Schopenhauer and Judeo-Christian Life-Denial, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

Sexual Abstinence as Jewish Ethnic Strategy

Among many other things, Schopenhauer was fascinated by human sexuality, which for him assumed deep metaphysical importance. The human essence, the will-to-live, finds “as its kernel and greatest concentration, the act of generation”—which is to say, sexual reproduction. Here is the beginning of everything, not only of biology but of the whole great charade that is human existence. With a biting sense of humor, he explains it this way:

Seriously speaking, this is due to the fact that sexual desire, especially when, through fixation on a definite woman, it is concentrated to amorous infatuation, is the quintessence of the whole fraud of this noble world; for it promises so unspeakably, infinitely, and excessively much, and then performs so contemptibly little.[1]

Appropriately, then, sexual desire is the prime urging that must be suppressed by any real ascetic. Hence, by rights, we should find this admonition in the New Testament; and in fact, we do. Schopenhauer examines this matter in his exceptionally important Chapter 48 of Volume Two of World as Will and Representation:

The ascetic tendency is certainly unmistakable in genuine and original Christianity… We find, as its principal teaching, the recommendation of genuine and pure celibacy (that first and most important step in the denial of the will-to-live) already expressed in the New Testament.[2]

And he means, not only for single men and women, but for the married as well. Schopenhauer’s astonishing claim, that he proceeds to adduce from primary evidence, is that good Christians should not have sex—ever. He then dedicates the next several pages to building his case for this “perpetual chastity,” which includes these lines from an 1832 book by the Catholic author Friedrich Carove:

By virtue of the Church view…perpetual chastity is called a divine, heavenly, angelic virtue. … [Quoting a Catholic periodical,] “In Catholicism, the observance of a perpetual chastity, for God’s sake, appears in itself as the highest merit of man.” … To both [Paul and the author of Hebrews], virginity was perfection, marriage only a makeshift for the weaker. … The self should turn away and refrain from everything that contributes only to its pleasure. … We agree with Abbe Zaccaria, who asserts that celibacy … is derived above all from the teaching of Christ and of the Apostle Paul.[3]

At this point we want to exclaim: Can this be true? Could original Christianity actually expect its followers to adhere to “perpetual chastity,” even when married? And what would prompt such a call?

Evidence for this claim must ultimately come from our primary source, the New Testament. We further know that the earliest NT writings are the letters of Paul, which predate the four Gospels by two or three decades, at least. Let’s briefly look at the evidence, both that which Schopenhauer offers and that which we may supplement on our own.

Schopenhauer cites two passages from Paul. The first and earliest is 1 Thessalonians (4:3), an oddly cryptic passage. Paul says, “For it is the will of God, for your sanctification, that you abstain from porneias.” I cite here the Greek original—but what is porneias? Among the 70-odd English translations we find a range of terms, such as “immorality” (RSV), “sexual immorality” (NKJV), and “fornication” (KJV), all of which suggest illegitimate sex, perhaps unmarried sex, perhaps adultery. But we also find broader terms, like “all sexual vice” (AMPC), “sexual sins” (ERV), “sexual defilement” (TPT), and even “unchastity” (RSV). Paul goes on to say that “each one of you knows how to take a wife in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like a heathen.” Can he be suggesting that men take wives as “partners in Christ” all while abstaining from the sexual lust of heathens?

The second passage is a lengthy portion from 1 Corinthians 7. Again, it is oddly conflicted. At the start of the chapter, Paul says, bluntly, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” (7:1, ESV). But owing to “the temptation to immorality”—presumably meaning sexual intercourse—a man may take a wife. Affirming his own unmarried status, Paul then says “I wish that all were as I myself am. … To the unmarried and the widows, I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do” (7:7-8). “But if they cannot exercise self-control”—that is, if they are weak—“they should marry.” Later in the chapter, Paul returns to the subject: “Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage” (7:27). Two lines later he warns, “those who marry will have worldly troubles [!], and I would spare you that.” Paul goes on to state that married people are worried about worldly matters and about pleasing each other, which distracts them from their “undivided devotion to the Lord.” A married man may do well, says Paul, “but he who refrains from marriage will do better” (7:38). These are striking words from our “Apostle.” It seems clear—Paul will accept you if you marry, but he would much prefer that you did not.

There are other Pauline passages that Schopenhauer might have cited. For example, Colossians 3:5: “Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry” (NIV). Or Galatians 5:16-19: “Do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit… The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery.” Or 1 Corinthians 6:18: “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.” Or Romans 13:14: “Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.” We might also include the pseudepigraphic Ephesians 5:3: “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.” This is prudish Puritanism in the extreme. Paul, indeed, seems to strongly prefer that his fellow Christians have no sexual relations at all.

There are other related suggestions in the Gospels. Schopenhauer refers to Matthew 19:10, where the disciples offer to Jesus the idea that “perhaps it is better not to marry.” Jesus gives a typically cryptic reply, suggesting that chastity may be best:

Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.

The apparent suggestion here is that we all should ‘be like a eunuch,’ and not have sex. In Luke 20:34 Jesus addresses the future resurrection of married people: “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come, and in the resurrection from the dead, will neither marry nor be given in marriage.” Indeed, the unmarried are “equal to angels and are sons of God.” It’s clear who the preferred people are.

Outside the Gospels and the Pauline Epistles, we have 1 John 2:15: “Do not love the world or the things in the world. … For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes, is not of the Father but is of the world.” Or we could cite 1 Peter 2:11: “Beloved, I urge you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the desires of the flesh that wage war against the soul” (NSRV). And in the late-written Revelations, we read that the Lamb of God will return to Earth only with those “who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are chaste” (14:4).

