Racial right

The Spielbergs of Antiquity

Above, Siemiradzki’s painting showing Dirce, at the behest of Emperor Nero, being put to death by being tied to the horns of a bull and smashed against rocks.

This comment by S. Ranch about some words of Edward Gibbon moves me to say the following: Deschner’s story about Mar Jacob is taken from Acts of the Persian Martyrs (remember that in my abridgment of his Christianity’s Criminal History I omit the hundreds of bibliographical references used by Deschner).

I cannot talk about Gibbon since I did not finish reading his book. But the Christian propaganda about the martyrs was such (the Holocaustianity of the Ancient World!) that even anti-Christians continue to believe many of these stories. Years ago I read in a secular source that the author gave credibility to a story in which the ‘pagan’ executioners torture a Christian woman all night long until they fall exhausted: something implausible.

Many liberal, secular authors and even atheists have not realised how Spielberg et al have deceived us with their films and documentaries about the Jewish holocaust. The 6 million figure, for example, is a complete fabrication: something that Judeo-Christians have been doing to us with their psyops of martyrs since Antiquity.

Unless the historical source comes from non-Christian Romans, we should not give credibility to the accounts of martyrdoms. Otherwise the Judeo-Christians will continue deceiving us even after a millennium and a half of having written their martyrs’ acts. That’s why I liked my words to Arch Stanton: that if he could use a non-biblical source he could continue discussing with us about such a ‘Jesus’. Obviously he can’t: his main source, as well as that of those atheists who still believe they can find some real history in the hagiographies of saints, is the Judeo-Christian source.

It is striking that folks on the Alt-Right, as stagnant as they are in # 5 or in previous numbers of this list—that is, before they wake up from the Matrix—continue to take, as sources, ancient texts that should be as suspicious as a film of Spielberg today.

14 replies on “The Spielbergs of Antiquity”

“Deschner’s story about Mar Jacob is taken from Acts of the Persian Martyrs…”

There are a couple of Mar Jacobs, both of them venerated as saints. I thought you meant this guy:

when apparently you meant Jacob of Nisibis.

“Unless the historical source comes from non-Christian Romans, we should not give credibility to the accounts of martyrdoms. ”

Tacitus wasn’t a Christian. In his book Annals, book XV, chapter 44 we find the following:

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.

Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man’s cruelty, that they were being destroyed.

Some consider this to be a Christian forgery, and that may be true. However, the punishment described, damnatio ad bestias was in use by the Romans long before Christianity.

The question any true skeptic must answer is, why wouldn’t the Romans have used it on the Christians? While it would be foolish to assume complete truth in all the Christian accounts of Christian martyrdom, it seems to me equally foolish to think that the Romans took no measures against them at all.

That’s why I didn’t wiki-link to Mar Jacob in the previous entry, to avoid confusion.

And yes: some exegetes say that even a paragraph of Josephus’ text on Jesus was a later Xtian interpolation. Since we don’t have the originals, it’s always difficult to separate the truth from the fabrications.

That’s not an answer to my question. Why wouldn’t the Romans have used the full armamentarium of their tortures against the Christians? That they were expert torturers and routinely employed these methods is well attested. For that matter, assuming for the sake of argument that there was an historical Jesus, why would he not have been crucified? Well before Christ, after the revolt of Spartacus was suppressed, the Romans showed their displeasure with the rebels by crucifying 6600 of them, about one every hundred yards along the Appian Way from Rome to Brundisium. The bodies were left to rot as an example to the rest of the slaves.

Certainly the Christian martyrdoms didn’t happen exactly as the Christians like to pretend, but I think it’s unlikely that none of them were martyred at all. The proper attitude is to suspect Christian lies, but also to hope that our ancestors tortured and otherwise destroyed as many of these vermin as possible. Where they did not do so, they should have; just as if Amon Göth did not actually use Jews for target practice as in the Spielberg film, he should have. If these things are fabrications, it’s that that we ought to be embarrassed about, not that they might have happened. The fundamental mistake of revisionism, either of the Holocaust or of the Christian martyrs, is to assume there’s a need to exonerate whites. This is playing the adversary’s game, first because it’s a tacit admission that if it did happen, then there’s something to atone for, and second because so few people are going to believe you anyway.

The fundamental mistake of revisionism, either of the Holocaust or of the Christian martyrs, is to assume there’s a need to exonerate whites.

This may apply to WNsts (Holo) and Deschner (martyrs), but not to me.

“How do we know the Bible is the inerrant word of God?” “because it says so in the Bible”.

Pliny the Younger writes to Trajan early in the 2nd Century what to do about Christians (or was it Chrestians?) in his province. Trajan’s reply indicates he hadn’t much heard of Christians either. If Nero had persecuted Christians in 65 Trajan would have known about it and them.

Ken Humphreys’ YT channel has excellent 5-6 minute episodes deconstructing the Jesus myths.

During the Dark and Middle Ages, the Christian monasteries copied the Classical authors too. No Christian apologist cites Tacitus for Christ’s historicity until about the 12th or 13th Century (according to DM Murdock). Neither early Church historians Origen or Eusebius do when this controversy had dogged Christianity from the beginning.

“Trajan’s reply indicates he hadn’t much heard of Christians either. ”

How so? Here’s Trajan’s reply to Pliny’s letter:

You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it–that is, by worshiping our gods–even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age.

Further if, as is often claimed, Pliny’s letter is a forgery, then the reply would have to be a forgery too. But the reply seems the essence of moderation — exactly the opposite of what we’d expect if we want to claim that all the Christian stories of martyrdom are completely false or, at best, exaggerations. What kind of propagandist seeks to make his persecutors seem moderate and just? Only a very bad one, I would think.

“But the reply seems the essence of moderation”. Thanks for refreshing my memory. Yes, Trajan’s reply is the essence of moderation for a group that had been supposedly charged with arson by Nero in 65AD, too moderate. So it cuts both ways. There were no Christians in Rome in 65AD, maybe followers of a jewish insurrectionist-messiah, Judas Chrestus – Chrestians?

Since Pliny wrote in 112AD, almost 50 years had elapsed since the fire, time enough for tempers to cool down. In his letter, Pliny made it clear that unrepentant Christians were still being punished w/death, a punishment w/which Trajan apparently agreed. Just because he counsels not killing them indiscriminately, is that too moderate to make the exchange believable? That’s a matter of opinion.

In any case, the letters appear genuine, since they’re referenced by Tertullian in the second chapter of his Apologeticus, written about 195AD. In the third chapter, he also touches on the mispronunciation of the word Christian as Chrestian, which was apparently common, and may have led to Tacitus’ confusing misspelling. Also, basing your argument on the spelling of “Chrestians” vs. “Christians” seems to assume that the Tacitus passage is genuine, for If the Tacitus passage is a forgery, why would that word have been misspelled? Misspelling the name would have defeated the forger’s purpose.

Comments are closed.