web analytics

Category: Judaism

Categories
Judaism Revilo Oliver

Xtianity:

A religion for sheep, 4

by Revilo P. Oliver
Published by Liberty Bell Publications in 1980,
under Oliver’s nom de guerre Ralph Perier.

The doctrine

It remains for us to consider the consequences of Christianity, now restricting that term to the religion established by the Fathers of the Church. It has dominated and distorted the mind of our race for fifteen centuries—and it continues to do so.

We must first eliminate a potential ambiguity. Various investigations and estimates made a decade or more ago agree that about 10% to 15% of the members of our race (including about 90% of our “right wing”!) are Christians in the sense that they believe the tales in the “New Testament” to be historically true or at least accept as true the dogmas about the divinity of Jesus, etc. Although the percentages have probably been increased by the intensive promotion of Christianity in very recent years, the religion by this estimate controls only a minority of our race. When we estimate the influence of the religion in our world, however, we must not overlook Ersatz-Christianity. As a recent writer has pointed out, a very large number of our contemporaries, who call themselves “liberals,” “progressives,” and the like, pride themselves on having rejected the incredible tales about supernatural beings and the other trappings of Christian mythology, but retain an abiding faith in its social superstitions. As Nietzsche keenly observed, almost all of the persons who think they have freed themselves from Christianity disdain its creed but love its poison. If we include this Ersatz-Christianity, the Fathers of the Church established an enduring dominion over our race, to which at least 95% of our contemporaries are now subject. That is a datum to be remembered when you read the following outline.

It is obvious—obvious at least to everyone who has made even a cursory study of religion as an historical phenomenon—that Christian doctrine is a forced combination of three incompatible constituents: Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Judaism.

  1. The first of these, which is probably the most important, is appropriately symbolised in the well-known myth that Zoroastrian priests (Magi) came to attend the nativity of Jesus. This component did come directly from Persia.

If one compares the Zoroastrian cult to the more healthy polytheisms of antiquity, one sees how bizarre and irrational it is, although Christianity has so accustomed us to it that few reflect on how pernicious is a belief in an evil god. No mental poison has been more deadly than the Zoroastrians’ great innovation, the basic tenet that the world is a battlefield on which two gods contend for mastery: a good god and an evil god, each of whom would be omnipotent, were it not for the other. For no intelligible reason, these two mighty supernatural beings, one of whom had the power to create the entire universe, have to recruit puny mortals for a war that is absurd anyway, since everyone knows that in the end the good god will overcome the evil god, take him captive, and settle down to torturing him for all eternity. In the meantime, however, all men must join one or the other army and fight desperately to destroy their enemies.

This fantastic notion has given rise to what may be the most pernicious idea in human history: a holy war, fought to destroy evil. Rational men go to war to extend their own dominion over other people or sometimes to maintain it against other nations that are trying to extend their own power, in conformity with what is the fixed and unalterable condition of human life. Under the Zoroastrian-Christian system, however, whole nations are subject to periodic fits of insanity. Crazed hordes imagine themselves chosen by the good god (Yahweh & Son, Inc.) to butcher and annihilate the diabolic minions of the evil god (Satan, alias Antichrist). Our civilisation has been repeatedly brought to the verge of destruction, and some of our greatest nations have in fact doomed themselves in such self-righteous paroxysms of homicidal mania, while their enemies watched happily, reaping both enormous profits and spiritual satisfaction from the disasters the maddened Aryans brought on themselves in their eagerness to slaughter one another to please the ferocious Asiatic god that had been foisted upon them. A few examples will suffice.

The Protestant Reformation (which, incidentally, was sparked and abetted by the Jews) precipitated the Wars of Religion, in just one of which two-thirds of the population of Germany perished. The crazed Aryans, highly resolved to extirpate the devil-possessed legions of the Antichrist in Rome or the devil-possessed legions of the Antichrist who had revolted from Rome, irreparably impoverished our race’s genetic heritage while they made wastelands of many of the most civilised and prosperous parts of Europe and blighted their own culture for almost two centuries. They fought valiantly on both sides, it is true, and equally mortgaged their lands to the Jews.

In America, the northern states effectively destroyed the American Constitution when they invaded the southern states in 1860 to deny them the rights the colonies had jointly won in 1781. Historians, to be sure, have identified economic causes, especially the greed of northern industrialists, but the crusade against the South was essentially a holy war to liberate savages from slavery, although the Christians’ holy book expressly sanctioned and authorised slavery (even of higher races) in passages that the howling dervishes in the pulpits conveniently forget. The genetic heritage of the Americans was impoverished, while Jews naturally cheered on both sides and, after the war, flocked into the South to batten on the devastated land and its ruined people, and in the North consolidated political corruption.

In 1917, a sleazy shyster, whom the Jews had cleverly installed in the White House, proclaimed a holy “war to end wars”! The witless Americans, maddened as their holy men howled for blood, as usual, stampeded into Europe, believing in their frenzy that the Antichrist had become incarnate in the German Kaiser and his nation. No one needs to be reminded what profits that jihad brought to the Jews.

Again, in August 1933, when the Germans were trying to make themselves independent of the aliens in their country, Samuel B. Untermeyer, as spokesman for his international race, declared a Holy War against the insubordinate nation. The Jews, however, did not invade Germany as their ancestors had invaded Canaan when they coveted that country. This was a Holy War for the Christianized Aryans in the rest of the world, who were easily incited to blind rage against the Satanic nation that dared not to venerate God’s Holy Race. In their fratricidal delirium, the hate-crazed Aryans consummated what is likely to have been the Suicide of the West and the irreversible doom of our race. And now, Yahweh’s Chosen Tribe happily control the economic life of the impoverished and stultified Aryans everywhere, demand that the cowering White men believe even such obscene fictions as the “Holocaust,” and ever more openly display their just contempt for brutes who can so easily be stampeded to their own destruction.

The Zoroastrian idea of a holy war is, of course, but one component of the poison that has made our race schizophrenic. In the intervals between the attacks of self-righteous insanity that makes them run amuck in holy wars, they do not become rational, even momentarily, but instead babble in the throes of another hallucination. They jabber about pacifism and, in a kind of delirium tremens, imagine they see such impossible things as “world (!) peace” cavorting just beyond their reach. So the lunatics try to run hard enough to overtake the ever-retreating phantom.

  1. The Buddhist component of Christianity reached it indirectly, perhaps largely through the Essenes, and was considerably adulterated on the way.

The essential element is the gloomy and cowardly doctrine that human life is not worthwhile—that all the things dear to healthy men, such as health, strength, sexual love, beauty, culture, learning, intelligence, wealth, and even individuality, are merely “vanity of vanities,” empty illusions. (Christianity, of course, makes them evil illusions.) The proper attitude is that of a man hopelessly diseased and in pain: he longs for death. The cult, however, denies us a rational release from our misery in suicide, which it says is impossible, since some kind of ghost will survive the death of the body. What we can and should do, however, is to refrain absolutely from sexual intercourse, so that we will not engender fresh links in the chain of misery that is life on earth. Furthermore, some mysterious supernatural power has ordained that we can acquire post-mortem benefits for our souls by frustrating all the desires that healthy men feel, and even greater rewards by inflicting physical pain on ourselves. There is a heavenly bookkeeping machine which makes entries to our credit whenever we make ourselves suffer pain and enters debits against us whenever we yield to temptation and enjoy something, whether it be a woman’s love, the beauty of great art, the intellectual exhilaration of discovering a fact of nature, or any other pleasure. The balance of our account when we die determines the future of the soul. (Buddhism assumes that that future is reincarnation, but Christianity perverts and degrades that not implausible myth by adding the Zoroastrian notion of a final judgement: after our only life on earth, an angel will read the computer’s print-out and, if the amount of our debts has made us insolvent, will pitchfork us into Hell, where our impalpable and intangible souls will be roasted on hot coals and suffer all other imaginable bodily torments for all eternity—not a year or a century or a millennium or a billion years, but all the eternity of infinite time!)

The Christian tendency to devalue the body, exemplified here by medieval “flagellants” who whipped themselves bloody, is the opposite of the natural European attitude toward our physical being, which we can see expressed in the great works of Arno Breker, Praxiteles, and many others.

From this notion, corrupted by the addition of some of the sexual obsessions that seem to be an innate part of the Jews’ racial mentality, Christianity proclaimed the doctrine of race suicide for our people. Allowance was made, of course, for the men who did not have the fortitude to castrate themselves or otherwise frustrate the instincts of healthy men, but by a monstrously obscene transvaluation of rational values [emphasis added by Editor], disease was called “health” and strength was called “weakness.” Men too “weak” to be eunuchs were permitted the “sin” of having offspring to provide customers for the next generation of shamans, but it was the will of Christianity’s fearful god that our race be as celibate as possible. For fifteen centuries, enormous numbers of male Aryans were herded into the church, both as priests and as monastics, to blight their masculinity with homosexuality and perversion, mitigated only by the chance of furtive adulteries. And enormous numbers of our women were imprisoned in convents to become psychopathic or practise secret abortions.

It may seem to us now that the institutions for race suicide attracted, as today, only the misfits, the physically or psychically defective, who should always be prevented, so far as possible, from reproducing themselves. To some extent that was true, but for reasons which are historically obvious, some of the best blood of our race was irretrievably lost in mad efforts to curry favour with the god the Jews had exported to us. For century after century, the sexual superstitions of Christianity systematically weakened and impoverished our race. The Jews could have invented nothing better for their purposes.

The Jews despise our race for its gullibility, venality, and the debility of its racial instincts, but they also hate us, fearing that we may never become perfectly docile livestock on their world-wide plantation. The Jewish attitude toward us was somewhat indiscreetly revealed in English by Theodore Kaufmann in his Germany Must Perish! (Newark, 1941; recently reprinted).