What is one to conclude? It seems that Schopenhauer is right—that perpetual chastity is the prescribed course of action for all good Christians.

But why? Why would Paul, for example, encourage his would-be followers to abstain from sex? Obviously he did not get this suggestion from “Jesus” or from God; it was clearly his own doing. Obviously he did not get it from the Old Testament, with its many calls to “be fruitful and multiply.”[4] The idea itself of a celibate religious group was not unknown to him, as it was characteristic of a number of esoteric cults and secretive groups over the centuries. But Paul wasn’t aiming at some clandestine cult; he wanted a mass movement. He must have known that it was poor organizational strategy to ask people to commit to chastity. Clearly, he had some compelling reason for introducing this component into his new religion.

Schopenhauer had no real knowledge of evolution, having been born a few decades too early, and so it is understandable that he had no idea of group evolutionary strategy. If he had, he might have discerned something in Paul’s motive—an overriding concern for the welfare of his fellow Jews. As an elite Pharisee Jew, Paul (born Saul) clearly resented the incursion of the Roman Empire into Palestine in the decades prior to his birth. He also surely shared the long-standing Jewish antipathy for his neighboring Gentile masses—Arabs, Greeks, and Egyptians.[5] Seeing the futility of violent resistance to Rome, Paul was surely searching for nonviolent, indirect, psychological or moral means of undermining the enemy. Then he hit upon a plan: Why not play up the alleged divinity of a recently-crucified Jewish rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth, turning him into the savior of all humanity? This way, all of Paul’s exhortations—in his self-assigned role as “Apostle to the Gentiles”—could be turned into an anti-Gentile morality and placed into the mouth of God himself. “It’s not my idea,” implies Paul; “God wants you to be chaste—forever.”

But is “perpetual chastity” anti-Gentile? Yes—if, by proscribing future children, it erodes Gentile families. This, in fact, is the only practical consequence: fewer Gentile children. Seen this way, as a Jewish ethnic evolutionary strategy, Paul found a way to inhibit the growth of the non-Jewish population. If there is any historical basis to the concept of “White genocide,” this is it.

And it wasn’t only Paul. Above I gave two chastity quotations from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Those same two books also contain, unsurprisingly, a number of explicitly anti-family passages. In Matthew 10:21, Jesus says, “Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.” At Matthew 19:29, Jesus proclaims, “And everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or fields for my sake will receive a hundred times as much, and will inherit eternal life.” In the Gospel of Luke (12:52) we read, “From now on, there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three.” And later (14:26) we find that Jesus says, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple.” What is this but a family-destroying message, an admonition to tear apart familial ties, all while staying chaste, simply for the sake of “Jesus”? The Jewish Gospel writers seem to have clearly endorsed Paul’s anti-Gentile strategy.

In the end, of course, this anti-family stance had to be abandoned, as Schopenhauer makes clear. Beginning with Clement of Alexandria, circa 200 AD—especially in book 3 of his Stromata—Gentile Christian Fathers rejected the anti-marriage, anti-family, and anti-child stance of the early Jewish Christians. Clement rails against earlier Church Fathers like Marcion and Tatian, who held to the literal, anti-natalist reading: “they teach that one should not enter into matrimony and beget children, should not bring further unhappy beings into the world, and produce fresh fodder for death.”[6] Writing two centuries later, Augustine too recognized this dilemma in the early Christian Fathers: “They reject marriage and put it on a level with fornication and other vices.” By way of modest defense, and with perhaps a touch of irony, he adds that, with mass abstention, “the kingdom of God would be realized far more quickly, since the end of the world would be hastened.”[7]

Still, it was clear that mass perpetual chastity was not a practical way to build a worldwide religion, and in the end it had to be abandoned or “reinterpreted” by Catholics and Protestants alike. They had to adopt the Jewish optimism, the pánta kalá lían, and surrender the central aspect of Christian asceticism, its perpetual chastity. But in doing so, they drained away the key elements of their own religion. As Schopenhauer says, summing up the situation, “From all this, it seems to me that Catholicism is a disgracefully abused, and Protestantism a degenerate, Christianity.”[8]

On the Jews

Where, then, does all this leave us? For Schopenhauer, Christianity had an original and profound core in its inherently life-denying outlook, something which was consistent with his own philosophical stance. But it got subverted and contaminated with the detestable Jewish optimism, and thus lost to history. For all his skepticism, Schopenhauer seems to believe that an historical (but non-miraculous) Jesus really existed, and that Paul was an honest interpreter of his message. In retrospect, this seems utterly naïve. Far more likely is that Paul and the Jewish Gospel writers were master deceivers—“artful liars,” as Hitler might have put it[9]—who were only interested in Jewish power and Jewish well-being, and who thus instituted an effective Jewish group-strategy to confuse and weaken the Gentile masses. And in the end, and even though some aspects had to be jettisoned, it worked. Rome collapsed and Christianity went global. Given that we have some 2 billion Christians on Earth today, the implications are enormous.

Schopenhauer’s many reflections on religion, and his negative assessment of Judaism in particular, furthermore allowed him the opportunity to offer a number of critical comments on Jews generally. Even in his early writing, in volume one of World as Will and Representation, he offered harsh commentary. In a passage on the development of the arts, he briefly addresses “the history of a small, isolated, capricious, hierarchical (i.e. ruled by false notions), obscure people, like the Jews, despised by the great contemporary nations of the East and of the West.”[10] “It is to be regarded generally as a great misfortune,” he adds, “that the people whose former culture was to serve mainly as the basis of our own were not, say, the Indians or the Greeks, or even the Romans, but just these Jews.”

