No present elected leader offers a higher ideal or unifying principle. Economics and base materialism rule every policy decision.
Every national history is largely a sad tale of petty victimhood, as though presenting a nation as a perpetual innocent “victim” that has undergone enormous suffering somehow ennobles and valorizes its right to exist; as though presenting the nation as a total weakling can be a source of strength and unity.
And even if such a leader were to emerge, a leader who does not prostitute himself by promising to satisfy every material want, a leader who demands harsh discipline and allows for no excuses, the masses would not follow him. Europe has reached such a state of total degradation that the Finn, Kai Murros, finds it necessary to adopt the style of a Maoist Dialectician (!) if only to dress his revolutionary nationalism under a “respectable” analytical framework.
Surveying the political landscape, the words of Nietzsche come to mind: “On the rulers I turned my back, when I saw what they now call ruling. To traffic and bargain for power—with the rabble!” The question must be asked: Can the debased White American with no ethnic identity support ethnic-nationalism? Or to be blunt: Can a White American value an object if no financial gain is possible?
Ethno-nationalists treat all European ethnicities like antiquarian idol-objects; they deserve preservation simply because of age, as if all were of equal value. Practically every single racial “realist” in Europe and America considers the question of biological differences and cultural achievements among indigenous European nationalities to be a social taboo. He is happy to point out the racial differences between Whites and Blacks yet becomes apoplectic if shortcomings among European populations are pointed out.
Why should anyone care about preserving Polish or Croatian identity if their impact on world history is negligible? How does that advance the interests of Aryan man? What exactly does ethno-nationalism mean for a country (i.e. Greece, Portugal) that includes a significant number of mud bloods among its native population? The ethno-nationalists have no answer.
The proposition that any nation state, like the National Socialists of yesteryear, may expand its territory and impose a new order from above is treated as a modern day heresy by ethno-nationalists. Even the apologist David Irving is critical of Hitler and the National Socialists for refusing to grant self-determination for the Slavic people of the East. Lesser personalities such as Andrew Anglin and Carolyn Yeager are no better and find it necessary to rationalize the harsh treatment of the Slavs by the Germans.
Ethno-nationalism is not enough for all men. There are a few differentiated men who have an inner orientation and perspective totally foreign from everyone else. Such men recognize that their identities cannot be so easily circumscribed by the nation or tribe, and always feel a sense of alienation around other people. They recognize that they are part of a great chain of Being stretching back to pre-historic time.
They see kindred racial spirits in the Aryans of Ancient India and Persia. They see themselves as spiritual heirs to the cultural patrimony left to us by the Greco-Roman world. Their horizons extend beyond the narrow confines of a nation state toward the idea of an Empire. They feel no moral qualms over outrageous territorial expansion. They look with outright disgust and nausea at what passes for “culture” in the modern era. These men have a naturally artistic temperament and are united by a common purpose: there must be a fanatical pursuit of beauty at whatever the cost.
Goethe, Nietzsche, H.S. Chamberlain, Oliver, Pierce, and a few others belong to this rare category of men. Contrast this with present day ethno-nationalists whose view of history does not stretch back even a hundred years—as though the idea of an Empire, of Rome or Greece never existed!
National Socialism is the perfect fusion of German nationalism with the artistic temperament of Ancient Greece and with the martial valor of Rome. When asked for his reason for joining the National Socialist Party, the philosopher Martin Heidegger replied: “It was the one political movement in the twentieth century that took an essentially tragic view of life. That managed to bring the ethos of the Ancient Greeks 2500 years into the present.”
32 replies on “Against Spencer et al”
See the comments on the Addenda about this post—here—to understand why I tagged this entry under the category ‘beauty’.
I just came over from visiting at Occidental Dissent where they are promoting a “white lives matter” demonstration in middle Tennessee and this is the very thought I came away with.
Has this ever worked before? The last time I saw it work was in the sixties when there was a Jew on every campus with a bull horn shouting down “the man.” That worked great at tearing white society apart, but where are those Jews with bullhorns now?
How many useless demonstrations and Jew meme modifications will it take to understand how not to play this thoroughly Jewed game.
What do you propose, the Dylann move?