Kaufmann demanded that every man, woman, and child in Germany be surgically sterilised to exterminate a people that had been guilty of insubordination to God’s Race. The rabid Jew realised that it would be premature to urge similar treatment of the Aryans in other nations, and, as things turned out, it proved not to be feasible to carry out the Jewish plan even in Germany at that time. In the United States and other countries once ruled by our race, the same end is to be achieved more gradually by mongrelisation and the incitation of a sexual mania, which, incidentally, is a revival of the early Christian sects that taught that Jesus had revealed that the only road to Salvation lay in male homosexuality or, conversely, in unlimited promiscuity and the abolition of families to liberate females for intense and indiscriminate copulation ad libitum.

Another derivative of the Buddhistic negation of the values of human life was also distorted and polluted in transmission. It is the mawkish sentimentality, the fatuous self-abasement, and the total repudiation of reason that appears in the so-called Sermon on the Mount, a concentrated poison for which Christians still have a morbid appetite. It is the essence of what Nietzsche called the “slave morality”—the morality of persons so degenerate or diseased that they are fit only for slavery. It is the negation of life itself. Glory is reserved for the meek and humble who take a masochistic delight in being trampled upon. They must be so abject and feeble-minded that they love their enemies. The dregs of human society are the “salt of the earth,” and they are promised the joy of seeing their betters suffer, when “the last shall be made first.” Nothing that makes life worth living is not evil, and the idiots are exhorted, “take no thought for your life”—indeed, to abstain totally from rational thought. The ideal mentality for Christians is that of vegetables, but since it is not quite feasible to attain that blessed state, Christians take pride in proclaiming they are sheep, the most stupid of all mammals, incapable of defending themselves, living only to feed, multiply, and be fleeced periodically. Christians even like to depict themselves as lambs that stare uncomprehendingly at the world about them. They recite with unction psalms that aver that they are mindless and will-less sheep, confident that the Jews’ god will herd them to “green pastures beside still waters,” where they may lie down to chew their cud in uninterrupted bliss.

Commanded to “take no thought for the morrow,” but to have bird-brains and be “like the fowls of the air” that “sow not, neither do they reap,” relying on their “heavenly Father” to feed them, Christians who actually believed the Drivel on the Mount would, if sufficiently numerous, simply precipitate the total breakdown of any civilised or even barbarous society—and would not even grow pelts for the Jews to fleece. Perhaps it is fortunate that Christians like to befuddle themselves with sentimental verbiage they do not understand and holy “mysteries” which they can contemplate with bovine incomprehension.

Christianity, indeed, enjoins pride in imbecility. Its god became incarnate to “make folly of the wisdom of this world.” Its votaries must have an unthinking faith in an incomprehensible farrago of patently false statements. To abjure the use of reason is the only path to Salvation and the animal-like joys of eternal idleness in Heaven. Learning and wisdom must be despised. Every effort of human reason to understand the world in which we live is a sin, an affront to a god who has given us the perfect model of righteous wisdom in an oyster.

The repudiation of reason and sanity was a particularly deadly poison to our race, which, as several writers on ethnology have recently pointed out, has in some of its members, at least, an innate capacity for the objective and philosophical thought by which alone our race attained a partial control over the forces of nature and the power to defend itself by imposing its will on other-races.

This power, which we have now fatuously surrendered, was won for us slowly and painfully by the often heroic efforts of a few men and only over the frantic opposition of the Christian witchdoctors. The debased superstition that insanely exalts ignorance over knowledge and faith over reason repressed and deformed for many centuries our race’s unique capacity for a rational and mighty civilisation.

  1. Students of religion commonly deny originality to the Jews, because all of the cosmogonic tales in the “Old Testament” were lifted from the mythologies of more civilised peoples, especially the Babylonians, and only superficially Judaised. They thus overlook or ignore what is unique in the religion professed by the Jews, especially after they had the brilliant idea of converting their religion from a henotheism to a monotheism to imitate and appropriate the monotheism of Greek Stoicism.

It is true that the peculiarities of Jewish religion are not mere superstitions, such as other races may ignorantly accept, but spring from their innate certainty that their race is immeasurably and categorically superior to all others, an absolute certainty that is independent of any mythological explanation of it they may give to others or even to themselves. That poses a biological problem which we cannot consider here, but we must notice the specifically Jewish element that went into the Christian amalgam.

The Jews are, by nature, a proletarian people. It is a matter of common observation that when they invade a country, they infiltrate every prosperous city and set up their ghettos, in which they huddle together, like ants in their anthill, bees in the hive, or termites in their nest. Everyone has noticed that when a Jew or a few Jews associate with goyim, they successfully simulate the manners and culture of the people among whom they have planted themselves; but when Jews become a majority in any place, from a single room to a city, they become a swarm, a buzzing synagogue, an unmistakable alien species.

Some Jews, of course, become immensely wealthy, but they remain parts of the international swarm. According to a despatch in the Sunday Chronicle (the official Jewish newspaper in London), January 2, 1938, the Jews, incensed that the Germans should dare to be disrespectful to God’s Master Race, held a meeting near Geneva at which Jewish financiers promptly contributed £500,000,000 to a fund to punish the insubordinate goyim. The reader, especially if he has had experience of “right-wing” activity in any of our nations, can estimate for himself the chances that Aryan financiers would have given $2,433,250,000 in 1938 to preserve their own race, or would contribute (if asked) an equivalent sum today, say £20,000,000,000. If he thinks that unlikely, he has the measure of the difference between the Jewish race and ours.

The racial solidarity of the Jews makes them unique among the peoples of the world. We can only envy them a bond of cohesion that indissolubly unites the poor with the rich, subordinates personal greed and ambition, and even transcends religious differences. The professed beliefs of Talmudists, Kabbalists, and Jewish atheists seem irreconcilable to us, but they no more impede the race’s effective unity than the ferocious religious dissensions of the last centuries B.C. impeded the Jews’ exploitation of the gullible goyim, the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, and the Romans, whom the Jews adroitly played off against each other. Tacitus marvelled at the Jews’ “obstinate devotion to their own kind” coupled with “implacable hatred of the rest of mankind.” He wrote before the race’s solidarity was most impressively demonstrated by the Jewish outbreaks in many Roman provinces around A.D. 117. In Cyrenaica, for example, the Jews had naturally planted a huge ghetto in the provincial capital and controlled a large part of the trade on which the region’s prosperity depended. Many Jews must have been among the wealthiest inhabitants. But a christ named Andrew brought the glad tidings that Yahweh said it was time for his Chosen Race to put the goyim in their place. Filled with zeal for righteousness, the Jewish swarm caught the stupidly complacent Greeks and Romans off guard and slaughtered more than 200,000 men and women in various ingenious ways, such as sawing off their hands and feet and ripping out their intestines while they were still alive. God’s People then destroyed all the property in the city (including their own!), evidently burning all the buildings to the ground and levelling the ruins. Then they rushed out into the countryside to destroy the villages and uproot the crops. That done, the enthusiastic horde of nihilists descended on Egypt, leaving behind only a scorched desert and dismembered corpses.

This nihilism was vividly expressed in the Christians’ favourite horror story, the Jewish apocalypse that the Fathers of the Church selected for inclusion in their appendix to the “Old Testament.” The wild phantasmagoria describes in loving detail all the disasters and torments with which Jesus will afflict and destroy the civilised peoples of the earth when he returns in glory from the clouds with a squad of sadistic angels. One should note the characteristic provision that goyim are not to be merely killed outright: they are to be made to suffer exquisite agonies for five months first. But what Lloyd Graham has properly called the “diabolical savagery” of the Jew god is not satisfied with exterminating all the goyim with every kind of torture a lurid imagination could invent. He destroys the land, the mountains, the sea, the whole earth; he destroys the sun and the moon; and he rolls up the heavens like a scroll, presumably including even the most remote galaxies… Everything is annihilated. And all this for the sake of Jesus’s pets, an elite of 144,000 male Jews who despise women. For these, to be sure, he creates a New Jerusalem, in which they will loaf happily for a thousand years.

The Jews spiced Christianity with their rancour and nihilism. As Maurice Samuels said, with laudable candour, “We, the Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers for ever… We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world.” And by inventing Christianity, they stopped credulous goyim from inquiring what kind of god their race created for itself.

Categories
Christendom Judaism

Xtianity:

A religion for sheep, 3

by Revilo P. Oliver
Published by Liberty Bell Publications in 1980,
under Oliver’s nom de guerre Ralph Perier.

God’s race

The Fathers of the Church got down to work near the end of the second century, when, incidentally, the Emperor in Rome, although he bore a Roman name, was a man from northern Africa, probably of mixed Semitic and Berber ancestry, whose native language was Punic, a Semitic dialect. Their overriding purpose, to judge from the results, was to preserve and protect the Jewish connection, which the Marcionites and other “heretics” had threatened.

When the Christians started scribbling gospels around the middle of the second century, they produced a very large number, and the composition of gospels to suit the whims or ambitions of would-be holy men went on through most of the next two centuries.

From such compositions, the Fathers of the Church collected and selected their favourites, making such revisions as they deemed expedient and probably composing supplements. These they eventually put together into a small anthology, which they called a “New Testament” and thus indissolubly joined to the Jews’ story book, which they called an “Old Testament.” The final selection of pieces for the anthology is said to have been made in 367 by Athanasius, a particularly bull-headed holy man, who is still revered for his services in establishing the incomprehensible doctrine of a three-in-one-god, of which Jesus was 33%. His authority made it thenceforth impossible to compose new gospels with any chance of implanting them in the canon he had established. Thereafter, revision of the stories about Jesus was limited to short interpolations and verbal substitutions.

A Christian artist’s conception of the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, which had secured the official endorsement of Roman Emperor Constantine, and which served to marginalize the many Christian sects (and their innumerable gospels) which had been competing with the “Fathers of the Church” — and set the stage for their persecution.

The effect of this combination of “Testaments” was to impose on Christians, under pain of eternal damnation, the odd belief that, throughout the greater part of human history, the Jews were the Chosen People of a terrible and truculent god, who savagely and often capriciously afflicted the lower races when they did not cravenly submit to his Master Race. To be sure, the Jews temporarily alienated his affections when they crucified one-third of him, but Christian doctrine assures us that God will eventually “change their hearts” and they will come flocking back to Jesus. (No one seems to worry about the morality of changing a man’s mind by a psychological process that must resemble hypnosis.) In the meantime, God still loves his erring children, even though they worship only a third of him, and they must be preserved for the coming miracle of their reconciliation with daddy.