For the next three decades, he said little about them. But he returned to the topic, in a very pointed manner, in Parerga and Paralipomena. Volume 1 begins with a sketch of the history of idealism and the limitations of that metaphysical view. The classic idealists are closely allied with Judeo-Christian theology, and thus “are all marred by that Jewish theism which is impervious to any investigation, dead to all research, and thus actually appears as a fixed idea.”[11] But the subsequent essay, on the history of philosophy, brings the occasion for an extended digression on the subject:

The real religion of the Jews, as presented and taught in Genesis and all the historical books up to the end of Chronicles, is the crudest of all religions because it is the only one that has absolutely no doctrine of immortality, not even a trace thereof. … The contempt in which the Jews were always held by contemporary peoples may have been due in great measure to the poor character of their religion. … Now this wretched religion of the Jews does not [offer any conception of an afterlife], in fact it does not even attempt it. It is, therefore, the crudest and poorest of all religions and consists merely in an absurd and revolting theism. … While all other religions endeavor to explain to the people by symbols and parables the metaphysical significance of life, the religion of the Jews is entirely immanent, and furnishes nothing but a mere war-cry in the struggle with other nations.[12]

Here we see real insight: Judaism is not a religion at all, but rather a war-manual in the competition with other peoples. It serves to sustain and promote the Jewish race in their material well-being, nothing more.

Volume 2 elaborates on these ideas, especially in the chapter titled “On Religion,” which brings this observation:

Also we should not forget God’s chosen people who, after they had stolen, by Jehovah’s express command, the gold and silver vessels lent to them by their old and trusty friends in Egypt, now made their murderous and predatory attack on the ‘Promised Land,’ with the murderer Moses at their head, in order to tear away from the rightful owners, by the same Jehovah’s express and constantly repeated command, showing no mercy, and ruthlessly murdering and exterminating all the inhabitants, even the women and children.[13]

A footnote to the above passage adds this widely-cited remark:

Tacitus and Justinus have handed down to us the historical basis of the Exodus. … We see from the two Roman authors how much the Jews were at all times and by all nations loathed and despised. This may be partly due to the fact that they were the only people on earth who did not credit man with any existence beyond this life and were, therefore, regarded as beasts. … Scum of humanity—but great master of lies [grosse Meister im Lügen].[14]

The ultimate tragedy, for Schopenhauer, is that the pathetic Judeo-Christian culture dominated the history of Europe, rather than the nobler Greco-Roman: “The religion of the Greeks and Romans, those world-powers, has perished. The religion of the contemptible little Jewish race [verachteten Judenvölkchens], on the other hand, has been preserved…”[15]

But, as noted, the Hebrew tribe is not simply defined by a religion; “it is an extremely superficial and false view to regard the Jews merely as a religious sect. … On the contrary, ‘Jewish Nation’ is the correct expression.”[16] Like Johann Fichte and Johann Herder, Schopenhauer was also concerned about the political consequences of integrating and granting rights to, this Jewish Nation. The Jews were a “gens extorris” (refugee race), eternally uprooted, always searching for but never finding a homeland:

Till then, it lives parasitically on other nations and their soil; but yet it is inspired with the liveliest patriotism for its own nation. This is seen in the very firm way in which Jews stick together…and no community on earth sticks so firmly together as does this. It follows that it is absurd to want to concede to them a share in the government or administration of any country.[17]

Schopenhauer was more moderate than Fichte; banishment was not necessary. He was willing to grant them limited rights, provided they took no role in government. “Justice demands that they should enjoy with others equal civil rights; but to concede to them a share in the running of the State is absurd. They are and remain a foreign oriental race.”[18] The race could be tolerated, but the corrupt ideology had to go: “We may therefore hope that one day even Europe will be purified of all Jewish mythology.”[19]

Finally, Schopenhauer found much use in an intriguing little phrase, foetor Judaicus—the “Jewish stench.” For him, the stench represents not so much a literal smell but rather an intellectual odor of stale Jewish thought, arising primarily from the Old Testament. Oddly enough, he applies it most often in his critique of Jewish approaches to animal rights.[20] In the Parerga he criticizes Spinoza (and his view of animals) as a man who speaks “just as a Jew knows how to do, so that we others, who are accustomed to purer and worthier doctrines, are here overcome by the foetor Judaicus.”[21] Of the Genesis account that God created animals for man’s use, Schopenhauer exclaims, “Such stories have on me the same effect as do Jew’s pitch and foetor Judaicus![22] Somewhat later he refers to “Europe, the continent that is so permeated with the foetor Judaicus.[23] And on the same subject: “It is obviously high time that in Europe, Jewish views on nature were brought to an end. … A man must be bereft of all his senses or completely chloroformed by the foetor Judaicus not to see [this].”[24]

Members of the alt-right, no longer “chloroformed by the foetor Judaicus” nor deceived by the “great master of lies,” can see the evident truth in such statements—statements that were years ahead of their time, and written in a period when a great thinker could still speak the truth. Sadly, and thanks to Jewish domination of our society, we can no longer openly say such things without harsh recriminations. True free speech no longer exists. Hence we are locked into a long struggle with the Jewish race, simply to achieve basic freedoms of speech and expression, and to live our lives out from under the dominance of the Jewish hand.

