web analytics
Ancient Rome Christendom Evropa Soberana (webzine) Jerusalem Jesus Judaism Judea v. Rome Miscegenation Slavery St Paul

Apocalypse for whites • XXVII

by Evropa Soberana

A Jewish sect appears
The story starts in the year 33: the date on which a Jewish rebel named Yeshua or Jesus, who had proclaimed himself the Messiah of the Jews and King of Israel, was crucified at the hands of the Romans. In this first expansive phase of Christianity, Sha’ul of Tarsus (for posterity, Saint Paul), a Jew with Roman citizenship of Hellenistic and cosmopolitan education, although brought up under the most recalcitrant Jewish fundamentalism, takes on special importance.
At first, this character had been dedicated to persecuting Christians (which, let’s not forget, were all Jews) in the name of the authorities of official Judaism. At a given moment in his life, he falls off the horse—literally, it is said—and tells himself that a doctrine that has had such a hippiesque effect among the Jews themselves, would cause a terrible devastation in Rome: hated to death by both he as almost all the Jews of his time.
After his great revelation, Saint Paul decides that Christianity is a valid doctrine to be preached to Gentiles, that is, to non-Jews. With that intelligent diplomatic skill for business and subversive movements, St. Paul establishes numerous Christian communities in Asia Minor and the Aegean, from which the ‘good news’ will be hyper-actively preached.
Subsequently, numerous preaching centres are founded in North Africa, Syria and Palestine, inevitably going to Greece and Rome itself. Christianity ran like wildfire through the most humble layers of the population of the Empire, which were the most ethnically orientalised layers.
It then passes to the Roman Empire through the Jews, headed by St. Paul, St. Peter and other preachers. Its nature, based on the sinister Syrian-Phoenician mysteries that presupposed the sinfulness and impurity of the being who practiced them, is attractive to the immense mestizo masses: Rome’s slaves.

Note of the Editor: See my hatnote to Kriminalgeschichte 47. These are the type of mudbloods and sandniggers that composed the first Christians. The image is taken from funerary portraits of faithful resemblance to Greek-speaking people residing in Egypt. The portraits survived thanks to the dryness of the Egyptian climate. Although it is impossible to say who these men or women were, all were early Christians according to the book where I scanned the image (page 109 of an English-Spanish translation of After Jesus, 1992, The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc.).

______ ______

The first Christian meetings in Rome are carried out secretly, in the underground Jewish catacombs; and in the Jewish synagogues Christian discourses and sermons are delivered: very different from those that will take place in later Christian Europe.
St. Paul’s speeches are political cries: intelligent, virulent and fanatical harangues that urge the faithful to accept Jesus Christ to achieve redemption. The book of John of Patmos[1] is a mixed incendiary formula like delirious visions of the Apocalypse, the fall of Rome or Babylon, the New Jerusalem, the slaughter of the infidels, the arrival of the Kingdom of Heaven, the eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, the horrendous condemnation of pagan sinners and all those strange oriental ideas.
Another key point that must be recognised as very skilful by the first preachers was to take advantage of the affinity for the poor, the dispossessed, the abandoned, the vagabonds and those who cannot help themselves; and the establishment of institutions of charity, relief and assistance. All this is clearly a forerunner of the social fighters that we see today, and that had never been seen before in the pagan world. It is easy to see that these measures had the effect of attracting to themselves all the scum from the streets of Rome, in addition to preserving and increasing it.
Since its members refuse to serve in the legions and pay homage to the emperor, Christianity is immediately persecuted by the Empire in an intermittent and sporadic manner. Although the Roman persecutions have been greatly exaggerated by the victimisers, the moderate oppression suffered by the Christians was essentially for political and not religious reasons.
The Roman Empire always tolerated different religions, but its authorities saw in Christianity a subversive sect, a cover of that Judaism which had caused so many headaches in the East. Moreover, the Roman politicians of the time did not even distinguish between Jews and Christians, and not without reason saw in Christianity a tool for the revenge of the Jew against Rome, since they considered Christianity as a religious movement of many from the heart of the Jewish quarter (Sadducees, Pharisees, Zealots).
[1] The words in this paragraph have been modified by the Editor.

14 replies on “Apocalypse for whites • XXVII”

“(Roman) authorities saw in Christianity a subversive sect, a cover of that Judaism…did not…distinguish between Jews and Christians…considered Christianity as a religious movement (one) of many from the …Jewish quarter….. ” Key pieces of the puzzle.
Suetonius (70-130 AD) mentions a Chrestus and therefore his followers would be, Chrestians, not Christians. I think Celsus c 170 AD made the first (or surviving) reference to the Gospels in his attack on Christianity as we know it today, virgin birth, the miracles, Jesus the Son of God. So it seems just before Suetonius, when Chrestians were just another jewish subversive sect, and Celsus, Chrestianity was re-engineered into Christianity by Josephus ? Saul of Tarsus (if he existed) into spiritual poison for Gentiles, sugar coated with doses of anti-semitism to suck them in.

I wouldn’t call getting thrown to the lions as “moderate oppression”.
The Romans persecuted Christians because the Romans saw the Christians as ” a “cover for that Judaism”. And how do the persecutors of Christians today see Christians? Because Christians are being persecuted all over the world and the ones persecuting the Christians love the jews. Take ISIS for example. ISIS Jihadists persecute Christians and ISIS is owned by jews and the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, is a jew.
11 of The Apostles died as martyrs of The Faith, none of them recanted. They could have recanted and saved themselves but they went to their DEATHS proclaiming The Good News of Redemption and Salvation thru the Saving Blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If they had been preaching a lie, one would think at least a few of the 11 would have recanted, but not one recanted.