Another consequence of the Fathers’ convenient doctrine is that the Jews were God’s Race until a date that Christians now set at sometime between A.D. 29 and 34; thereafter, they became a religion, since Jews who have been laundered in holy water miraculously cease to be Jews.

The effect of this paradox was to make Christianity seem anti-Jewish and therefore attractive to all the goyim who resented their exploiters, while preserving for the Jews their prestige as a wonderfully “righteous” and “god-fearing” people, who had long been the intimates of the Christians’ own god.

Of the many advantages that Christianity conferred on the Jews, none was greater than the privilege of masquerading as a religion and thus concealing their race. It ensured them the protection of both church and state as they rapaciously amassed wealth in mediaeval Europe. One has only to ask oneself what would have happened, had Chinese or Malays swarmed into the cities to set up their enclaves (ghettos) to monopolise commerce, practise usury, and control finance. Even more important, it gave them perpetual access to the seats of power.

We are told that Ferdinand and Isabella expelled the Jews from Spain in 1492. Nonsense! By that time, Jews were safely and immovably ensconced in every important segment of Spanish society as “converts.” A century later, one-third of the archbishops in Spain and of the higher clergy was composed of Jews who practised Christian rites in public and privately snickered at the stupidity of the goyim. Toynbee estimates that Jews formed about the same proportion of the nobility. And no one need be told that a tightly cohesive third of any organisation has effective control of it. The Inquisition, to be sure, caught a few of the marranos who were careless or inept in their dissembling, but that served to reassure and pacify the populace.

Edward I banished the Jews from England in 1290, and we are told that England was Judenfrei until they swarmed in (with their money-bags) under Cromwell. No one, I believe, has tried to compute how many Jews, in keeping with the immemorial tactic of their race, had themselves sprinkled with the Christians’ magic water, took English names, and tried not to laugh at the British in public. And one can only guess how much the masqueraders had to do with the rise of Puritanism, a brand of Christianity that was primarily based on the “Old Testament,” and the revolution that placed in power fanatics who, for example, made the observation of Christmas illegal.

Christians today wax irate when they are shown translations of certain passages in the Jewish Talmuds, which are said to prove how much the Jews hate Christianity. It is true that there are pejorative references to Jesus of Nazareth, who was certainly one of the christs who contributed to the composite figure in the “New Testament.”

No one seems to notice that the Talmuds speak as pejoratively of the last of the important christs in antiquity, of whose Jewish orthodoxy there can be no question.

Assuming the name Bar-Kokhba, he caught thousands of the Greeks and Romans off guard and butchered them, and he carried on a guerrilla war of terrorism for almost three years until the Roman legions gave proof that Yahweh had again forgotten to send celestial reinforcements to help His People exterminate the goyim. Nevertheless, the Talmudists denounce him bitterly, even changing his assumed name from Bar- Kokhba (“the son of the star”) to Bar-Koziba (“the son of the liar”). The Jews hate him and asperse his memory because he failed.

Theologians who are concerned to show Christians how much the Jews hate their religion translate as “Christians” or “Christianity” some or all of a dozen words and phrases in Rabbinic, of no one of which is the meaning so indubitable that the Jews cannot quibble about it. It would be a waste of time to quibble with them. The Jews do feel contempt for persons who believe the Christian tales, and they do hate our race, which is probably meant by those words and phrases which are not merely synonyms of goyim, their general term for races and peoples who perversely refuse to recognise the vast superiority of the Jews.

Categories
Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) Judaism

Judaism

In his commentary today, Gaedhal tells us:

I do feel that Christianity is not at home in this 3rd millennium of our Common Era. As this millennium waxes on, Christianity just appears more and more anachronistic. However, Judaism might survive a bit longer, because, as I said before, the leaders of Judaism, even religious Judaism are atheists. We even see this in the New Testament. The wealthy Jews, who were the Vassal-statesmen of the Roman occupation were Sadducees. They didn’t believe that the Writings and the prophets were ‘inspired’. Neither did they believe in an afterlife. They were essentially crypto-atheists. Thus the leaders of the Jewish religion see the Old Testament as allegory, Yahweh as a poetic projection of the Jewish ethnic soul, and the Messiah as their own political activities.

This is very true and reminds me that the Greco-Roman religion was exactly the same but… on the Aryan side! Those who haven’t read The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour should at least read Eduardo Velasco’s ‘Were the Greeks and Romans blond-haired and blue-eyed?’ (pages 331-350).

What emerges from what Irishman Gaedhal and Spaniard Velasco say is that Christianity has been a religion imposed on the Aryan psyche. Unlike Judaism with the Jews, it is neither natural nor endogenous to our interests. Any discourse of cultural and racial preservation for the Aryan should start here, especially if we bear in mind that Western Christian Civilisation is not to be confused with European Civilisation (what Hitler and his ilk tried to reinstate).

Categories
Judaism Old Testament Tacitus Theology

The Holy Hook, 4

by Laurent Guyénot

How Christianity reinforced Jewish alienation

Also to consider is the effect that the Christian sanctification of the Jewish Tanakh has had on Jews themselves. It has discouraged Jews from questioning their scriptures and freeing themselves from their psychopathic god. Any Jew who questioned the divine inspiration of the Torah was not only banned from his community, but found no shelter among Christians: this happened to Baruch Spinoza and many others. For two thousand years, Christians have prayed that the Jews would open their heart to Christ, but they have done nothing to free them from Yahweh.

Critics of Jews in pagan Antiquity had a simple logic: although Jews were considered an ethnos, it was commonly admitted that their misanthropy was due to their religion. It was the fault of Moses, who had taught them to scorn the gods and the traditions of others. Hecataeus of Abdera gives in his Aegyptiaca (around 300 BCE) an alternative version of the Exodus: to appease their gods during a plague, the Egyptians expelled from their lands the many tribes of migrants (those known in Acadian as habirus), and some of them settled in Judea under the conduct of their leader Moses who, ‘because of their expulsion, introduced a kind of misanthropic and inhospitable way of life’.[14]

The Roman historian Tacitus tells a similar story and also attributes to Moses the introduction of ‘new religious practices, quite opposed to those of all other religions. The Jews regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other hand, they permit all that we abhor’ (Tacitus, Histories V,3-5).

Plutarch reports in his treatise on Isis and Osiris that some Egyptians believed the god of the Jews to be Seth, the murderer of Osiris, exiled by the council of the gods in the desert from where he periodically returns to bring famine and discord. This opinion was so widespread in the Greco-Roman world that many people believed that the Jews worshiped in their Temple the golden head of a donkey, symbol of Seth in the divine bestiary of Egypt. The Roman general Pompey is reported to have been surprised not to find this famous donkey head when he entered the Holy of Holies in 63 BCE.

Everything was simple, then: the Jews were not racially, but religiously degenerate. But the Christian Fathers, who held that only the Jews had worshiped the true God before the coming of Jesus Christ, had to elaborate a sophisticated explanation for the Jews’ asocial behavior, one which is so self-contradicting that its message to the Jews amounts to a ‘double bind’: on the one hand, the Jews are told that their Yahweh is the true God and that their Bible is holy, but on the other hand, they are criticized for behaviors they have learned precisely from Yahweh in their Bible.

They are accused of plotting to rule the world, although it is the very promise that Yahweh made to them: ‘Yahweh your God will raise you higher than every other nation in the world’ (Deuteronomy 28:1). They are blamed for their materialism and their greed, but that also they learned from Yahweh, who dreams only of plunder: ‘I shall shake all the nations, and the treasures of all the nations will flow in’ (Haggai 2:7).

Above all, they are rebuked for their separatism, although this is the very essence of Yahweh’s message to them: ‘I shall set you apart from all these peoples, for you to be mine’ (Leviticus 20:26). Jews who want to break away from Jewish separatism deserve death, according to the lesson of the Bible. The Church Fathers have repeated Yahweh’s endless complaint against his people’s irrepressible tendency to compromise themselves with the gods of the nations by oaths, shared meals or—abomination of the abomination—marriages. But are not these ‘stiff-necked Jews’ who rebelled against the tyrannical yoke of the Levites, precisely those who sought to extricate themselves from the Jewish alienation by assimilating into the surrounding civilization? Were they not doing exactly what we would like them to do today? The contradiction is in many Christian writings. John Chrysostom, for example, writes in his First Homily Against the Jews (II,3):

Nothing is more miserable than those people who never failed to attack their own salvation. When there was need to observe the Law, they trampled it under foot. Now that the Law has ceased to bind, they obstinately strive to observe it. What could be more pitiable that those who provoke God not only by transgressing the Law but also by keeping it?

This amounts to telling the Jews: ‘Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.’ Christians accuse them of having rebelled against Yahweh yesterday, and they accuse them of obeying Yahweh today, under the pretext that Yahweh’s orders no longer stand. How unconvincing to the Jews!

Anti-Yahwism is the only effective criticism of Israel because it is the only fair criticism. It cuts short the accusation of anti-Semitism, since it aims at liberating the Jews from the sociopathic god who has taken control of their destiny—and who is, of course, only the puppet of the Levites. A manifesto of anti-yahwism might begin with this statement by Samuel Roth from his book Jews Must Live:

Beginning with the Lord God of Israel Himself, it was the successive leaders of Israel who one by one foregathered and guided the tragic career of the Jews—tragic to the Jews and no less tragic to the neighboring nations who have suffered them. Despite our faults, we would never have done so much damage to the world if it had not been for our genius for evil leadership.[15]

Zionist pioneer Leo Pinsker wrote in his booklet Auto-Emancipation (1882), that the Jews are ‘the people chosen for universal hatred.’ They are indeed, but not because Gentiles are universally affected by a ‘psychic aberration,’ a ‘variety of demonopathy’ known as Judeophobia, as Pinsker believes, but rather because their covenant with Yahweh has programmed them to be hated wherever they go.[16]

It’s time to tell the Jews what Christians have been unable to tell them: You were never chosen by God. You have just been misled by your Levites to take your vindictive tribal god for the universal Father in Heaven. This cognitive short-circuit has caused in your collective psyche a grave narcissistic personality disorder. For our own misfortune, we Gentiles have been fooled by your self-delusion and have fallen, too, under the psychopathic bond of your leaders. But we are now waking up, and as soon as we recover our senses and our dignity, we’ll help you out of it too.