I suggest massive white gatherings like the recent one in Britain the media ignored. Forget the protests and what not, as this plays directly into the Jew’s hand for creating violent events. Simply have mass gatherings where like minded white people can talk to each other and express their views.
The key is not to have an agenda, not to have a protest or demonstration. Like Charlottesville, Berkeley was a protest and that is where they went wrong. This should be a meeting of white minds with no specifically identified agenda. Jews goad us into protesting and protest are made to order for counter protestors.
What issue can they enemy come up with to protest a white love in? The focus must be on “Love” a word that must be emphasized consistently throughout. This meeting would be a “love in” – “Whitestock” – Peace and love Baby!
My idea is white people getting together perhaps with bands or some other form of white entertainment. There could also be impromptu gatherings to listen to various speakers e.g. Kevin MacDonald Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson and the like. It doesn’t matter who, as long as the speakers are not any form of Zionist agent.
How could this be labeled hate? Any “protest” against white “love” would have obvious “hateful” motivations. After all it’s perfectly reasonable for other races to hold such tribal events, why not white people? Those protesting such an event would self identify as “haters.”
I am thinking of a location in a predominantly white area (state) away from large urban centers where base social elements can be easily marshaled for violence. Maybe somewhere in Nevada or Arizona or the like. A location where agent provocateurs being bussed in can be seen and countered miles away. A few hit and run caltrop droppings on the road should do it.
Consider the possibilities
It would be interesting to see the reactions to an individual dressed in a Revolutionary war “Minute Man” uniform, complete with Second Amendment musket, walking from west to east, gathering white Americans behind him. Upon reaching the White house, this individual would bring out a copy of the Constitution and read it verbatim and then state “We want our country back!”
By the way, there are no government restrictions on black powder firearms. I’m surprised one of the current crop of mass shooters have yet to employ such a weapon in one of the weekly televised “rampage” murder events. After all, such firearms are every bit as effective as the Italian Carcano allegedly used to execute JFK.
@arch,
rather than the white loveins that you suggest, with the long road in spiked with caltrops to make it harder for the antifada to get there, i like what jost turner suggested in his essay “Revolutionary Fantasies”,
We desperately need to become “solution oriented”, that is,
dispassionately determining just what we can do, and using our Aryan
will to do it successfully. It is a sad day when Aryans can do no
better than tried and disproven marches and demonstrations,
anachronistic robes and uniforms, ridiculous “White Power” stickers
adorned with childish racial slurs, and the irresponsible call to
arms and revolution by fantasizers who have no such abilities
themselves.
Adolf Hitler was solution-oriented. He built his political movement
on the foundation of a viable Folk-movement which he fostered and
nurtured. He began in his own neighborhood, converting his own
neighbors, and only when he had a large support base there did he
expand his political efforts nationally. We should be giving thought
to his tried and proven methods instead of listening to losers whine
about a fantasy revolution.
Keep in mind that there is absolutely no support for armed revolution
in this country at this time. Without public support, all violence is
counterproductive. This is not a theory, it is a cold, hard fact!
My idea is solution oriented. Outside silly, weak protest marches, like that in Charlottesville, where does one find whites gathering? The only reason “black” protest marches work is because Jews back them both ideologically and financially.
The key element is the Jew’s media that frames such events. When whites march, it’s evil and hateful. When Negroes march, it’s an historic event to correct the past wrongs of white racism. With no media to support white protests, instead attacking and discrediting such attempts, there is no hope of mounting a successful protest. Look at South Africa, can one think whites there are going to win their cause against a Negro tidal wave fully supported by Jews?
Here’s a thought, Jews have co-opted and/or bought control of virtually all formerly white-owned, agrarian land. The small farmer has been moved out of the food supply chain by financial manipulation. This leaves the food supply in the hands of Jewish owned or controlled corporate mega-farms both here and abroad. Now the food supply is being adulterated with genetic based poisons.
So why might Jews support the murder of white African farmers? Think of the outcome for the burgeoning Negro population when the food supply runs out. But one needs not imagine, for the outcome is plainly evident in starving Zimbabwe. Now that the whites have been cowed into total submission across the globe, the need for the Jews’ Negro murdering tool is becoming greatly diminished.
I heartily agree. Far too many whites seem obsessed with past history cosplay.