Perhaps this is our lot in life—and indeed, the lot of all people everywhere. This calls to mind a well-known quotation from Schopenhauer, which I cite here in context:

History shows us the life of nations and can find nothing to relate except wars and insurrections; the years of peace appear here and there only as short pauses, as intervals between the acts. And in the same way, the life of the individual is a perpetual struggle, not merely metaphorically with want or boredom, but actually with others. Everywhere he finds an opponent, lives in constant conflict, and dies weapon in hand.[25]

Less known is that the concluding thought appears earlier in the book, in different form, and is attributed to Voltaire. The words are apt:

In this world where “the dice are loaded,” we need a temper of iron, armor against fate, and weapons against mankind. For the whole of life is a struggle, every step contested, and Voltaire rightly says, on ne réussit dans ce monde qu’à la pointe de l’épée, et on meurt les armes à la main (“In this world, we succeed only at the point of the sword, and we die with weapons in hand.”)[26]

In such a world, says Schopenhauer, our motto should be (quoting Virgil): tu ne cede malis, sed contra audentior ito (“Do not give way to evil, but face it more boldly”—Aeneid 6.95). The situation demands courage and resolve; “we should not think of nervousness or hesitation, but only of resistance.” We must harden ourselves, and stiffen our resolve; he cites Horace: Si fractus illabatur orbis, Impavidum ferient ruinae (“Even if the world collapses over a man, the ruins still leave him undismayed”—Odes III, 3.7). The future is there for those who are willing to face the battle head-on: Quocirca vivite fortes, Fortiaque adversis opponite pectora rebus (“Therefore he lives bravely and presents a bold front to the blows of fate”—Satires II, 2.135). As they say, timeless wisdom is eternally valuable.

But perhaps we leave the last word to Schopenhauer himself. His pessimistic realism held true to the end. In volume two of the Parerga, he sums up all the strivings of our lives:

A happy life is impossible; the best that man can attain is a heroic life, such as is lived by one who struggles against overwhelming odds in some way and in some affair that will benefit the whole of mankind, and who, in the end, triumphs—although he obtains a poor reward, or none at all.[27]

The message is clear: Have low expectations of life; as a rule, things will not go as we wish. Any victories will be rare, hard-fought, fleeting, and unacknowledged. Life is perpetual struggle; therefore, never give up. Above all, strive to be heroic.

Words to ponder, for all those who would fight for justice in this unjust world.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books, including a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the book Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020). For all his works, see his personal website

[1] P&P, vol. 2, p. 316.

[2] WWR, vol. 2, p. 616.

[3] WWR, vol. 2, p. 619-620.

[4] Genesis 1:28, 9:1, 9:7, 17:20, 28:3, 35:11; Exodus 1:7; Leviticus 26:9; Jeremiah 23:3.

[5] Jewish misanthropy is notorious and well-documented. It dates back at least to Hecateus of Abdera, circa 300 BC, who observed that “Moses introduced a way of life [for the Jews] which was to a certain extent misanthropic and hostile to foreigners.” Apollonius Molon, circa 75 BC, “reviled the Jews as atheists and misanthropes.” In 50 BC, Diodorus Siculus remarked that “the nation of Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition.” The list of such commentaries is extensive; for details, see my work Eternal Strangers (Castle Hill, 2020).

[6] Cited by Schopenhauer in WWR, vol. 2, p. 622 note.

[7] Cited in WWR, vol. 2, p. 618 note.

[8] WWR, vol. 2, p. 626.

[9] In Mein Kampf, vol. 1, section 2.25, he expresses his amazement at the Jews’ “art of lying” (Kunst der Lüge). And later in chapter 10 (section 10.4), he employs the explicit phrase “artful liars” (Lügenkünstler). See my new translation (Clemens & Blair, 2017).

[10] WWR, vol. 1, p. 232.

[11] P&P, vol. 1, p. 15.

[12] P&P, vol. 1, p. 125-126.

[13] P&P, vol. 2, p. 357.

[14] Payne mistranslates this sentence, interpreting the final phrase as “past master at telling lies.”

[15] P&P, vol. 2, p. 393.

[16] P&P, vol. 2, p. 263.

[17] P&P, vol. 2, p. 262.

[18] P&P, vol. 2, p. 264.

[19] P&P, vol. 2, p. 226.

[20] Schopenhauer was a passionate advocate for animal welfare, far ahead of his time on that count. He was the first major philosopher to incorporate them into his ethical schema.

[21] P&P, vol. 1, p. 73.

[22] P&P, vol. 2, p. 370. “Jew’s pitch” is a naturally-occurring bituminous asphalt, found in ancient times around the Dead Sea and other parts of Judea.

[23] P&P, vol. 2, p. 372.

[24] P&P, vol. 2, p. 375.

[25] P&P, vol. 2, p. 292.

[26] P&P, vol. 1, p. 475. Original source for Voltaire is Les pensées et maximes (1821).

[27] P&P, vol. 2, p. 322.

16 replies
  1. Jack McArthur
    Jack McArthur says:

    It would be untrue to describe all of the OT as hate filled but there is something seriously amiss at its core. Shopenhauer picks out one of the biggest signs i.e. what people would willingly give up belief in an afterlife for the ephemeral baubles of this world?

    The OT explicitly sanctions the genocide of entire peoples that Jews now hang as the most terrible crime on Germans today. The core of the NT is love, the core of the OT is hate wearing the disguise of mercy. How could this come about?

    Manetho, Greek-Egyptian priest writing in the 4th.century bc,, echoed in other early writings, describes one plausible source for the “god” of hate. Moses is described by him as being a renegade former priest of Osiris who is exiled from Egypt along with a large community of what in time would be known as Jews because plague had broken out among them. Even the bible describes Moses as a hot head who murdered prior to his calling by a desert god. It seems that through his expelling from Egypt his pride turned him from the Lord of Life (Osiris) to hatred and the god of the desert who personified death and murder, whom the Jews called various names, but who was known to the Egyptians as an un-reconciled form of Seth.