_____________

[14] Peter Schäfer, Judéophobie: Attitudes à l’égard des Juifs dans le monde antique, Cerf, 2003, pp. 13-15.

[15] Samuel Roth, Jews Must Live: An Account of the Persecution of the World by Israel on All the Frontiers of Civilization, 1934, (archive.org).

[16] Leon Pinsker, Auto-Emancipation: An Appeal to His People by a Russian Jew (1882).

Categories
Israel / Palestine Judaism Old Testament Racial right Theology

The Holy Hook, 3

by Laurent Guyénot

Christians’ learned helplessness

It is beyond question that Christianity played a major role in the creation of Israel, and continues to play a major role in securing American and European support for its criminal enterprises. This has nothing to do with Jesus’ teaching or the example he set with his life and death, of course. Rather, this was due to the Od Testament, Israel’s Trojan Horse inside Christianity. By recognizing the Jews’ special status as the people of the Old Testament, Christians have granted them an extraordinary symbolic power that no other ethnic community can compete with.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Since he’s writing for The Unz Review, Laurent omits to add that white nationalism should be seen as a failed movement. Except for Hitler and his closest henchmen, every Jew-wise man knows about the Jewish problem but none wants to say who is responsible for their power.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
For two thousand years, Christianity has taught Gentiles to consent to the delusional claim of the Jews to divine election: are they not the first and only ethnic group whom the God of the universe has addressed personally, the people whom He has loved to the point of exterminating its enemies? It matters not that Christians tell the Jews that they have lost the election because they rejected Christ: the main price is theirs. To accept the biblical notion of ‘chosen people’, whatever the reservations, is to accept the metaphysical superiority of the Jews. If Christ is Israel’s Messiah, then truly, ‘salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22).

We are experiencing today the final consequences of this submission, which the peoples of Antiquity could never have imagined in their worst nightmares. The exalted status of the Jews and of their ‘holy history’ is the deeper reason for their influence on the affairs of the world. By accepting the triple biblical paradigm—Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land—, Christian Churches, Catholic and Protestant in particular, have become complicit with the imperialistic project of the Hebrew Bible. Therefore, there will be no definitive emancipation from Zion without mental and moral emancipation from the biblical matrix.

When reading the Book of Joshua, a Christian is supposed to approve, as a matter of principle, the extermination of the inhabitants of the cities of Canaan and the stealing of their land, since it was ordained by God. The editors of my Bible de Jérusalem explain in a footnote to chapter 3:

Joshua was considered by the Fathers as a figure of his namesake Jesus [their names are identical in Hebrew], and the Jordanian passage as a figure of Christian baptism.

How can Joshua be a figure of Jesus? What has Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount to do with Joshua’s bloodthirsty fanatism? How can the god of Joshua be the Father of Christ? A crippling cognitive dissonance has seized Christian peoples, causing a chronic inability to think intelligently about the divine, and to see and resist the violence of Israel. We can also compare the Christian world to a son who has been lied to all his life about his real father, and, on top of that, told that his father was a war criminal, when in fact he is the son of a loving father. The neurotic ailments that genealogical lies and secrets may cause over several generations, though largely mysterious, have been well documented in the last fifty years (particularly by French psychogenealogists), and I believe such considerations, applied to the usurpation of our Heavenly Parent’s identity by the psychopathic Yahweh, are relevant to the psychology of nations.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Unlike Laurent, we are not theists but pantheists (see the abridgement of Richard Weikart’s book on Hitler we made for this site).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
As a matter of principle, the Christian is supposed to approve Yahweh’s sentence on those who ate with the Moabites and took wives among them: ‘Yahweh said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people. Impale them facing the sun, for Yahweh, to deflect his burning anger from Israel”’ (Numbers 25:4). But then, why blame the Jerusalem priestly cast for sending Jesus to the torture? Explain to me in which way they were unfaithful to the Torah! Not to mention, of course, the inherent contradiction in blaming them for the Cross since, according to the Gospel, ‘the Son of man was destined to suffer grievously, and to be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes, and to be put to death, and after three days to rise again’ (Mark 8:31).

The sanctification of Yahweh’s bloody leadership during the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan has made Gentiles incapable of understanding the historical foundation of Jewishness, and helpless in the face of its intrinsic violence today. It has created a blind spot in Christians’ mind: they may see the effects of Zion’s evil power, but not its cause, falsely assuming that the moral corruption they see in Jews comes from the Talmud and the Kabbalah.

Christians cannot even see the Jewish plan for world domination that is written in plain language, right under their nose. If the Jewish Tanakh had not become the Christians’ Holy Book, it would have been exposed as the proof for Israel’s racist and supremacist ambitions long ago. But when it comes to the Old Testament, Christians are seized by a severe reading disorder: when the book says ‘Israel will conquer the world’, they read ‘the Church will convert the world’.

If the ‘Jewish question’ is about the inordinate power of Israeli elite networks within nations, then the Jewish question is also a Christian question: (emphasis by Ed.) it is about the built-in vulnerability of Christian societies to this power. Deep down, anyone who grew up a Christian knows that the chosen people will have the last word, because if Yahweh is God, his promise is eternal, as he himself declares, in his inimitable style: ‘By my own self I swear it; what comes from my mouth is saving justice, it is an irrevocable word’ (Isaiah 45:23). One can even speak of Christians’ ‘learned helplessness’ in front of Jewish power, since they are taught in their Scriptures that God has always guided Israel’s merciless slaughter of his enemies—no need for Scofield’s footnotes to know that. There is also learned helplessness in having as ultimate model a man crucified by the Jews: how can the ‘imitation of Christ’ save us from the high priests’ power to lobby and corrupt Pilatus?

The Judeo-Babylonian metaphysical hoax makes God not just ridiculously anthropomorphic, but Judeomorphic. To be fooled by it is to mistake the Creator of the Universe for a topical demon rumbling and spitting fire from a Midianite volcano (Exodus 19), adopted as tutelary deity by a confederation of Semitic nomadic tribes craving for a piece of the Fertile Crescent. It is to internalize an extremely primitive and unspiritual image of the divine that is obstructive of sound metaphysical thinking: the divorce between philosophy (the love of Wisdom) and theology (the science of God) is one manifestation of this cognitive dissonance in Western thought.

In the final analysis, the jealous Yahweh, destroyer of all pantheons, is so unconvincing in the garb of the Great universal God that he is fated to be discarded in his turn. Atheism is the end result of biblical monotheism: it is the rejection of the biblical God, mistaken for the true God. ‘If Yahweh is God, no thanks’ has been the simple rationale for atheism in Christendom since the Enlightenment: Voltaire, for example, scorned Christianity by quoting the Old Testament. Yahweh has ruined faith in a divine Creator.

Categories
Bible Christendom Franks Judaism Kevin MacDonald Merovingian dynasty Old Testament

The Holy Hook, 1

 
Editor’s note: With the subtitle of ‘Yahweh’s Trojan Horse into the Gentile City’, this essay by Laurent Guyénot was published, complete, on May 8, 2019, in The Unz Review.
 

Is the Church the whore of Yahweh?

I concluded an earlier article [‘Zionism, Crypto-Judaism, and the Biblical Hoax’ —Ed.] by what I regard as the most important ‘revelation’ of modern biblical scholarship, one that has the potential to free the Western world from a two-thousand-year-old psychopathic bond: the jealous Yahweh was originally just the national god of Israel, repackaged into ‘the God of Heaven and Earth’ during the Babylonian Exile, as part of a public relations campaign aimed at Persians, then Greeks and ultimately Romans. The resulting biblical notion that the universal Creator became Israel’s national god at the time of Moses, is thus exposed as a fictitious inversion of the historical process: in reality, it is the national god of Israel who, so to speak, impersonated the universal Creator at the time of Ezra—while remaining intensely ethnocentric.

The Book of Joshua is a good eye-opener to the biblical hoax, because its pre-exilic author never refers to Yahweh simply as ‘God,’ and never implies that he is anything but ‘the god of Israel,’ that is, ‘our god’ for the Israelites, and ‘your god’ for their enemies (25 times). Yahweh shows no interest in converting Canaanite peoples, whom he regards as worthless than their livestock. He doesn’t instruct Joshua to even try to convert them, but simply to exterminate them, in keeping with the war code he gave Moses in Deuteronomy 20.

However, we find in the Book of Joshua one isolated statement by a Canaanite woman that ‘Yahweh your god is God both in Heaven above and on Earth beneath’ (2:11). Rahab, a prostitute in Jericho, makes that statement to two Israeli spies who spend the night with her, and whom she hides in exchange for being spared, together with her family, when the Israelites will take over the city and slaughter everyone, ‘men and women, young and old’ (6:21). Rahab’s ‘profession of faith’ is probably a post-exilic insertion, because it doesn’t fit well with her other claim that she is motivated by fear, not by faith: ‘we are afraid of you and everyone living in this country has been seized with terror at your approach’ (2:9). Nevertheless, the combination of fear and faith is consistent with Yahweh’s ways.

The French Catholic Bible de Jérusalem—a scholarly translation by the Dominicans of the École Biblique, which served as guideline for the English Jerusalem Bible—adds a following footnote to Rahab’s ‘profession of faith to the God of Israel’, saying it ‘made Rahab, in the eyes of more than one Church Father, a figure of the Gentile Church, saved by her faith.’