Where does one see white solidarity these days? The white man’s most fundamental problems stems from his racial and cultural fractionalization. While whites have been inculcated with the idea of the glorious individual victoriously making his way alone against all odds, Jews are of the “Borg” mind with termite like consistency in gnawing away the white race and civilization. My idea of a white love-in is in contrast to the past protests that have only allowed the Jews to capitalize on white “racism,” “bigotry” “anti-Semitism” et al. Whites must first begin a fellowship movement where being white is a requirement and recognition of other whites is the goal.
Is this not essentially what Hitler did?
My idea suggests not to gathering to whine about the injustices served against us, but to unite as a people on whatever scale possible. While it is easy for Jews to counteract gatherings to highlight grievances with memes like “white privilege,” it is far more problematical to counter whites gathering simply for the joyful purpose of being together.
Attacks on such gatherings can be countered with the question, “why not?” Where is the problem with whites gathering on their own time and volition? Is there a law in a free America that says people cannot congregate simply for reasons of fellowship? If so, what about other races congregating, are they to be outlawed as well?
Bob Matthews and the Bruder Schweigen proved this the hard way. All he achieved was providing a convenient target for the Jew’s attack against “evil Nazi bigots.” How much white public support did one hear for either Matthews or his organization? It was Jew media smear all the way. Once again the, media spared no effort to frame (((Alan Berg))) as a victim, while the Bruder Schweigen were the evil “anti-Semites” attacking the poor oppressed Jew who was simply expressing his views to the world.
I saw the same media technique used at Waco where David Koresh was painted as the arch-evil, pedophile, Christian cultist. “Save the children! Ve must save the children! Even if we have to murder them, ve must save the children from the evil Christians!” Screamed the Jew. Why? So Jews can later torture them and drink their blood?
The media invented story served as a valid reason to deny Koresh and his Branch Davidians due process and their constitutional rights. The white community’s overwhelming support for denial of justice and outright slaughter of fellow whites, children no less, is the very reason I left that corrupt state.
Had Koresh been a Negro, no doubt Jews would have been there with cameras and microphones to record the massive injustice being met out against the poor “black” victims of white government oppression. Soon after, there would have been mass protests staged across the county over the outrageously unjust treatment of “blacks” while the Christian aspect of the story would have been lost in the background noise generated by the Jew’s media.
Chechar, Caesar, tsar, Sir?
I’ve been reading your blog for about two months now.
I come from a deeply religious Christian background and have found your argument against Christianity very compelling.
Of course due to a lifetime of enmeshment in Christian culture my tendency is to want to argue against you but point in fact your criticism is entirely legitimate. Despite my aversion to it I can’t but take your position seriously.
I do, however, find a sort of tension between your argument that Christianity is cucked and your argument that Christianity eradicated it’s opposition through violence.
I wonder if there is a possibility to rekindle that proclivity to violence and through a reconstructing of Christian narrative direct that latent power against our enemies?
It occurs to me that Hitler said that if a man finds his religion to be a barrier to the necessary requirements of survival for his people it obliges him to become a reformer of religion and not a politician.
To this end it seems that a Reformation of Christianity to bring it in line with militant Empire is necessary.
I don’t find it practical to do away with Christianity, simply because, what would replace it?
The connection to our pagan past is completely severed and we have no idea what our pagan ancestral religion actually is in practice.
I just can’t see a future where we return to worship of Apollo, Artemis, Serapis etc. There is no continuity.
I would like to begin a dialogue along these lines.
Religion in general and Christianity in specific seem to me to be a product of selective narrative. Choosing bits and pieces from an immense trove of material.
There exists within Christianity the seeds of anti-semitic thought and as you have pointed out a will to power through Force.
Do you think a concious reconstructing of Christian narrative to suit our purposes is possible?
Feel free to contact me via the email I used to register this comment or reply to me here.
I’m very much interested in this dialogue.
Well, you may start by reading the most recent posts on this page: ‘Warm from the press’ and ‘Criminal Christianity’, and then tell me if it was not Jewed since its beginning!
Ruthlessness is a necessary quality, particularly to thrive in the ordeals to come. Who were the most ruthless back then, Pagans or Christians?
Simon suggests using the enemy’s own weapon against it. My own thinking is simply:
Whatever it takes!