    Eternal life was lost through this because Osiris is the god of resurrection into the next world. Moses transformed his rejection into a religion of hate in which death replaces life, extreme asceticism replacing enjoyment of gifts from the bounty of god, so characteristic of the home he now hated. The divine was glorified through god given senses in Egypt but that had to be turned on its head with an “everything you love we now reject” because that is what pure unalloyed bitter hatred does. Instead of divine love working in the hearts of people as it did in.Egypt it was now the counterfeit rule laden impostor that corrupt men prefer i.e. write a slim volume describing moral rules but then write multiple volumes on how to circumvent them.

    Jesus was like a reverse crossing of the reed sea who tried to guide this corrupt nation back to the straight and narrow path. They called him a glutton and a drunkard (Matt 11:19) because he enjoyed in his humanity the gifts of the divine bounty unlike the haters of his day.

    The celibacy theme of the essay seems overdone. The women liked Jesus. The nuns of the Christian era underwent a marriage ceremony when they were initiated and the unexpurgated writing of Christian mystics emphasize that He is god of love (Shopenhauer’s essay “On Women” is an unintended comedy classic in the context of today’s era of Regan. Goneril).

    All this has Ancient Egyptian antecedents. The expulsion of the Jews from Egypt must have seemed like the expulsion from the Garden of Eden and its no wonder the bible describes the Jews wanting to go back.

    I am now beginning to see 20th century history as fake Jewish history from people of the lie (John 8:44) who do what they have always done since they rejected god and worshiped themselves, money, and in doing so bringing disgrace and heaping scorn on religion in general

    Shopenhauer thought this world as a hell or at best a penal colony and maybe the thumbprint of that dark OT religion was too hard to efface. A well known Egyptologist described the people, whom the Jews curse every year, as not given to gloomy philosophical thought but rather a people of happy disposition who took pleasure in the good things in life. This life was a prequel to eternal life and tomb depictions display this is in full color in what the Greeks would describe as the Elysian fields.

  2. JRM
    JRM says:

    Interesting approach to the subject; I was expecting an anti-Schopenhauer shoe to drop in this part in terms of a critique of his “negation” of life.

    In terms of the discussion about Christianity as a Jewish plot to undermine the Roman Empire (and by extension, Gentile civ. itself), there are some advocates of this position working in the field of Early Christianity, though they tread a bit more carefully than our author. But those interested in such ideas should know that there is another school of thought that holds that the Romans themselves invented Jesus Christ and used early Christianity as a tool to pacify the Jews.

    As everyone knows, the Jews of the 1st century were under the dominion of Rome, and the Romans did encounter problems, notably a full-scale revolt in 66 to 73 A.D., right around the foundational period of Christianity. Conspiracists maintain that Christianity was an ideological “virus” intended to get the Jews to embrace a position of non-violent, passive respect for (Roman) authority. If that was true, I suppose we can conclude that it backfired spectacularly…

    Proponents of both views have their favorite Biblical passages to point to in their arguments.

    By the way, there are some Biblical scholars who believe Paul was just as mythical as Jesus; they tend to believe different authors wrote the “letters”, and that “Paul” was at best an identity behind which there were a conglomerate of people.

  3. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    E. O. Wilson defines eusociality as reproductive specialization. Moreover, in the paper he coauthored with Nowak, “The Evolution of Eusociality” this reproductive specialization exploits the sterile castes. This exploitation is not just intraspecific parasitism such as the infamous monomorium santschii, It’s the very foundation of eusocial evolution:

    The queen’s parasitic castration of her offspring to produce sterile workers as her extended phenotypic body. It follows that civilization’s incipient eusociality invites parasitic castration of entire, more-recently civilized races by older civilized races.

    But what people don’t get about eusociality is its inherently regressive nature. It is an abortive attempt to undo sexuality itself. Eusociality is is tempted to return to the immortal power-seeking of mitotic reproduction. Mitotic reproduction is the eat or be eaten life-structure that, in the futility of its will to power, gave rise to the sacrifice of immortal power on the altar of mortal love:


    Thus the sexual plateau of creation is essentially “uncivil” in one sense. But in a deeper, spiritual sense that is the source of all true religion, is ultimately civil in that each individual’s Being is the very height of civility exemplified by the self-sacrifice of specialized cells, mitotically generated and doomed to perish in a mortal body for the greater glory of creation as manifest in the diversity of life arising from the Cambrian Explosion.

    This is the true gift of European individualism to humanity: Reawakening the meaning of Life submerged by millions of years of struggle with the temptations to regress from the heroism of sexual evolution to the moral cowardice of gangs and their will to power.

  4. Surtr
    Surtr says:

    I have been temporarily relieved of my suffering in reading this and achieved a brief happiness for which I am grateful.

    Vitam impendere vero (“Dedicate one’s life to truth.”)
    —Juvenal, Satire IV, 91
    I will do just that.

    • Surtr
      Surtr says:

      I should have been kinder. I really enjoyed this article. It was excellent as with all the authors here. Looking forward to another.