I find this footnote emblematic of the role of Christianity in propagating among Gentiles the Israelites’ outrageous metaphysical claim, that great deception that has remained, to this day, a source of tremendous symbolic power. By recognizing her own image in the prostitute of Jericho, the Church claims for herself the role that is exactly hers in history, while radically misleading Christians about the historical significance of that role. It is indeed the Church who, having acknowledged the god of Israel as the universal God, introduced the Jews into the heart of the Gentile city and, over the centuries, allowed them to seize power over Christendom. [Red emphasis by Ed.]

This thesis, which I am going to develop here, may seem fanciful, because we have been taught that Christianity was strongly Judeophobic from the start. And that’s true. For example, John Chrysostom, perhaps the most influential Greek theologian of the crucial 4th century, wrote several homilies ‘Against the Jews’. But what he is concerned about, precisely, is the nefarious influence of the Jews over Christians. Many Christians, he complains, ‘join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts’ and even believe that ‘they think as we do’ (First homily, I,5).

‘Is it not strange that those who worship the Crucified keep common festival with those who crucified him? Is it not a sign of folly and the worst madness?… For when they see that you, who worship the Christ whom they crucified, are reverently following their rituals, how can they fail to think that the rites they have performed are the best and that our ceremonies are worthless?’ (First Homily, V,1-7).

To John’s horror, some Christians even get circumcised. ‘Do not tell me,’ he warns them, ‘that circumcision is just a single command; it is that very command which imposes on you the entire yoke of the Law’ (Second Homily, II,4). And so, with all its Judeophobia (anachronistically renamed ‘anti-Semitism’ today), John Chrysostom’s homilies are a testimony to the strong influence that Jews have exerted on Gentile Christians in the early days of the triumphant, imperial Church. And no matter how much the Greek and Latin Fathers have tried to protect their flock from the influence of Jews, it has persisted as the Church expanded. It can even be argued that the history of Christianity is the history of its Judaization, from Constantinople to Rome, then from Rome to Amsterdam and to the New World.

______ 卐 ______

 
Note of the Editor: This is exactly what apologists of Christianity, like the secular Kevin MacDonald, fail to understand (see e.g., how he misunderstands John Chrysostom in his preface to Giles Corey’s The Sword of Christ).
 

______ 卐 ______

 
We commonly admit that the Church has always oppressed the Jews and prevented their integration unless they convert. Were they not expelled from one Christian kingdom after another in the Middle Ages? Again, this is true, but we must distinguish between the cause and the effect. Each of these expulsions has been a reaction to a situation unknown in pre-Christian Antiquity: Jewish communities gaining inordinate economic power, under the protection of a royal administration (Jews served as the kings’ tax collectors and moneylenders, and were particularly indispensable in times of war), until this economic power, yielding political power, reaches a point of saturation, causes pogroms and forces the king into taking measures.

Let us consider for example the influence of the Jews in Western Europe under the Carolingians. It reaches a climax under Charlemagne’s son, Louis the Pious. The bishop of Lyon Agobard (c. 769-840) left us five letters or treatises written to protest against the power granted to the Jews at the detriment of Christians. In On the insolence of the Jews, addressed to Louis the Pious in 826, Agobard complains that the Jews produce ‘signed ordinances of your name with golden seals’ guaranteeing them outrageous advantages, and that the envoys of the Emperor are ‘terrible towards Christians and gentle towards Jews.’ Agobard even complains of an imperial edict imposing Sunday rather than Saturday as market day, in order to please the Jews. In another letter, he complains of an edict forbidding anyone to baptize the slaves of the Jews without the permission of their masters.[1]

Louis the Pious was said to be under the influence of his wife, Queen Judith—a name that simply means ‘Jewess’. She was so friendly to Jews that the Jewish historian Heinrich Graetz hypothesizes that she was a secret Jewess, in the manner of the biblical Esther. Graetz describes the reign of Louis and Judith (and ‘the treasurer Bernhard, the real ruler of the kingdom’ according to him) as a golden age for the Jews, and points out that in the emperor’s court, many regarded Judaism as the true religion. This is illustrated by the resounding conversion of Louis’ confessor, Bishop Bodo, who took the name of Eleazar, had himself circumcised, and married a Jewess. ‘Cultured Christians,’ writes Graetz, ‘refreshed themselves with the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus and the Jewish philosopher Philo, and read their works in preference to those of the apostles.’[2]

The Judaization of the Roman Church at this time is appropriately symbolized by the adoption of unleavened bread for communion, with no justification in the Gospel. I say ‘the Roman Church’, but perhaps it should be called the Frankish Church because, from the time of Charlemagne, it was taken over by ethnic Franks with geopolitical designs on Byzantium, as Orthodox theologian John Romanides has convincingly argued.[3]

The Old Testament was especially influential in the Frankish spheres of power. Popular piety focused on the Gospel narratives (canonical gospels, but also apocryphal ones like the immensely popular Gospel of Nicodemus), the worship of Mary, and the ubiquitous cults of the saints, but kings and popes relied on a political theology drawn from the Tanakh.

The Hebrew Bible had been a major part of Frankish propaganda from the late sixth century. Gregory of Tours’ History of the Franks, the primary—and mostly legendary—source for Merovingian history, is framed on the providential ideology of the Books of Kings: the good kings are those who support the Catholic Church, and the bad kings those who resist the growth of its power. Under Louis the Pious, the rite of anointment of the Frankish kings was designed after the model of the prophet Samuel’s anointment of King David in 1 Samuel 16.

__________

[1] Adrien Bressolles, ‘La question juive au temps de Louis le Pieux,’ in Revue d’histoire de l’Église de France, tome 28, n°113, 1942. pp. 51-64, on https://www.persee.fr

[2] Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, Jewish Publication Society of America, 1891 (archive.org), vol. III, ch. VI, p. 162.

[3] John Romanides, Franks, Romans, Feudalism, and Doctrine: An Interplay Between Theology and Society, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981.

Categories
Ancient Rome Catholic Church Josephus Judaism Judea v. Rome Nero New Testament

How Yahweh conquered Rome, 4

by Laurent Guyénot

 

The foundation of the Roman church under the Flavian dynasty

In 70, newly proclaimed emperor Vespasian and his son Titus brought to Rome about 97,000 Jewish captives (Josephus, Jewish War vi, 9), as well as members of the Jewish nobility rewarded for their support in the war in Judea—Josephus being the most famous of them.

Soon after, as Josephus started working on his Antiquities of the Jews in 20 volumes, we are told that the Gospels were written.[11]

In the same period, according to standard Church history, we already have in Rome a Christian church, headed by a certain Clement of Rome (88-99). Clement must have been an educated Jew like Josephus, because his only genuine epistle is characterized by numerous Hebraisms, abundant references to the Old Testament, and a Levitical mindset. An ancient and credible tradition makes him a freedman of consul Titus Flavius Clemens, a cousin of the Flavian emperors. We learn from Cassius Dio that Flavius Clemens was executed by Domitian, brother and successor of Titus, for ‘atheism’ and ‘deviation toward Judaic customs.’ His wife Flavia Domitilla was banished to the island of Pandateria (Ventotene). Over time, Flavius Clemens came to be regarded as a Christian martyr, and this gave rise to the idea of Domitian’s persecution of Christians. But historians now dismiss this notion (there is no clearly attested persecution of Christians prior to the middle of the third century),[12] and assume that Flavius Clemens and Flavia Domitilla were simply accused of Judaizing, and the former perhaps of circumcising himself.[13] One of Domitian’s assassins in 96 was a steward of Domitilla named Stephanus, which may suggests a Jewish vengeance.

The attitude of the Flavians towards the Jews was apparently twofold. On the one hand, they seemed determined to do away with the Jewish religion, which they saw, correctly, as the source of Jewish separatism. Not content with having destroyed the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, Vespasian also ordered the destruction of the one in Leontopolis, Egypt. In general, the Romans used to integrate the vanquished gods with a ceremony of evocatio deorum, by which the god was granted a sanctuary in Rome. But the god Yahweh was considered inassimilable, which is why his objects of worship were treated as mere booty, according to Emily Schmidt: ‘The treatment of the Jewish god can be seen as an inversion of the typical Roman treatment of or attitude towards foreign gods, perhaps as an anti-evocatio.’[14]

On the other hand, Josephus’ biography shows that Vespasian and Titus were not just merciful, but even grateful to the Jews who had rallied to them in Judea. There is no contradiction between those two aspects of the Flavians’ Jewish policy: they repressed Jewish separatism and forbade Jewish proselytizing but encouraged Jewish assimilation. Assimilationist Jews abandoned circumcision and had no objection to the syncretic assimilation of Yahweh with Zeus or Jupiter. The same basic twofold policy was followed by the Flavians’ successors Trajan (98-117) and Hadrian (117-138).[15]

From these basic facts, and keeping in mind the pattern set by Ezra’s priestly circle in Babylon, it is not difficult to imagine what was going on in Rome in the first century. The theory I’m going to discuss now goes like this. The cornerstone of the Roman Catholic Church was first laid by a secret brotherhood of priestly Jews, who had been brought to Rome by Vespasian and Titus in the aftermath of the Jewish War that destroyed their Temple in 70 AD. Some had gained Vespasian’s favor and protection by handing him the fabulous Temple treasure that made possible his ascension to the imperial throne. Flavius Josephus, who had defected to the Romans in Galilee and was rewarded beyond measure by Vespasian, may have been an influential member of that Jewish circle. Those powerful, wealthy and self-conscious Jews, using assimilation for dissimulation, had the motive, the means and the opportunity to fabricate the syncretic religion that could serve as their Trojan horse.

I borrow this theory from Flavio Barbiero’s book The Secret Society of Moses: The Mosaic Bloodline and a Conspiracy Spanning Three Millennia (2010). The author is not a trained historian, but a scientist with a sharp inquisitive and logical mind combined with a great imagination and a taste for sweeping theories. There is a great deal of speculation in the grand story he unfolds, from Moses to modern times, but it is insightful and consistent. At least it is a good starting point for trying to answer the question of how the Jews created Christianity.