What exactly do you mean? In my recent posts I’ve been suggesting that many of the early Christians were actually Semites who used the word ‘gentiles’ against the adepts of Hellenism (something similar to what the Bolshevik Jews did with the Russians during the Red Terror). Are you siding the Semites or the ancient Hellenists?
I’m not sure which post it was but I was particularly interested in the timeline you posted of Christian destruction of pagan temples, Priests etc.
To me the largest and most pertinent argument against Christianity is the inherently cucked nature of radical universalism and turn the other cheek pacifism.
Your timeline shows that for the first 700 years neither of these qualities prevented the Christian from ascending to power over paganism with sheer brutality (and the backing of a State).
In that sense Christianity was made “right by might”.
I am mulling over in my head how a new narrative of Christianity can be constructed that draws upon these qualities and puts them to use for us.
Religion in some way is hard wired into humans and Aryans in particular seem to require a religion. As there is no functional modern paganism from which to draw a current living manifestation of it, and considering that a large section of white nationalists are Christian, I don’t understand how Christianity could be eliminated in a practical sense, Regardless of how ill constituted it is for our purpose, and irrespective of how correct your intellectual arguments are.
You can be correct in your analysis of Christianity but still be wrong in your assessment of human nature. Religion appeals to the irrational side of man and you can scream legitimate rational arguments against any religion all day long and never sway it’s adherents.
You can’t tear down one religion without replacing it with another.
I love your idea of a “priesthood of the 14 words” but how can that be made into an actual religion that has all the needed components to compel adherence?
I don’t disagree that Christianity is inherently Judaic. But in that case the atom bomb is also Judaic.
In the end a weapon is just a means to an end and it can be aimed at whomever.
I guess my question is:
What viable practicable alternative religion is there that could possibly gain traction with today’s Whites?
It seems a fools errand to set oneself in opposition to Christianity. But perhaps a bit of Wu Wei Tai Chi, that is redirecting the energy aimed at us against it’s issuer, is in order.
Put simply: a selective narrative that highlights all the parts of Christianity that can work in our favor and deemphasis of those aspects that work against us.
Martin Luther’s “the Jews and their lies” for example is a wonderful anti-Semitic piece of polemics. Coupled with the “love your personal enemies but hate the enemies of God” ala John Chrysostom and we have a recipe for a Christian justification of force against our eternal enemy.
I think given enough time one could find enough nuggets like these which arranged together could make a compelling Christian argument for ethnic cleansing.
Do you see it at all possible that a rearrangement of Christianity along these lines could at least serve as a stop gap solution for our situation?
If you see a viable alternative religion to Christianity I’d love to hear it, but the idea of white people converting to a paganism dead for over 1500 years seems preposterous.
We have no idea what pre Christian pagan religion was actually like, Only “mythology”.
For a viable religion you need temples, priests, rituals, mysteries etc.
The mysteries of Dionysus for example are totally lost to the Christian era.
Now, if we had the power of the state behind us, maybe we could reconstruct a neo paganism and supplant Christianity, but in order to get a state power behind us we will need to have sufficient strength to do so.
But without a Reformation of Christianity along the lines I mentioned above I don’t see us ever acquiring sufficient strength.
It seems to me that Hitler was aware of this conundrum and didn’t think it wise to tackle the Christian animal by the horns.
Yes, but in his table talks he said that Christianity will die a natural death.
You raise lots of points and for the moment I can only call your attention to our idea of the religion in the ethnostate: a 2013 ‘Letter from Manu’.
This comment has been relocated: here
Arch,
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I don’t agree with or disagree with your construction, and I feel it illustrates my point that through selective interpretation one can make Christian narrative say absolutely anything.
Black liberation theology takes this very approach of tailoring Christianity to suit it’s own purpose.
I would offer a counter narrative:
Jesus was not a Jew either by religion or race. The Crux of this construction relying upon ones definition of “Jews” and “Israel”. They don’t necessarily have to be equivalent terms:
link
I’ll take a look at your site. Thank you.
“Selective interpretation” is the fundamental problem with Christianity. People pick and choose what they like and dislike about these stories from a position of total ignorance of the time, place and people for whom they were constructed. It’s like constructing a picture of American history entirely from television programs.