  5. gerry
    gerry says:

    A War Manual, really

    I’m sorry but this is missing some very important and valuable information and it is explained perfectly well this way by the New Testament no less:

    “See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.
    Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be thankful, and so worship God acceptably with reverence and awe, for our “God is a consuming fire.” (Hebrews 12:25–29)

    When the above says that they were warned on earth that means the miraculous!!!!!! God was speaking to the nations and when God the Creator speaks what should follow but obedience. This however, was hardly the case. So to reject a God and King when one is fully cognizant of His existence is a very dangerous and grievous matter. That is why judgment was pronounced and believe me anyone who thinks that anything has changed with Christ Jesus well you are sadly mistaken. This idea that the God of the Old Testament is a murderer and such while the God of the new is loving and merciful well you are sadly mistaken.
    They are the same. The only thing different is the unfolding of history which will end with this:

    He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. 16 On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:
    king of kings and lord of lords. Revelation 19:15

    A day of reckoning is arriving upon earth and guess what with the bible teachings about climate change which is extensive I might add think well about what occurred with Bravo company when they were 25 miles from Baghdad during the Iraq War:

    They were stopped dead by a series of storms that sprung up out of nowhere. The day had begun calmly enough, clear and sunny, but as they neared the city, they encountered a windstorm so fierce that it obscured the sun, turning the desert black. The wind was strong enough to batter and shake their tanks and personal carriers. After several hours, the sandstorm turned into a hailstorm with accompanying thunder and lightning. It turned the sand into mud, bogging down their vehicles and stalling their advance. They had to deal with the forming of a lake which almost swamped their vehicles.

    This was an Act of God literally and we can know this because why? For 2 reasons the first of which it took one lone citizen of the city of Baghdad—a Moslem, no less—to recognize it for what it was: an act of Almighty God. He, of all people, could see what others could not. No doubt this was due more to his acclimatization to that environment than his education in matters of the Bible or the Koran (assuming there’s anything in that book regarding the weather). In the desert, no one ever lives to see a hailstorm, in so abrupt a manner and directly over an army.

    Second!!!! The bible tells us so in the Old Testament:

    “The Lord will cause people to hear his majestic voice and will make them see his arm coming down with raging anger and consuming fire, with cloudburst, thunderstorm and hail.” (Isaiah 30:30)

    So Christ showed up on the battlefield

    And imagine this then what is written is on display for all to see and guess what? the bible is full of teachings on climate change to the extant in fact that it covers everything in relation to it!!! From the above thunder and windstorm and hail to droughts, tornado’s, flooding, everything we are seeing and experiencing today is covered within the pages of the bible everything!!!! Further to this guess what for those of us who want and care about life and sufferings we have in our possession a book that explains in the clearest detail possible exactly how that is. It is called the Book of Job. You want a teleological argument that will stand the test of time and of every analysis one could ever imagine go there. It is simply a magnificent piece of writing and work covering every subject one could imagine. It is the foundational study for everything. Here is a quote by the way on sufferings by the first person surely to ever understand and experience it to the fullest!

    Do not mortals have hard service on earth?
    Are not their days like those of hired laborers?
    2 Like a slave longing for the evening shadows,
    or a hired laborer waiting to be paid,
    3 so I have been allotted months of futility,
    and nights of misery have been assigned to me.
    4 When I lie down I think, ‘How long before I get up?’
    The night drags on, and I toss and turn until dawn. Job 7:1-7

    The amount of education going on in that book is simply astounding and what we are to look to Schopenhauer.
    Job is the key to everything about life and living and the existence of God.

    A War Manuel

    LOL The Book of Revelation is a war manual and ouch like it was in the Old Testament apparently so it will be in the future as it is written:

    “Nor did they repent of their murders, their magic arts,
    their sexual immorality or their thefts… Rev. 9:21
    “They cursed the God of Heaven because of their pains
    and their sores, but they refused to repent for what they
    had done.” Rev. 16:11
    “They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed
    the name of God, who had control over these plagues,
    but they refused to repent and glorify Him.” Rev. 16:9

    Rebellion – the City of Jericho and Dr. Dalton Jerusalem to I’m afraid. A city that is only once again in the throws of idolatry and the worse is yet to come I’m afraid for them and the entire world.

    again the words:

    “See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven? At that time his voice shook the earth, but now he has promised, “Once more I will shake not only the earth but also the heavens.” The words “once more” indicate the removing of what can be shaken—that is, created things—so that what cannot be shaken may remain.

    • Jack McArthur
      Jack McArthur says:

      “This idea that the God of the Old Testament is a murderer and such while the God of the new is loving and merciful well you are sadly mistaken”.
      So you are saying Jesus is a murderer as well? Eternal punishment for a finite sin comes with Christianity. In Ancient Egypt there follows after judgement paradise or punishment followed by annihilation. According to the faculties of conscience what is more in accordance with the belief that god is good? Do you believe a person should follow the dictates of an informed conscience or blindly follow what they believe is an evil through fear of punishment?

      • gerry
        gerry says:

        @ Jack McArthur

        Do you believe a person should follow the dictates of an informed conscience or blindly follow what they believe is an evil through fear of punishment?

        Faith is not blind sir and it certainly isn’t or shouldn’t be based on a belief of the fear of punishment. In the Old Testament there was a great deal more going on like for example the words of Job:

        “My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you. Therefore, I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.” (Job 42:5)

        The people of the old world knew as history real verifiable history Noah and the great flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham, Joseph and the 14 years of weather change etc etc etc.

        These people and nations knew or using your own words had an ‘informed conscience’ not one of them looking at our world today would have believed that the stories of the metaphysical are just fables and such. Darwinian evolutionism wouldn’t have stood a chance in that world. Darwin would have been laughed out of their schools and derided as the supreme of all fools.

        Now if you begin from this point of understanding of the existence of God you can start to think differently about the character of men and nations and how and why idolatry was such a despised matter before God. We all know what treason is and what punishment is due it and in so many cases this is what essentially nations did. God was clear and adamant to them and yet they blatantly chose to reject him.