According to that thesis, these priestly Jews brought to Rome by Vespasian and Titus had come to terms with the ruin of their nation and Temple, but they had not given up on their biblical program of Jewish supremacy; they simply reinterpreted it from their new vantage point inside the Empire’s capital. Still jealous of their birth and strictly endogamous, they retained and passed on to their progeny a sense of mission to pave for Israel a new road towards its destiny. Can we not even assume that, under their apparent loyalty to the Emperor, they shared the same hatred of Rome that inspired first-century Jewish texts like the Apocalypses of Ezra and of Baruch?

In Ezra, the roar of the Lion of Judah makes the Roman eagle bursts into flame, and a reunited and free Israel is gathered in Palestine. In Baruch, the Messiah routs and destroys the Roman armies, then brings the Roman emperor in chains to Mount Zion and puts him to death.[16] The same hatred of Rome permeates the Book of Revelation, where Rome, under the thin veil of Babylon, is called the Great Harlot, whose flesh will be consumed by God’s wrath, to make way for a brand new Jerusalem.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: Already from Nietzsche’s texts it was clear that the author of the Book of Revelation was a Jew who hated Rome in a hellish way. If there is one overtly anti-Roman text in the New Testament it is the one attributed to the Jew John of Patmos (not to be confused with John the Evangelist, let alone the fictional figure of John the Apostle).

It was a book written after the destruction of Jerusalem. No wonder the Jew John of Patmos dreamed of a ‘New Jerusalem’ in the final book of the Bible!

______ 卐 ______

 
Let us consider, as a working hypothesis, that these Jewish priests had a plan. They adopted the network strategy that had allowed their distant ancestors to infiltrate the Persian court and thereby regain their lost power under the patronage of Ezra. Their goal, according to Flavio Barbiero, was ‘taking possession of the newborn Christian religion and transforming it into a solid power basis for the priestly family’ (p. 146). There existed already a cult of Christ, attested by Paul’s epistles written in the 50s, but the Gospels gave it a completely different orientation in the decades following the destruction of the Temple. The Law-abiding Peter, presented as the head of the Jerusalem Church by the Gospel of Matthew, was made the founder of the Roman papacy in the literature attributed to Clement of Rome, thus establishing a spiritual bond between Rome and Jerusalem.

To get a better understanding of the Jewish community that elaborated these traditions, we must take a closer look at the first Jewish war. In 67, emperor Nero sent his army commander Vespasian to crush the rebellion of the priestly Sadducees who had defied Roman power by banning from the Temple the daily sacrifices offered in the name and at the expense of the Emperor. When, after Nero’s death, Vespasian was declared emperor in December 69, his son Titus was left in Judea to finish putting down the rebellion.

In Book vi of Josephus’ Jewish War we learn that, from the early stage of Titus’ siege of Jerusalem, many Jews went over to the Romans, including ‘heads of the priestly families.’ Titus ‘not only received these men very kindly in other respects, but […] told them, that when he was gotten clear of this war, he would restore each of them to their possessions again.’ Until the last days of the siege, Josephus informs us, some priests obtained safe conduct under the condition that they handed to Titus some of the Temple’s wealth.

One, named Jesus, delivered ‘two candlesticks similar to those that were deposited in the Temple, some tables, some drinking chalices and cups, all of solid gold. He also handed over the curtains [those that were torn as Jesus expired according to Matthew 27:51], the robes of the high priest, with the precious stones and many other objects used for sacrifices.’ Another, named Phineas, introduced by Josephus as ‘the guardian of the Temple treasure,’ handed over ‘the priests’ tunics and belts, a large quantity of purple and scarlet cloth […] and a large quantity of the sacred ornaments, thanks to which, even if he was a prisoner of war, he obtained the amnesty reserved for deserters.’

Those priests obviously bargained their lives and their freedom with parts of the Temple treasure. The Temple was not just a religious sanctuary, it was, in a real sense, a central bank and a giant vault, harboring enormous quantities of gold, silver, and precious artifacts financed by tithes from around the world. One of the purposes of the Temple, we could say, was to satisfy Yahweh’s greed: ‘I shall fill this Temple with glory, says Yahweh Sabaoth. Mine is the silver, mine the gold!’ (Haggai 2:7).[17] According to the Copper Scroll found near the Dead Sea in 1952, the Temple treasure, amounting to tons of gold, silver, and precious items, had been hidden during the siege in 64 locations.[18] So it is logical to assume, as Barbiero does, that Titus and Vespasian were only able to get their hands on it with the help of high-ranking priests.

This huge booty, of which the symbolic centerpiece was the enormous menorah depicted on the Arch of Titus (opening picture), certainly helped Vespasian to earn the acclamation of his troops as emperor, and then to convince the Senate. The construction of the Coliseum, between 70 and 80, was entirely financed by this booty.

______________

[11] The earliest gospel, the Gospel of Mark, is commonly dated in the late 60s, but that date is much too early, especially since it mentions the destruction of the Temple.

[12] Tacitus wrote in the Annals (xv, 44) that Nero accused Christians of starting the great fire of Rome in 64, and had many of them ‘thrown to the beasts, crucified, and burned alive.’ But this is the only attestation of that story, and some modern scholars have cast doubt on its credibility. Richard Carrier sees it as a later Christian interpolation, and Brent Shaw argues that Nero’s persecution is a myth. There is one other mention of persecution against Christians before the third century, in a letter written to Trajan by Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia (north of Asia Minor). But this letter is of dubious authenticity as well, belonging to a book of 121 letters found in the 16th century, copied, and lost again.

[13] Paul Mattei, Le Christianisme antique: De Jésus à Constantin, Armand Colin, 2011, p. 119.

[14] Emily A. Schmidt, ‘The Flavian Triumph and the Arch of Titus: The Jewish God in Flavian Rome,’ UC Santa Barbara: Ancient Borderlands Research Focus Group, 2010.

[15] Trajan is said to have had a pro-Jewish wife, Pompeia Plotina, and he once sentenced to death a Greek dignitary named Hermaiskos for having complained that the emperor’s entourage was ‘full of impious Jews.’ (Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt – From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, Princeton University Press, 1997, p. 193-196). But Hadrian is credited for having banned circumcision, and, when faced in 132 with a new anti-Roman Jewish uprising in Judea, led by Simon bar Kokhba, he destroyed Jerusalem once more, converted it into a Greek city named Aelia Capitolina, and forbade Jews to enter it.

[16] Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium, Essential Books, 1957, p. 4.

[17] According to 1Kings 10:14, the amount of gold hoarded each year into Salomon’s temple was ‘666 talents of gold’ (1 talent = 30kg). Salomon’s treasure may be legendary, but it illustrates what the Jerusalem Temple still meant for the priests of the first century AD.

[18] Because the Copper Scroll is part of the so-called Dead Sea Scrolls, which have been wrongly assigned an Essenian origin for decades, its content was long considered fictional. The revision of this misguided theory, pioneered by Norman Golb in Who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls?: The search for the secret of Qumran, Scribner, 1995, has corrected that bias.

Categories
Bible Final solution Judaism Philosophy of history Racial right Who We Are (book)

How Yahweh conquered Rome, 3

Jews in Rome before the Jewish Wars

Long before it was repackaged for the Gentiles, the Big Lie was a Jewish self-delusion. As I have detailed at the end of my long article ‘Zionism, Crypto-Judaism and the Biblical Hoax,’ in the sixth and the fifth century BC in Babylon, a priestly elite from Jerusalem decided that Yahweh, the national god of Israel, although apparently vanquished, was in fact the only real god, and, by way of consequence, the Creator of Heaven and Earth. A laughable claim, but when the Persians conquered Babylon, those Jews, who found themselves in a favourable position after helping the Persians, set out to pretend that their theoclastic monotheism, based on the exclusion of all other gods, was identical to the tolerant monotheism of the Persians; in other words, that their tribal god Yahweh was Ahura Mazda, the God of Heaven. I have shown that the deception is clearly apparent in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, where only Persians are portrayed as believing that Yahweh is ‘the God of Heaven,’ while for the Israelites he is just ‘the god of Israel.’

What the priestly Jews achieved in Babylon in the fifth century BC was a preliminary stage for what another generation of the same priestly cast would start planning in the first century AD in Rome, after having been brought there in similar conditions of captivity. While Yahweh seemed again vanquished, he set out to conquer his victor from within. The conspiracy of Babylon’s Jews to fool the Persians with their phony monotheism was the blueprint for the more sophisticated conspiracy of Rome’s Jews to fool the Romans with Christianity.

Between those two stages, Jews seem to have convinced a portion of the Roman aristocracy that they were the first true monotheists, the worshipers of the true God. For Greeks and Romans, the supreme Creator was a philosophical concept, while religious cults were polytheistic by definition. That’s why, around 315 BC, the Aristotelian Theophrastus of Eresus thought of the Jews as ‘philosophers by birth,’ although he was troubled by their primitive holocausts. Some Jewish writers (Aristobulus of Paneas, Artapanos of Alexandria, or even Philo of Alexandria) had even succeeded in bluffing some Greeks with the wild claim that Homer, Hesiod, Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato had been inspired by Moses.[8]

Jews are mentioned in Rome as early as the second century BC. It has been surmised that they were mostly converted Phoenicians. Martin Bernal defends that thesis in Jews and Phoenicians, with the argument that ‘there is no evidence of Jews in the West Mediterranean before the destruction of Carthage [146 BC],’ but ‘after that date, they were widely reported there,’ while Phoenicians faded from the pages of history.

Phoenicians and Jews’ languages and cultures were virtually identical.[9] Peter Myers brings additional light in his well-sourced article ‘Carthaginians, Phoenicians & Berbers became Jews’, arguing that, ‘After the destruction of Carthage by Rome, many Carthaginians and Phoenicians converted to Judaism, because Jerusalem was the only remaining centre of West Semitic civilization.’

The Encyclopedia Judaica’s article on Carthage, quoted by Myers, supports that hypothesis, adding that the Phoenicians, by converting to Judaism after their political decline, ‘preserved their Semitic identity and were not assimilated by the Roman-Hellenistic culture which they hated.’ This theory, which also explains the mysterious origin of the Sephardim in Spain—a Carthaginian colony—, is of obvious importance to comprehend the attitude of Jews towards the Roman Empire, destroyer of the Phoenician civilization.

