Review of David Skrbina’s The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul’s Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Years

The Jesus Hoax: How St. Paul’s Cabal Fooled the World for Two Thousand Year
David Skrbina
Creative Fire Press, 2019

David Skrbina is a professional philosopher who was a senior lecturer at the University of Michigan from 2003–2018. In addition to the book under review, he has written and edited a number of books, including The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2014), Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017), and the anthology Confronting Technology (Creative Fire Press, 2020).

The Jesus Hoax attempts to convince the reader that there is no rational basis for Christianity and that the motivation for its main originator, St. Paul, was antagonism toward the Roman Empire. Within this framework, Paul was a Jewish nationalist whose goal was to recruit non-Jews to oppose the Roman imperium: “Since the biblical Jesus story is false, it was evidently constructed by Paul and his fellow Jews in order to sway the gullible Gentile masses to their side and away from Rome” (43). Indeed, Skrbina claims that Paul may have been a Zealot, i.e., a member of a Jewish sect dedicated to violent resistance against the Romans, concluding “it seems clear that he was an ardent Jewish nationalist opposed to Roman rule, as was the case with most elite Jews of the time” (37).

Skrbina argues that there is no convincing evidence for the truth of the Jesus story, either within the canonical New Testament or from non-Christian sources. The earliest reference from a non-Christian source is a paragraph from the Jewish writer Josephus dated to 93 recounting the basic story, that Jesus was crucified “upon the accusation of the principal men among us”—i.e., the elite Jews of the period. Here Skrbina raises a general issue: the earliest source for the passage from Josephus is from the Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century, and the oldest sources for the gospels themselves are dated much later than they were supposedly written (70–95), leaving open the possibility of redactions and interpolations. For example, the oldest copy of the complete Gospel of Matthew, which, as noted below, contains the most inflammatory anti-Jewish passage of all, dates from the mid-fourth century, well after Constantine had legalized Christianity in the Empire and anti-Jewish attitudes were rife among intellectuals like Eusebius and the Church fathers such as St. John Chrysostom.”[1] The extent of redaction and interpolation remains unknown and presents obvious problems of interpretation.

The first Romans to comment on Christianity were Tacitus and Pliny (~115), both of whom disliked Christianity. As Skrbina notes, “the Romans were generally tolerant of other religions, and thus we must conclude that there was something uniquely problematic about this group” (60).

And Skrbina is well aware that an analysis of the entire early Christian movement must be aware of Jewish issues, quoting Nietzsche: “The first thing to be remembered, if we do not wish to lose the scent here, is that we are among Jews” (34). He is quite accurate in his assessment of Jewish ethnocentrism: Jews “saw themselves as special, different, ‘select,’ and thus they put these ideas into the mouth of their God. Certainly, no one would deny a people pride in themselves. But these extreme statements go far beyond normal bounds. They indicate a kind of self-absorption, a self-glorification, perhaps a narcissism, perhaps a conceit. To be chosen by the creator of the universe, and to be granted the right to rule, ruthlessly, over all other nations, bespeaks a kind of megalomania that is unprecedented in history” (63).

Not surprisingly, such a people have often been hated by others, and Skrbina recounts the many examples of anti-Jewish attitudes and actions in the ancient world: “where the Jews settled amongst other peoples, they seem to have made enemies” (65), noting particularly the recurrent theme—a theme that continued long past the ancient world—of Jews allying themselves with ruling elites against the native population. I was particularly struck by a passage Skrbina quotes from recent scholarship referring to advice given in 134 BC to King Antiochus VII, the Greek ruler of the Seleucid Empire, to exterminate the Jews: “for they alone among all the peoples refused all relations with other races, and saw everyone as their enemy; their forebears, impious and cursed by the gods, had been driven out of Egypt. The counselors [cited] the Jews’ hatred of all mankind, sanctioned by their very laws, which forbade them to share their table with a Gentile or give any sign of benevolence.”[2]

Skrbina concludes that there is a “deeply-embedded misanthropic streak” in Jews that continues into the contemporary era, quoting the famous passage from Rabbi Yosef who, in 2010 stated, “Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world—only to serve the people of Israel. They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi [a man of high social standing] and eat” (Jerusalem Post, October 18, 2010). Skrbina: “There is something about Jewish culture that inspires disgust and hatred” (79).

Based on the extensive citations to the Old Testament, Skrbina concludes that the Gospels, commonly dated well after Paul’s writing, were also likely written by Jews. Skrbina notes that the latest-dated gospel, John, is addressed to “intra-Jewish squabbling” (41) over the issue of Jesus being the Messiah—obviously a view rejected by Orthodox Jews. In other words, John identifies as a Jew but as a Jew battling the Orthodox Jewish establishment. Importantly, John contains anti-Jewish passages that would echo down the centuries: Jews “sought to kill Jesus,” and the gospel represents Jesus as saying, “You [Jews] are of your father the devil… He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44) (41). Many contemporary scholars accept the view that anti-Jewish statements in the Gospels are intramural disputes about whether Jews or Christians were the chosen people of God.