Jesus was a Jew. He had to be a Jew to accomplish his mission of deconstructing Temple law. What’s more, he not only had to be a Jew, he had to be the Jew’s Jew, a Temple priest, otherwise he would have never possessed the authority that had Temple followers listening to his message.
Think about it, who has the legal authority to question American law? Who has the authority to question Vatican law? Knowing the Jew’s authoritarianism and ethnocentric attitudes, is it possible such a people would have paid the slightest attention to an outsider, a gentile no less, questioning their religion and its laws?
What’s more, the gospels describe Jesus’ initiation into the priesthood in the story of John the Baptist, right down to the required witnessing by at least three Temple priests for the initiation to be valid.
In the early first century, there was no “baptism”. There was however a ritual water purification ceremony called the “Mikveh” still practiced by Jews. This is the ceremony used to initiate a priest into the Temple’s elite brotherhood. When one understands the Jew’s legal description of this ancient process, they will find it clearly described in the gospel story of John the Baptist.
Also note the very first act after this initiation is the story of the temptation of Jesus. This is where “Satan”, literally “opposition”, tries buying off the newly initiated Temple priest by offering the advantages of using ones position as a priest to enrich and empower oneself. Note the traditional Jewish/mafia tactics described in this story.
The first act is where the opposition, a Temple priest, tries “reasoning” with Jesus with the idea he won’t be able to feed himself without the Temple, “just try turning these stones into bread”. Next he tries scaring Jesus by saying, using his authority without the support of the structure on which he physically stands, is tantamount to suicide. To which Jesus replies “get thee behind me Satan”, which is Aramaic for “kiss my ass”.
Lastly he tries buying off Jesus with the promise of giving him the “world”, which to first century Jews, meant Jerusalem. Note Satan, the opposition, makes his offer from the top of a mountain and the Temple was in fact built on top of a mountain.
The next story is water-into-wine where Jesus says to his mother, “it is not yet my time”, meaning it is not yet time to expose his mission by using his priestly authority to bless “impure” wine. Instead he has the servants pour the blessed wine into ritually pure vessels that impart legal purity to the wine, negating the need for a blessing. It’s all there in the story one just needs the Jewish background to understand it.
i think differentiating christianity from paganism adds legitimacy to it. who says the christian belief is not simply another category under paganism? like reich’s orgone, if it can’t be quantified, independently and statistically, set it aside.
Edwin wrote: “Lesser personalities such as Andrew Anglin and Carolyn Yeager are no better and find it necessary to rationalize the harsh treatment of the Slavs by the Germans.”
I don’t think Edwin knows what I’ve written and said about the Slavs or he wouldn’t have said this. Andrew Anglin and I have been on opposite sides of the Slav issue in the past, although now he seems to have changed on it — Andrew is constantly shifting his position to meet the requirements of the moment in his quest for fame. I do not. I have never, as Edwin said of David Irving, “criticized Hitler and the National Socialists for refusing to grant self-determination for the Slavic people of the East.” To the contrary, I have defended the decisions not to give autonomy to the Ukrainian and Russian nationalists to fight against Stalin with their own armies. And I have endorsed Hitler’s Lebensraum policy and his idea of a Germanic League to oversee, manage and protect Europe from invaders.
Dear Carolyn,
What a delight to see your words here. It must give Jews fits to know that such meetings of the minds is possible without their ability to directly censor such thoughts. Thanks also to Cesar for his efforts at making this possible.
Simon, your above comments are very thoughtful. Cesar has had a long, bad experience with Christianity including later in his life, IIRC, being taken in by Mary Baker Eddy’s “Christian Science”, and he’s currently a materialist.
Unlike Cesar and his current materialism, I agree with you that a replacement for Christianity is needed. I see there’s a new book out, “A Soliton and its owned Bions (Awareness and Mind)”, that posits a computed reality and that one’s awareness/mind is nonphysical and has an afterlife. And its subsection 6.3.1 “Birds of a Feather, Flock Together” is nationalist.
There’s also its section 9.4 “A Brief Analysis of Christianity” which shows Christianity as the tool of imperialism that it is, and how its sexual policies etc. are designed to benefit the people who live off Christianity.
And I see the entire book is available in both print and HTML, and the HTML is free on the internet, so you may want to take a look, since it’s a modern alternative to Christianity written by a PhD.