(Left, Flavius Josephus highlights the ancient affinity between Phoenicians and Jews.) In 63 BC, Rome’s Jewish community was enlarged with thousands of captives brought back from Judea by Pompey, and progressively freed (Philo of Alexandria, Legatio ad Caium, 156). It is believed that Julius Cesar introduced legislation to guarantee their religious liberty, and that the law was confirmed by Augustus, who also exempted them from military service. Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) is said to have expelled the Jews from Rome (Suetonius, Claudius xv, 4; Acts 18:2), or at least forbidden them to congregate (Cassius Dio lx, 6). But they seem to have known favourable times under Nero (54-68), whose wife Poppaea Sabina is regarded as an Esther-type secret Jewess in Jewish tradition, because Jewish historian Flavius Josephus calls her ‘a God-worshipper’ (Antiquities of the Jews, xx, 195) and mentions her support for the release of Jewish priests prosecuted in Rome (Vita 16).[10]
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s note: When Greg Johnson criticised William Pierce’s Who We Are years ago, he argued that Pierce, with his suggestion that the ancient Aryans should have exterminated the non-Aryans, was saying something monstrous. Johnson even called ‘whites’ those mudblood Cauacsoids whom we now assume had Semitic, though not Jewish, blood.

White nationalism would be greatly enriched by admitting that the Judean war against Rome has been in reality a psychological war of the Semites (including non-Jews, such as the Phoenicians and the Carthaginians who survived the Third Punic War) against the Aryans. It is a great pathology that infects even white nationalism not want to see the macro-dynamics of the clash between Semites and Aryans that has been going on for millennia.

I blame Christian ethics for that. (Recall, for example, that a dozen years ago Johnson delivered homilies at his church in San Francisco. He has since abandoned Christianity and is now a pious neochristian—just read his The White Nationalist Manifesto.) If Christian ethics is to blame, for transvaluing Semitic values Pierce’s book should be the textbook of American racialists. But I understand that the copyright holders, the National Alliance, haven’t yet published it.

Or am I wrong?

___________

[8] Joseph Mélèze Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian, Princeton University Press, 1995, pp. 48-49, 66.

[9] Martin Bernal, Geography of a Life, chap. 45, ‘Jews and Phoenicians,’ pp. 386-394.

[10] Nahum Goldmann, Le Paradoxe juif. Conversations en français avec Léon Abramowicz, Stock, 1976, p. 36; Heinrich Graetz, Histoire des Juifs, A. Lévy, 1882 (on fr.wikisource.org), tome I, p. 413-428.

Categories
Catholic Church Christendom Deranged altruism Judaism Protestantism Theology

How Yahweh conquered Rome, 2

by Laurent Guyénot

The two sides of the big lie

Is this quest really necessary? Can there be any benefit for Western civilization in questioning its already shaky Christian foundation? And is the Big Lie such a big deal? Before proceeding, I want to share my viewpoint on these questions, on which I have thought long and hard.

‘The greatness of White civilization sprung from the Christian faith.’ Such a statement seems hardly controversial. And yet, I think it is completely mistaken. The achievements of our civilization stem from the inner strength of our race, which include an exceptional propensity to ‘idealize’, by which I mean both to generate ideas and work toward their realization. The genius of our race is to be creators of powerful Ideas that drive us forward and upward. This capacity, which Søren Kierkegaard calls ideality (In Vino Veritas, 1845), is not to be confused with what we commonly call idealism, although it may be argued that idealism is our vulnerability, the weakness inherent to our strength.

For centuries, the Christian faith has been a vehicle—one could almost say a superstructure—for our yearning to idealize and realize; it has not produced it. Priests did not build the Cathedrals in which they officiated (most churches were collective ventures of cities, towns and villages); the troubadours and poets who elaborated the sublime ideal of love which is our ‘civilization’s miracle’ (Stendhal)[5], were not monks; Johann Sebastian Bach wrote Church music, but he was not an clergyman, and his Ave Maria would sound just as great if sung to Isis; many geniuses of our European pantheons, like Dante, Leonardo da Vinci or Galilee, were nominal Catholics by obligation, but secret lovers of Sophia (read my article ‘The Crucifixion of the Goddess’). The source of the artistic, scientific and cultural genius of the White race is not Christianity.

Kevin MacDonald makes a discreet but crucial point in his preface to Giles Corey’s The Sword of Christ when he writes that ‘the adaptive aspects of Christianity’ are what ‘produced Western expansion, innovation, discovery, individual freedom, economic prosperity, and strong family bonds.’[6] This is true if by ‘the adaptive aspects of Christianity’ we mean the aspects that are adopted and adapted from the ancient Greco-Roman-Germanic world, rather than from the Old and New Testament. Among the adaptive aspects of Christianity must be counted its various national colors. Russian Orthodoxy is good for Russia for the same reason that Confucianism is good for China: because it is a national Church, so that being a Russian Orthodox means being a patriot.

The same could be said in the past about Lutheranism for Germany or, in a narrower context, Catholicism for Ireland. But these national versions of Christianity are, in fact, in opposition to its universal (katholikos) mission statement—and to papal Rome. Family values are also adaptive aspects of Christianity. Jesus disavowed his family (Matthew 12:46-50) and Paul taught that, ‘it is good for a man not to marry,’ marriage being recommended only for those who cannot help fornicating (1 Corinthians 7). ‘Christian values’ are not Christian at all, they are simply conservative. In fact, if we look at its popular expressions, Catholicism has been so adaptive that it can be said to be more pagan than Jewish. What’s Jewish about Christmas or Mother Mary?

The problem with Christianity is with its non-adaptive and now prominent Jewish aspects. It is not just the grotesque notion that Jews are chosen, but the even more grotesque character of the god who chose them. Paradoxically, with its anthropomorphic—or should we say Judeomorphic—image of God inherited from the Torah, Christianity has laid the foundation for modern atheism, and, perhaps, harmed Gentile ideality irremediably. Because the Old Testament God is ‘a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a capriciously malevolent bully,’ Richard Dawkins decided to be an atheist, like the vast majority of scholars from Christian background.[7]

They have all, by their own admission, confused God with Yahweh, and fallen victim to the Big Biblical Lie. And because they cannot conceive God outside of the Biblical paradigm, they ban Intelligent Design from universities under the slanderous accusation that it is another name for the biblical God (watch the documentary Expelled: No Intelligent Allowed), whereas it is in fact a vindication of the Greek Sophia. The sociopathic Yahweh has ruined the reputation of God and led to modern Western godlessness.

And so the Big Jewish Lie begot the Big Atheist Lie—or shall we call it the Darwinian Lie? ‘Yahweh is God’ and ‘God is dead’ are opposed like the two sides of the same coin. Our materialistic civilization is in fact more Jewish than the Christianity it rejected, because materialism (the denial of any otherworld) is the metaphysical core of the Hebrew Bible (read my article ‘Israel as One Man’).

If Christianity could include, among its adaptive aspects, the rejection of the Old Testament’s Jealous God and the Big Lie of Jewish chosenness, then it would be redeemable. But Christians would rather sell their souls to the devil than become Marcionites. In two thousand years of existence, institutional Christianity has consistently evolved in the opposite direction, becoming more and more scriptural, Judaized, and Israel-centered: from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, and from Catholicism to Protestantism, the trend is unmistakable. What else can you expect from an institution that has always invited the Jews, and declared that they cease being Jews the moment they receive baptism?

And so Christianity is a dead end. It is now part of the problem, not the solution. It may have served us well for some centuries [Note of the Editor: Guyénot hasn’t read the ten volumes of Karlheinz Deschner’s Christianity’s Criminal History], but in the long run, it has been an instrument of Gentile enslavement to Jewish power. At least, it has not helped us to prevent it, and it cannot help us to overcome it. Many today ask: why are we so weak? It is high time to consider the obvious: having been taught for generations to worship and emulate the man nailed on the cross under Jewish pressure is not the best incentive to resist martyrdom. There is an obvious correlation between being told yesterday that it is moral to ‘love your enemies’ and getting jailed today for ‘hate speech.’

I hold no personal grudge against Christianity. Catholicism is a part of my happiest childhood memories, and the sound of Church bells never fails to strike a deep chord in me. My grandparents on my mother’s side were Catholic bourgeois who raised a large and happy family with sound moral values. If I could see any hope in this social class, I would be a political Catholic like Balzac, or a romantic Catholic like Chateaubriand. But Catholic bourgeoisie is near extinct, having never recovered from Maréchal Petain’s demise. Their children called them fascists and their grandchildren are addicted to pornography. Catholicism has deserted the country too: there are no priests, and what good is a country priest anyway if he cannot bless the crops at Easter?

Therefore, since I don’t believe that Jesus literally rose from his tomb, I consider that institutional Christianity has exhausted its potential for civilization in the West. Look at our pope, for Christ’s sake!

‘Inside every Christian is a Jew’ (Pope Francis).

I speak as a Frenchman, but I doubt that American Catholicism has much more Holy Spirit left. It died in Dallas with Arlen Specter’s magic bullet. Of course, there are brave Catholics like E. Michael Jones, who has captured the evil genius of the Jewish race in his indispensable book on The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. But Professor Jones is the exception that proves the rule. And I am not even talking of American Protestantism, today a mercenary force for Zion.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Editor’s Note:

In this the author is terribly mistaken. Jones is a thousand times worse than a Jew because, as a good Catholic, he is a vile traitor to his race (traitors are worse than external enemies). After he debated Jared Taylor a year ago, I wrote: ‘After 1:39 the Christian Jones showed his true colours. The moderator asked him: If the millions of non-white Muslims and blacks in France suddenly became Catholics should they be expelled? Emphatically Jones answered “No!… They could become Frenchmen, without any problem!” He even added that an African who migrated to Poland could become Polish as well…’
 

______ 卐 ______

 

[5] Stendhal, Love, Penguin Classics, 2000, p. 83.
[6] Giles Corey, The Sword of Christ: Christianity from the Right, or The Christian Question, Independently published, 2020, p. xiii.
[7] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006, p. 51.