        Joseph and Egypt is surely the great example and yet what happened? Pharaoh’s continued to deify themselves as Deity and worship gods they dreamed up from their own minds. Then they made the fateful mistake of reducing Abrahams children to slaves.

        Abraham wasn’t just a man but a saint and touching his progeny was tantamount to touching God really given the relationship they shared.

        If Egypt suffered greatly the loss of everything it was because it was due them period! I liken it to my own family. Imagine if you will if my children whom i raised and nurtured and loved and gave them everything only to find one day that they rebelled against me for what a perceived happier and better life with the Jones across the street because my laws were to hard for them to live under. Then to my horror I find out and see them abusing themselves with harlots, thieves, murderes and then what child sacrifice to made up idols what do you think I as a their Father should do to them?

        Now as for Jesus being a murderer? Does not a King have every right to punish and anyway any who die are surely not innocent of the charges laid against them! Look did not the Jews suffer accordingly. 70 AD. but for me the real judgment occurred many years later in 363 AD when the earthquake struck
        Jerusalem destroying the Jews attempt to rebuild their temple. That sir was a direct act of the Godhead of the Trinity upon a people and a nation that despised as the ancient nations did the one true God.

        Faith is not blind. Darwin needs to go!!!!!!!

        Lastly please if you want some real evidence of the existence of God and in the process the solution to climate change which by the way the bible astonishingly provides please see the book Climate Change the Work of God by Gerry Fox. A man that by the way has also correctly interpreted the Book of Revelations the ‘War Manual’ of the future.

        You may find his twitter feeds of some interest

        • Jack McArthur
          Jack McArthur says:

          1. If faith is not blind then why not answer the point I raised comparing Christian teaching about eternal punishment compared to Egyptian belief i.e. punishment and annihilation? Which is the more moral ?

          2. Abraham tried to pimp his wife to the King of Egypt who is shocked at his immorality. Who is the “saint” in this situation?

          3. Jephtah is according to the bible explicitly inspired by the Holy Spirit to sacrifice his daughter. Are you saying that you worship an evil god according to your own words of condemnation of others?

          5. My own impression based on your reply is that you do not use informed conscience and your faith is blind.

          6. Using the same yardstick you apply to others you condemn yourself and that is before I start on your observations about idolatory.

          7. I believe in Jesus but not in people who make an idol out of a book. Recall the book you seem to worship declares unequivocally that Jesus will return during the lifetime of his listeners to bring down curtain on this world. It never happened.

  6. David Shiloh
    David Shiloh says:

    “Far more likely is that Paul and the Jewish Gospel writers were master deceivers—“artful liars,” as Hitler might have put it”

    That is what Muslims believe and I think what the author has pointed out is needful for Christians to hear and to ponder.

    “The real religion of the Jews, as presented and taught in Genesis and all the historical books up to the end of Chronicles, is the crudest of all religions because it is the only one that has absolutely no doctrine of immortality, not even a trace thereof.”
    That is something that the Evangelicals, at the very least, should take note of, but they won’t.

    “A happy life is impossible; the best that man can attain is a heroic life, such as is lived by one who struggles against overwhelming odds in some way and in some affair that will benefit the whole of mankind, and who, in the end, triumphs—although he obtains a poor reward, or none at all.”
    This murder of Qassem Suleimani was, as Hamlet said, a “Murder most foul, as in the best it is, but this most foul, strange, and unnatural”,

    He had been an important American ally. He was the key in defeating ISIS.
    He was a temperate, judicious statesman, a hero to the Iranian people. He was so very rare in today’s world.
    Yet he wanted to be a martyr, and so Trump and the Jewish powers made him one.
    He was physically a small man but a GIANT of righteousness, courage, wisdom and ability. He was a man that everyone should emulate.

    Who sows the wind reaps the whirlwind.

    I have greatly enjoyed this series.

  7. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    As a Christian (not a Judeo-Christian) I really appreciated this article. Very forthright and honest! Sex (beyond procreating) has a wonderful place in our lives, but like anything else of beauty, it should never be perverted, cheapened, denied, or denigrated.

    Sometimes I think it is just the 98% of Christians that give the rest of us a bad name.

    I am reminded of what Mark Twain said when asked what our world would be like without women. He replied “We’d be scarce, sir. Mighty scarce.”

  8. W. Edgar Tough
    W. Edgar Tough says:

    Satanists and infiltrators will allwaya try to infiltrate religion. It is and was a powerfull tool to rule and get through agendas.

    Judaism with its focus on racial purity has beem the worst infiltrated and has the worst texrs in the jude christian tradition.

    Christianity is very often open to different views.

    Here the author argues that a stance that marriage is not needed is anti children making. Jesus probs couldnt mary cause of security. He may still have had children. This may in fact be a statement that opens up for startin families havin kids without marriage…

    It may also have been anti havin kids. It is a problem Jesus did not write the second testament himself…

    If so again the bible and God is against racial mixture. So racially mixed folks will feel left out and may more often turn satanist also due to inbreeding factors in certain ethnical groups.

    I dont think god hates all racemixed folks. He just want to safeguard the crown of hus creation through evolution…

    Hence the religion is for everyone.

    The problem witj racemixing and massmigration is there won’t be any pure white people in like two or three generations. And then there is the conflict of land. Land us oppurtunities. Whites have invested in what was mainly white cities to them have them stolen by other races. And in todays economy cities are important…

    Also soon only rich folks can afford to live in them and quite often the most creative people are poor.

    And the other races push out poor whites first with crime drugs hospitality….

    Hence we should build cities communities that benefit all whites.