I am not a ‘materialist’.
Then what are you, exactly?
@ Kurt:
I lean toward panentheism.
The wiki on “panentheism” says “God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time ‘transcends’ all things created.”
Given the above, I’d say that the computing elements and their computing-element program in my book is the concretization of your panentheism, so you may want to take a look at it.
The wiki article is biased toward theism; it is not reliable.
Generally I don’t indulge in metaphysics because it is an infinite (and sometimes pointless) subject. But I could say that the extreme beauty of some landscapes, sometimes captured by the artists (my Facebook and Twitter pages show a painting of Le Lorrain), make me feel there’s something truly divine in Nature.
Thank you for your response.
I’ll take a look at that book.
What a pointless waste of time.
Considering the history Judaism and its ugly step daughters have imposed on the world over over the last three thousand years, one can only marvel at such comments
My apologies for this long post, but Christianity is not a simple subject effectively addressed in a few paragraphs.
Paul was nothing more than a Jewish opportunist who saw the chance to usurp the power of the fallen Temple by replacing the Temple’s YHVH with Jesus. Paul stood in direct opposition to Jesus teachings as demonstrated in Matthew 10:5.
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 10-5,6.
“Lost sheep of Israel” is a clear euphemism for first century, Temple Jews. In this verse, Jesus specifically commands his disciples not to address the gentiles, but focus on Temple Jews. Is it not obvious that Paul took his message to the “gentiles” despite Jesus command to his disciples not to do so? Paul does exactly the opposite and in doing so, creates the “gentile’s” enmity to the Temple regime that, to this day, remains supported by orthodox Jews.
Again Jesus repeats the narrow focus of his mission when addressing the issue of the Canaanite woman.
“And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel..”
Note that Jesus initially would not even address the woman until his disciples finally goaded him into doing so. I always see a modern dialogue going something like this, Disciple: “Jesus H. Christ, do something about this bitch! She won’t stop nagging us about her kid. PLEASE! Do something, anything, but get rid of her; she’s driving us crazy!” The gospel message of Jesus was clearly intended only for Temple Jews and not the “gentiles.”
From the beginning, Jesus was oppositional to traditional Judaism. Paul seeing his opportunity to take control of the decaying Temple system, “took up the cross” to empower himself. Paul’s Christianity was nothing more than a thinly disguised reinvention of the Temple and its sacrificial system Jesus worked to destroy.
Paul merely replaced the corrupt Temple’s YHVH god with Jesus as the new god. Should it be any surprise that modern Christians follow Old Testament law, e.g. the ten commandments versus Jesus’ two, while glossing over or simply ignoring the teachings of Jesus?
The story of Jesus is about opposition to the second Temple and never about the goy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here is but one of the critical elements to understanding the story, the reason behind the raising of Lazarus:
Jewish burial custom of the first century was to wrap the head separately from the body and lay the body in a sepulcher. The reason for this custom is interesting in that, at the time, people were being buried alive to avoid a very expensive purification ritual known as the “Para Aduma”.
The purification process involved the ashes of a “red heifer”. According to Temple law, a red heifer had to be a “perfect” specimen, never yoked and “without blemish”. From the time of Moses to the time of Jesus, only nine such animals had been sacrificed, so one can easily imagine what these ashes might have cost the penitent. Thus, people were burying their sick and dying loved ones alive to avoid this onerous “sin” tax imposed by Temple law.
The tomb, or “sepulcher”, of that era was usually located in a cave that had shelves cut into the walls. This was a cool, dark, dry place in a very hot environment, so the dying would have been relatively comfortable lying in state. The dying would be cleansed, wrapped and then laid in the tomb.
After decomposition, the bones were removed and placed into an “ossuary”, leaving the spot open for the next body. Normally a person would expire after three days in the tomb from dehydration and/or starvation. The state of quietus would be officially confirmed on the third day by unwrapping the head and checking for breath. This rigid, religious custom explains why the “Shroud of Turin” is a fake.
