web analytics

Green v. Jones

Adam Green vs E. Michael Jones – Is Christianity a Jewish Ploy?

Only ten minutes into this debate, I think Green’s point is so accurate that I’m adding this entry even though I still have more than an hour of listening to do…

15 replies on “Green v. Jones”

This exactly the point I had with the Lutheran Church. I am not a Jew, therefore, the god of the Jews is not mine.

Adam Green doesn’t talk about the elephant in the room – the secularisation of Christian values during the French & American revolutions into sodomitic atheistic. And how rejecting Christianity will lead to the ash and smoke of Auschwitz. I guess, it would be strong meat, and that’s how culture war should be waged against the normie culture, with baby steps? But then I cannot tell whether he’s not a faggot himself. First world problems indeed!

What also grates my gears is how he fights explicitly against the miracle stories. How is the fact of their “lie” relevant at all? I guess, I must be so anti-Christian that I do not make a distinction between their retarded logos and a lie. The only truth is the biological survival of the population. You can believe in fairies for all I care (normies always do), just pull the trigger.

From what I have seen of his videos, Green doesn’t know the history of how Christianity destroyed the classical world. Nor does he know that liberalism after the French Revolution is a secular offshoot of Christianity. He is similar to David Skrbina, the author of The Jesus Hoax, to whom he dedicated an interview by the way. But apart from Green, I know of no one among the vloggers who openly says that Christianity is a Jewish psyop.

“Green doesn’t know the history of how Christianity destroyed the classical world.”

Many are still ignorant about it, despite the fact that we have had many voices in the past telling us just that.

I keep referring Catherine Nixey book to most people who care somehow about what we have lost and keep losing due to Judeo Christianity.

But the amount of apathetic automatons surrounding us today is just mind blowing and discouraging.

I just watched the Green v. Jones debate; it started out very strong, but the last 30-40 minutes devolved into a Reddit-tier screaming match about the existence of God. In my opinion, the core issue between Green and Jones is that Jones argues deontologically (i.e. arguing stemming from a belief that the Christian Bible is intrinsically real and God-inspired) while Green is arguing consequentially (i.e. what are the consequences stemming from a belief in the Christian Bible, and are those consequences good or bad for the goyim)? Because they are arguing from different fundamental bases, they argue past each other. The host was too weak or low IQ to streamline them.

I must say I have not seen EMJ argue before and he was far less smart than his exalted reputation; he was unwilling and/or unable to engage with Green’s opening arguments, which were very strong. Credit to EMJ for agreeing to debate, though.

I agree with you that Green’s weaknesses are (1) a lack of understanding in the history of the time period — he should really read The Darkening Age: The Christian Destruction of the Classical World by Catherine Nixey as a start (which you have recommended in the past) and the Europa Soberana essay; and (2) a lack of understanding that just by losing faith in an overt Christian God does not mean one has shed the underlying Christian beliefs, a point Tom Holland has made eloquently.

Still, you are also correct that Green is the only vlogger calling Christianity a Jewish scam, and those videos of Rabbis agreeing with it are quite powerful.

Jones’ behaviour was identical to his debate with Jared Taylor last year: ignoring everything Taylor (or Green) said to him and just throwing out his theological bullshit. Compare that to Green’s attitude: who re-read Jones’ book to prepare for this debate. Jones has not even, as he confessed to Green, read a single book from the new school of NT exegetes, that claims that the historical Jesus did not even exist.

“ignoring everything Taylor (or Green) said to him and just throwing out his theological bullshit.”

When that happens, the debate is pretty much over. You can’t reason with these fanatics.

Surprisingly, they have a high amount of will power to push their agendas. Ours must be stronger.