    And keep drugs drugaddicts and peeophiles far away…

    Even though possible racemixed satanist infiltration the bible is 90 truth correct for gods will at the time…

    As for egypt the pharaohs most were probably white european their group bein so small though they started inbreeding to keep it white after some time…

    Then there was the larger elite that was white levian but quite early mixed with blacks probs through occupations… So they were on averege 8 black/negro… Not an ideal society but cool buildings yall.

    You can see clear different skin tones on old egyptian paintings and the rest is dna tests…

    The jews wanted to go back to Egypt cause they were stuck in the dessert. The kings that came after moses reestablished Israel by brute force often killing all arabs in city…

  9. Eric
    Eric says:

    Christianity can be interpreted in so many different ways. Philosophically as favoring Plato over Aristotle. Politically as Jewish subversion. But politically — also — as Roman subversion of the Jews.

    I have forgotten the details, but the story goes something like this: The Jews were a real problem for the Romans. They made up, proportionately, a much larger population than they make up today, and they didn’t just live in Palestine, but in Cypress, Cyrene, Alexandria, and in Rome itself.

    They chafed under the tolerant rule of the Romans and hated their neighbors in the various places that they inhabited. They rose up and slaughtered their pagan neighbors — killing hundreds of thousands according to Gibbon — in an especially revolting and barbaric manner.

    The emperor Vespasian sent his son Titus to put down a rebellion in Jerusalem. In 70 A.D. the Jews were defeated and their Temple destroyed.

    They had to be defeated yet again when a false messiah led them in another revolt.

    With the destruction of the Temple (which the philosemitic emperor Julian the Apostate tried and failed to rebuild), the Jewish religion as it had existed heretofore came to an end. As E. Michael Jones put it: No Temple, no sacrifice, no Jewish religion.

    So the Jews were now only a people, dispersed throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.

    But ethnocentrism, tradition and language bound them together. They preserved themselves as Jews by not assimilating into the other peoples that surrounded them. The myth of the Jewish ghetto imposed on the Jews by Gentiles is a falsehood. The Jews chose to stay apart.

    Eventually, a new Jewish “religion” would emerge. It wasn’t a true religion, but rather a tribal code and set of laws written down in the 35 volumes of the Talmud. The Talmud codifies Jewish hatred and contempt for non-Jews. Since then, the Jewish “religion” has broken up into three branches: Talmudic, Conservative, and Reform, with the latter being the most liberal.

    The Romans knew that they could defeat the Jews militarily, but they still saw the Jews as a threat. And why not? There are proportionately much fewer Jews today than there were then, and we know how destructive the Jews can be even now. This website documents much of that destruction.

    So what to do? While a good argument can be made that Christianity is Judaism-Lite, an equally good argument can be made that Christianity was created by the Romans in order to weaken the Jews. The angry genocidal Jewish god Jehovah is replaced by the loving, gentle God in human form Jesus. A Jewish religion that is based on material greed, war with neighbors, and ethnocentrism is replaced by a stoic religion of self-denial, peace and universalism.

    As I said, I forget all the details and documentation behind this theory. But in the end, it is not God and Jesus that are being worshiped, but rather Vespasian and Titus!

    To what extent did the Romans succeed? Jews (too few of them) became Christians. The Jewish population numbers declined. So we might regard what was originally a desire to promote celibacy in order to weaken the Jews as a “poison pill” that eventually could be turned against the Gentiles. That pill had no real effect. The reason for white population decline is Jewish-founded feminism, not Christian ideas about celibacy. At any rate, the pagan Roman Empire itself became Christian, and what we now take to be the fall of Rome is something of an illusion. The “fall” might better be regarded as an expansion and reformation. (and it should be noted that the Roman Empire continued to exist in Constantinople as the Byzantine Empire. After its defeat by the Turks, it removed itself to Moscow, where it preserved itself more or less until Jewish communism took over in 1917).

    The early Roman Republic, like the early Greek city states, was the creation of Aryans (hint: look at the statues). It was imperialism that watered down this pure and noble race: imperialism carried out by Alexander for the Greeks, by Caesar and his successors for the Romans.

    Jews were allowed into Roman society, miscegenation with other races ensued, empire became overextended, and the long-term result was corruption, weakness and decadence. Rome came to depend on mercenary soldiers — and who were those soldiers? Germanic Aryans! They not only replaced Roman soldiers, they conquered Rome itself. And at that point, Rome became Europe and Europe became Rome.

    The notion of a “Dark Age” is misleading. Benedictine monks taught the Germans how to work. Europe transformed from a warring tribal culture into a settled agrarian culture. The technologies and advances of Rome (along with the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle) were incorporated — along with Christianity — into Europe. And Christianity, via the Catholic Church, adopted Roman models of organization and governance.

    Is there a moral to this story? Yes. It should be a caution against simplistic notions about history. The idea of radical breaks in history and radical oppositions between groups is something we are taught, perhaps as a form of simplification because there is only a limited amount of time to teach history in school.

  10. silviosilver
    silviosilver says:

    The apparent suggestion here is that we all should ‘be like a eunuch,’ and not have sex.

    Sorry, but this an egregiously tendentious exegesis. Considering the entire context of Matthew 19, one might grant that this is a possible interpretation, but it hardly jumps out as the most likely. Dalton goes with it primarily because it’s essential to his thesis (I’ll do it the honor of calling it) that Paul’s overarching plan was to reduce gentile fertility.

    That isn’t even the worst of the logical leaps the essay makes. All of this is a far cry from his generally solid “Debating the Holocaust.” Still, I’m going to have to reread some of the more important sections to make sure I’m not being misled by Dalton’s overconfidence.

Comments are closed.