Jesus was a Temple priest, initiated into the priesthood during his cousin John’s Mikveh or “baptism” ceremony. This gave Jesus full legal authority to challenge Temple Law. Thus, Jesus challenged the Para Aduma by “raising the dead”. The prohibitive cost of the Para Aduma is highlighted in the gospels by the fact the very first person Jesus “raised from the dead” was the daughter of a wealthy member of the Temple. Had it been a son, Jarius would have undoubtedly paid the tax, but women were chattel and a daughter had no real value, so Jarius was willing to allow his daughter to be buried alive in order to avoid the prohibitive cost of the Para Aduma.
To make an even more pronounced, official statement of protest, Jesus had a sick and dying Lazarus set up to be “raised from the dead” as public protest against the terrible custom that had developed due to Temple law. This is why a crowd of witnesses was gathered around the tomb for the event. This also explains why upon hearing about the raising of Lazarus, the Temple priests immediately ordered the execution of both Jesus and Lazarus. Jesus’ “raising of Lazarus” was a direct attack on Temple revenue in the same manner as his attack on the Temple’s moneychangers or “kollybistēs”.
The three day time frame of the process is why Jesus was distressed over his arrival on the fourth day to stage his protest and why he had originally been in no hurry, saying “Lazarus is not yet unto death” when informed Lazarus had died.
Another interesting fact is that, according to rigid Jewish custom, there would have been no possible way a Jew of that era would have buried a non-family member in the family tomb – no possible way. Thus, “Joseph of Arimathea” had to have been a family member of Jesus. The name “Joseph”, combined with the fact that this man was himself a Temple priest, points to the high probability this Joseph was in all likelihood Jesus’ real father.
Such details are obvious to those familiar with Jewish culture, religious law and customs. This lack of understanding, explains the reason why Christians have no clue as to the true intent behind the Bible’s stories.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If one desires a fuller understanding what Jesus’ mission was all about, read my book The Conspiracy of Man. The first four chapters are posted on my website, conspiracyofman.com. Forget all the magic and mysticism woven around this man. Now one can understand the real world reasons behind Jesus’ ministry.
Nordic race is so disadvantaged and in the balance now that the Christ parentage question and his mission adjustment are no longer important. Every church of every denomination is a main propagandist of mongrelization, immigration and non-violence, and that has no contradictions with its traditionalist and conservative candy-wrapper. Even the most noble and European-oriented Christianity yet always was and always will a Trojan horse for penetration of alien and destructive influences. One cannot proclaim an Aryan Christ and accept the most loathsome pages from the Old and the New Testaments. The leopard can’t change its spots.
Maybe only the Second Coming of Blond Krist and His Armageddon-Endlosung to the greater glory of the Fair Race will be able to change my opinion.
I have just now begun the final chapter of The Conspiracy of Man, “The passion”.
Yeshu is just now entering the cave of the Gaḏ-Šmānê literally “oil press”. Here he will have the last supper, where he informs the disciples that his time draws nigh. He urges Yehuda Iscariot to go quickly lest he lose his resolve to face the charges that will lead to his blood sacrifice of crucifixion. After this, he goes out into the groves filled with Passover pilgrims to pray, sweating blood over the knowledge of his fate ordained by his acceptance of the Essene plot to bring down the Temple.
It’s really just another horror story all too common to Judaism. For Jews, Jesus and Hitler were essentially the same man attacking the same system. Both suffered the same fate, a tortured miserable death at the hands of Jewish proxies. Jesus was a real person, a Jewish kohein fully committed to the destruction of the sacrificial system starving and impoverishing his people.
If Christianity is to be retained in any form, then it must be a European interpretation of Christianity. In order for this to happen the current Christian canon, both the Old and New Testaments, must be discarded. Replacing them could be texts such as the Heliand, Parzival, the Nibelungenlied, the Codex Manesse, and the works of Meister Eckhart, that is texts that are nominally Christian, but have a pagan spirit. Christians who object to this, claiming that they are not truly Christian, would be putting themselves in a difficult position. Supposedly Europe owes its greatness to Christianity, and the two are inextricable. But if Europe’s highest cultural expressions were not Christian, then how important was Christianity really? Using these European Christian texts could also form a bridge, at least for some, to explicit paganism.
Attempts to morph any Judaic based religion will fail to neutralize their inherent poison. After all is this not what Christianity has done by morphing Judaism? Exposure to the truth is the only answer, but even that may not work.