I also want to add that I find EMJ and other Christian’s regular use of the word “Logos” to be stomach churning. They inverted the definition of the Greek term to mean its opposite, then made it one of the key terms of the religion. “Logos” is one of the main concepts of Greek philosophy — “a term whose original meaning was universal law.” “Logos in Greek and Hebrew means Metaphysics, the unifying principle of the world.” It is a common term in ancient philosophy and theology “expressing an idea of immanent reason in the world, under various modifications.” Plato and Aristotle understood Logos as “a law of being and principle of logic.” Among the Stoics, the term “Logos, denoted the law of physical and spiritual worlds in so far as they merged in a pantheistic unity.” To them God was immanent in the world constituting its vitalizing force and the law guiding the universe, which they called Logos; insofar all things develop from this force, they called it spermaticos Logos.” The profound modifications of Logos by John in the Gospel are i) the Logos becomes fully personified, ii) the spiritual life resides in the Logos and is communicated to men, and iii) the idea of Logos as reason becomes subordinate to the idea of Logos as word, the expression of God’s will and power, divine energy, life, love, and light.


By the way, if you used a single email your avatars would not change in colour.

Sorry, a third comment. Green argues from a consequentialist perspective, but his lack of historical knowledge prevents him from really explaining the *memetic evolutionary advantages* of Christianity in the real world, which were threefold: (1) Christianity’s concepts of Heaven and Hell, which provided enormous incentives for action and which did not exist in Paganism (everyone ended up in Hades in paganism); (2) Christianity’s focus on elevating the status of the poor by telling them they were morally equal to the Emperor (or superior! because they believed in Christ), and by focusing on charity (feeding the poor) was an early form of (spiritual) bolshevism that would be later repeated with economic bolshevism in the Soviet Union and racial bolshevism in the west now — rile up the underclass against the much smaller ruling class; and (3) its focus on centralization by having Bishops in charge of specific regions, versus the Pagans were incredibly fractured and decentralized (if history shows anything it is that centralization beats decentralization over and over again; Julian the Apostate had a plan to copy Christianity with pagan alternatives to regional bishops but he was murdered, likely by a Christian Roman soldier, before he could do so). Because of these memetic evolutionary improvements on religion, it was likely that Christianity was going to be destined to conquer Rome unless a Roman leader with a crystal-clear vision was there to counter it by copying the Christian memetic improvements but for pagans.

> “to counter it by copying the Christian memetic improvements but for pagans.”

All good points, aside from this one. Christianity would not have existed without the Jews. The Romans proved too greedy to kill them.

And regarding the afterlife point – doesn’t the country that cannot be named on this blog fare perfectly fine without any ideas of extraterrestrial afterlife?

Adam Green is a catholic and doing nothing but preaching in reverse. He refuses to argue the practical “effects” of these religious beliefs (despite intelligent feedback), both on individuals and social systems, choosing instead to spend all his time quoting charter/verse of passages from this jewish psyop weapon. He actually provides credibility to the jew bible by arguing as if it has some intrinsic meanings. For Mr Green (not his real name) these antichristian antics are relatively new for him and patently designed only to create backlash from (((christians))) who are feeling besieged by all the jew lgbt psyop, as well as disrespect for the culture of the 1st amendments’ freedoms that US citizens have become accustomed for over two centuries (you can’t change centuries of acculturation overnight). There are many “out there” creating these backlashes now. Bottom line is jews (and their minions like green) are deliberately antagonizing religious people, especially catholics, in the hopes that some sort of crusade will allow them to escape from the massive wall street derivatives market scam, that will collapse western societies. DO Not take MR Green seriously. He is one of them!

“Adam Green is a catholic…”

What? Please add a source from Green himself to support that claim.

Joe, if you watched the video Cesar linked in this thread, 56:15 timestamp, EMJ asks: “So were you raised as a Christian?” AG: “I was raised as a Christian but I didn’t believe it and I thought it was culty and I…(some interjecture between the two) I wasn’t Catholic so I wasn’t baptized as a child.” EMJ: “So you were a Baptist? Adult Baptism?” AG: “No, it was Church of Christ.” Church of Christ is a Protestant denomination:


Joe, if you have evidence I’m sure we’d like to see it, but please stick with facts here.

Comments are closed.