It was moderate compared to what the Christians would do with the Romanised Hellenists after Constantine.
As to the apostles, I differ from the author and am closer to Deschner here: there’s no historical evidence of what happened to the apostles, as we will see in a future book of the Kriminalgeschichte series.

Viderelicet comments are historically accurate, but also immaterial to the broader argument of Paul’s misrepresentation of ‘Christ’ as a ‘universal savior’ for the redemption of ‘sin’. As Thomas Jefferson demonstrates in his ‘Jefferson Bible’ quoting ONLY the words attributed to ‘Yeshua’ (the possible Aramaic or Hebrew name of J.C.) … a reconstruction of what became the doctrine of Christianity is impossible without the interpolations of Paul. Furthermore, most Christians are so inept they do not realize the Gospels were written after Acts and Paul’s epistles rendering the Gospels dubious as original interpretations.
Chechar has also posted previously many quotes of famous personages who discounted Paul’s interpretation as valid.
‘Christianity’ is well disposed as a ‘faith’ since it is so completely devoid of sufficient historical, empirical, or scientific evidence to support the concept of ‘salvation from sin’ much less anything else. What remains is the personal magnetism in the scripture of an extraordinary individual who seemed to be working within a milieu he could not control and purposely gave his life for an issue undefined.
But what remains a mystery is his compassion compared to the cruelty of his titular ‘father’ in the Old Testament. It appears that the ‘mission’ of Jesus was to unite the failing remainder of a people who were the remnants of what Jehovah created – which had nothing whatsoever to do with the contemporary aliens misrepresenting themselves as ‘Judaism’ whom Jesus forcefully condemned. Neither is there any evidence other than its historical interest that it has any bearing on the survival of the White Race today. Indeed, the ‘universality’ of compassion is the greatest bulwark to White survival.

Viderelicet comments are historically accurate…

This is the only phrase that I read from your comment.
Viderelicet is a Catholic troll that has been banned in the past and continues trying to post comments once in a while (I only allowed this one to pass thru).
His comments are not accurate as far as I know regarding the biographies of the so-called Apostles.
It is not even clear they existed, and assuming they existed there’s no historical evidence of their deaths from the point of view of a secular historian.
Hagiographies are not reliable biographies. Xtians and CIs ought not be trying to put here their diverse theologies: our secular POV is light-years away from yours.

The foundational premise of Christianity is one’s salvation from sin, but the single, most important question Christians never really address is what IS sin? To Christians, sin is a hazy concept of wrongdoing, i.e. “missing the mark,” as if sin were like an arrow falling short.
Not so for Jews, as with everything Jewish, every “jot and tittle” of sin is clearly defined in the law. There are 613 specific laws addressing the very concrete (to Jews) concept of sin.
Sin presented the same pressing legality to first century Jews as the criminal code of justice does to modern goyim. Twisted redactions of Judaism by Christianity and Islam notwithstanding, to sin, one must break the Torah’s legal commandments. But how many ever followed Torah law in the first place.
According to Jews, these well defined sins could only be atoned for by blood sacrifice. Yet, how many of these laws have ever been observed by any Christians past the first century? How many Christians ever practiced the sacrificial blood atonement, for which the blood of Jesus cleansed “man” once and for all?
Then comes the next obvious question, who can sin? According to the Jews who wrote the book, the only “men” are those “born of Adam,” and the only “men” ever descended from Adamic man are Jews. Christians have redacted and misdirected this clearly and carefully defined Jewish concept to mean “all men.”
Yet Jews are quite specific that the only “men” are born of Adam. Thus, Jews are the only “sons of man.” According to the Gospels, Jesus claimed the title “son of man” 88 times, saying in essence, “I am a son of Adam,” a “son of man,” In short he was telling his followers, I’m a Jew like you. So much for the Christian identity idiocy that Jesus was not a Jew. Since Jews made up this folderol in the first place, should not their interpretation be considered the final word on this subject?
According to the authors of the unholy books of the Jew, non-Jews are mere beasts created by god in the image of men to better serve the Jew. Can beasts sin? Not according to Jewish standards. Therefore, if one is not a Jew, one cannot sin.
Thus one finds only the slightest gloss-over of the most critical question of all Judaic religions, to wit: “How can one be redeemed of sin never committed in the first place?” But does this really matter to the religious masters so long as one pays their sacrificial tithes on time?

In this thread Matthew Crawford tried to post a comment that contained this sentence:

Consequently, the concept of an elder culture creating a particular genome outside of natural process’s is viable. Thus you have ‘Jehovah’ creating Aryans, and a counter-force creating Jews to inhibit the hopes of the Elohim that made ‘us’.

Sorry Matt but I had to spam your comment. I’ve warned you many times to stop pouring your Christian identity theology in this site yet you continue…

It’s WE WUZ KANGZ for Honkys. Niggers in the New World don’t have a heritage with traditions worthy of respect (being the heirs to Niggers captured and sold by other Niggers alongside Nigger women fucked by White men) so they latch onto lands with far more illustrious pasts such as the Maghreb, Egypt, even Judea. Whites have no such excuse.

Comments are closed.