Categories
Ancient Rome Judaism Judea v. Rome

How Yahweh conquered Rome, 1

Editor’s note: With the subtitle ‘Christianity and the Big Lie’, this 12,400-word essay by Laurent Guyénot was published in The Unz Review at Christmas 2020. It will be republished here, excerpted, in five parts.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
The People of the Lie

Primo Levi, Italian author of If this is a man (1947)—‘a pillar of Holocaust literature’ according to Wikipedia—, wrote a short fictional story titled Un testamento, consisting of the last recommendation of a member of the guild of the ‘tooth-pullers’ to his son. Its ends with these words:

From all that you have just read you can deduce that lying is a sin for others, and for us a virtue. Lying is one with our job: we should lie by words, by eyes, by smile, by clothing. Not only to deceive patients; as you know, our purpose is higher, and the lie, not the twist of hand, makes our real strength. With the lie, patiently learned and piously exercised, if God helps us we will come to dominate this country and perhaps the world: but this can only be done on the condition of having been able to lie better and longer than our enemies. I will not see that day, but you will see it: it will be a new golden age, when only the last resorts will force us to pluck out teeth again, while it will be enough for us to govern the State and administer public affairs, to lavish the pious lies that we have learned to bring to perfection. If we prove ourselves capable of this, the empire of the tooth-pullers will extend from East to West until the most distant islands, and it will have no end.[1]

There is no literary value in this prose. Its only interest is the question it begs: Who does Levi mean by this society of professional liars, whose trade is passed on from father to son, and whose plan is to conquer the world? Of whom are they the metaphor? And perhaps this other question: What is this ‘testament’ of theirs?

Even if we didn’t know what gang of professional liars Levi belonged to, their ‘God’ would give them away: there is only one god who trained his people to lie and promised them world domination, and that is the god of Israel. ‘Israel,’ remember, is the name Yahweh gave to Jacob, after Jacob lied to his aging father Isaac, by words and by clothing: ‘I am Esau your first-born,’ he said, dressed up in ‘Esau’s best clothes,’ in order to cheat Esau out of his birthright (Genesis 27:15-19). This is, in the literal—and literary—sense, the founding story of Israel. As long as Christians fail to see the malice of it, and its correlation with Jewish behavior, they will continue to play the part of Esau.

What is the biggest Jewish lie in history? Without contest, it is the claim that Jews, of all the nations inhabiting this earth, were once ‘chosen’ by the almighty Creator of the Universe to enlighten and rule over mankind—while all their enemies were cursed by the same Creator. What is truly bewildering is not the enormity of the lie: many individuals may feel chosen by God, and even nations have done so. But only the Jews have managed to convince billions of non-Jews (Christians and Muslims) of their chosenness. How did they do it? ‘Almost by accident,’ wrote Jewish author Marcus Eli Ravage in his must-read 1928 article ‘A real case against the Jews.’ I think the accidental factor was rather minor. [Editor’s note: Remember the article by Marcus Eli Ravage published in The Fair Race: the only article by a Jew to appear in that anthology. Even the Nazis translated it for the Czernowitzer Allgemeine Zeitung.]

The Christians’ theory that, after choosing the Jews, God cursed them for their rejection of Christ doesn’t contradict, but rather validates the Jews’ claim that they are the only ethnic group that God chose, loved exclusively and guided personally through his prophets for thousands of years.

I have argued in ‘The Holy Hook’ that this has given the Jews an ambivalent but decisive spiritual authority over Gentiles. In fact, even the Jews’ ‘cursedness’ that goes with their chosenness in the Christian view has been beneficial to them, because Jewishness cannot survive without hostility to and from the Gentile world; that’s part of its biblical DNA. Jesus saved the Jews in the sense that their hatred of Christianity preserved their identity, which might otherwise have perished without the Temple. According to Jacob Neusner ‘Judaism as we know it was born in the encounter with triumphant Christianity.’[2] Christian Judeophobia had an advantage over Pagan Judeophobia: with Christianity, the Jews were not just hated as atavistically antisocial (i.e., Tacitus’ Histories v, 3-5), but as God’s once chosen people, and their Torah became the world bestseller. [Editor’s note: Compare this with Kevin MacDonald’s ‘adaptive Christianity’: a supposedly good Christianity. In our view, all Christianity was bad for Aryan DNA. Tom Sunic in Homo Americanus blames American Christianity for the crime they committed against the Germans in the last century.]

Chosenness is an unbeatable trump card in the game of nations. If you doubt its power, just ask yourself: would the Jews have gotten Palestine in 1948 without that card? The Holocaust joker alone would not have done it!

As I have become increasingly aware of the resonance between the spiritual and the genetic, as well as of the Jewish war against White identity, I have come to wonder if the revealed notion of Jewish divine preference and predestination has not been a slow debilitating poison injected into our collective soul. Jewish chosenness means a metaphysical superiority that makes us, non-Jews, God’s second choice at best.

Sure, this is not an explicit dogma of Christianity—the Credo doesn’t include ‘I believe that God chose the Jews’—, but only an underlying postulate of Christology. Does that make it less, or more efficient against our rational immune system? It is hard to tell. I believe that Jews have carried their chosenness by the Jealous One as a kind of spooky aura not unlike the mark of Cain that says, ‘Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance’ (Genesis 4:15). (It is appropriate to mention here that Cain is the eponymous ancestor of the Kenites, a Midianite tribe allied to the Israelites during the conquest of Canaan, and that according to the scholarly ‘Kenite hypothesis,’ the Yahwist cult is of Kenite origin.)[3]

How did they do it? How did the Jews manage to smuggle their Big Lie into the exclusive religion of European nations? That is a legitimate and important question, isn’t it? From a purely historical perspective, it remains one of the greatest puzzles; one that secular historians prefer to leave to Church historians, who are comfortable with Constantine hearing voices near the Milvius Bridge. [Editor’s Note: The exception is David Skrbina. See the excerpts we recently published from his book The Jesus Hoax.]

The question is, very simply: How is it that Rome ended up adopting as its spiritual foundation a doctrine and a book claiming that God chose the Jews, at a period of widespread Roman Judeophobia? And how is it possible, that, less than two centuries after turning Jerusalem into a Greek city named Aelia Capitolina, where Jews were forbidden to enter, Rome adopted officially a religion that announced the fall of Rome and a new Jerusalem?

One part of the answer is that uniting the Empire under a common religion has been a major concern of Roman emperors from the very beginning. Before Christianity, it was not a question of eliminating local religions, but of creating a common cult to give a divine legitimacy and a religious bond to the Empire. When they searched for religious inspiration, the Romans generally turned to Egypt. The cults of Osiris (or Serapis, as he came to be called from the third century BC), of his sister-spouse Isis, and of their son Horus (or Harpocrates, Horus the Child) were extremely popular all around the Mediterranean, and provided the Romans with the closest thing to an international religion.

Hadrian (117-138) gave Osiris the features of Antinous, to whom he also dedicated a new city, new games, and a constellation. The origin of Antinous is unclear. The Augustan History tells us that he was the gay lover (eromenos) of Emperor Hadrian, and many historians still reproduce that story, even though the Augustan History has been exposed as the work of an impostor. In all likelihood this story is a Christian propaganda against a competing religion.

Antinous, whose name is formed of anti, ‘like’, and nous, ‘spirit’, is supposed to have drowned in the Nile on a 24th of October, just like Osiris, and his death was interpreted as a sacrifice. As a divinity, Antinous was assimilated to Osiris, and by extension to Hermes, Dionysos and Bacchus, all divinities of the Afterworld. On a monolithic obelisque found in Rome but built in Antinopolis, Antinous is designated as Osiris Antinous. His cult must therefore be seen as a new expression of the cult of Osiris sponsored by the Empire. Antinous’ face and body, sculpted in thousands of copies, were a self-celebration of the White race that then dominated the world, from Anatolia to Spain, and from Great Britain to Egypt.[4] [Color emphasis by Editor.]

(Left, Antinous as Bacchus, colossal sculpture presumed to have been from Hadrian’s villa in Palestrina.) What a contrast with its competitor, the cult of the Crucified! The question, then, becomes: Why did Christ ultimately supplant Osiris, even absorbing the cult of Isis? How is it that the glorious and self-confident Roman Empire converted to the cult of a Jewish healer tortured and executed by Roman authorities for sedition? This is the Jewish question that few people want to ask. Assuming that Christianity is a human creation—and that’s my premise—, it is obviously a Jewish creation to a large extent. How did Jews manage to create a religion for Gentiles that would ultimately eradicate all other religions in the Empire—beginning with the imperial cult?

A full understanding of this question will probably never be reached, but with what we have learned about Jewish ways in the last hundred years, we can try to formulate some reasonable scenario, one that doesn’t involve God talking to emperors, but another talking device—money—as well as political leverage by a Jewish transgenerational network determined to seize control of the religious policy of the Empire. We, today, know that such Jewish transgenerational networks, capable of driving their host Empires or nations to their ruin, do exist. We also know that they are good at fabricating and promoting their Judeocentric macabre religion for the Goyim.

____________

[1] Translated from the French: Primo Levi, Lilith et autres nouvelles, Le Livre de Poche, 1989.

[2] Jacob Neusner, Judaism and Christianity in the Age of Constantine: History, Messiah, Israel, and the Initial Confrontation, University of Chicago Press, 1987 , pp. ix-xi.

[3] Read Thomas Römer, The Invention of God, Harvard UP, 2015, pp. 137-138, or Hyam Maccoby, The Sacred Executioner, Thames & Hudson, 1982, pp. 13-51. I broached on this topic in my book ‘Our God Is Your God Too, But He Has Chosen Us’: Essays on Jewish Power, AFNIL, 2020, pp. 42-45.

[4] Royston Lambert, Beloved and God: The Story of Hadrian and Antinous, Phoenix Giant, 1984; Christopher Jones, New Heroes in Antiquity, op. cit., pp. 75-83.