Of course, there are many other anti-Jewish statements:

  • John 5:18: For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill [Jesus], because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.
  • John 7:1: After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him.
  • John 7:12–13: And there was considerable complaining about him among the crowds. While some were saying, “He is a good man,” others were saying, “No, he is deceiving the crowd.” Yet no one would speak openly about him for fear of the Jews.
  • John 8:37: I know that you are descendants of Abraham; yet you look for an opportunity to kill me, because there is no place in you for my word.

And the most influential of all:

  • Matthew 27:25–26: When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but thatrather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Such sentiments are not only found in the Gospels. St. Paul: 

  • 1Thess 2:14–15: For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they haveof the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.

Skrbina, discussing the Gospel of Mark, notes that Paul et al. had two enemies, the Romans and non-believing Jews like the Pharisees who “wanted to kill Jesus” (95). Mark therefore blamed both, and Skrbina concludes that “Mark’s anger against his fellow Jews … got the better of him; for centuries afterward, Christians would blame the Jews for killing Christ, not realizing that the whole tale was a Jewish construction in the first place” (95).

Later in Matthew and Luke, “the anti-Jewish rhetoric heats up a bit; the Jews are called ‘a brood of vipers’ (Mat 3:7, 12:34, 23:33) and ‘lovers of money’ (Lu 16:14). And there are repetitions of the message of revolution, including armed confrontation (“I have not come to bring peace, but a sword” [Mat. 10:34]) and it depicts that the coming confrontation would split families.

Skrbina’s reconstruction of the trajectory of Christianity is presented as tentative (“I’ll not claim certainty here” [81]). For example, he imagines a soliloquy by Jewish patriot Paul asking, “What message could our ‘Jesus’ take to the masses,” answering “we need them to be pro-Jewish, not make them Jews–no, that would never work. We need something new, a ‘third way’ between Judaism and paganism. Maybe for a start, we could get them to worship our God Jehovah, and not that absurd Roman pantheon” (84; emphasis in text). And the whole point was to encourage revolt: “Throughout [Paul’s] letters we find numerous references to enslavement, revolution, insurrection, war, the importance of the disempowered masses, and so on. In the early Galatians we read of the need for Jesus to ‘deliver us from the present evil age’ ([Galatians] 1:4)” (90). Skrbina considers the following passage, from 1Corinthians 1:4 “decisive” (92): 

For consider your call, brethren, not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are. (Skrbina’s emphasis)

Militancy increases in Luke and Matthew, both dated to 85. Matthew (10:34): “Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

If one agrees with Skrbina on all this, then he suggests that you “go to your local church leaders and confront them with the evidence (or lack thereof). Their response will confirm everything you need to know. Then, make it clear to them that you have been swindled” (112). And: “Christians need to own up the fact that they have been swindled, and then see if anything can be salvaged of their religion. Keep the social club, do charity work, help the poor—just dump the bogus metaphysics” (116). 

Discussion

Since I am not a believer and since I am quite cognizant of Jewish efforts to manipulate the beliefs and attitudes of non-Jews—the thesis, after all, of The Culture of Critique—I am quite open to Skrbina’s interpretation. However, there are a few things that bother me. 

Liars? In Skrbina’s view, the entire project was based on lies, lies made possible by Jewish contempt for non-Jews. In a section titled “Paul, Liar Supreme,” we find “The Gentiles were always treated by the Jews with contempt. … They could be manipulated, harassed, assaulted, beaten, even killed if it served Jewish interests” (99). The gospel writers were also likely liars: “Even in ancient times, people were not idiots. How could Mark accept without any apparent evidence or confirmation, such fantastic tales? And accept them so completely that he would write them down as factual truth, as real and actual events? And then how could the same thing happen three more times, to three different individuals?” (106). And Paul is even more unlikely to have actually believed what he was writing because he was so close to the events he wrote about, and because he was a “clever man. How could he possibly have fallen so completely for a bogus Jewish messiah that he would dedicate his life to spreading the story?” (106).

This is presented as an issue of cleverness, and it is certainly true that there is a small but consistent negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity.[3]  But the weakness of the association—explaining around four percent of the variance—indicates that there are plenty of intelligent people who are quite religious. This would have been even more likely in the ancient world—a context in which religion was taken very seriously, where miraculous events were taken for granted by many, and where there wasn’t already a long history of philosophical skepticism about religion, as there is in the contemporary West. Or consider the medieval period in the West that produced highly intelligent believers, such as St. Thomas Aquinas or William of Occam. Or the ultra-religious but very intelligent Puritans who settled New England and quickly founded Harvard University and the other elite Ivy League universities. We live in an age where science has become the height of respectability—hence the attempts to manipulate what can pass as scientific to serve other interests and have a dramatic impact on contemporary culture. However, the cultural context has been much different in the past, and I suspect that correlations between intelligence and religiosity would have been approximately zero in many historical periods.

Another issue related to lying is martyrdom. The proposal that Paul and the gospel writers were liars must deal with the issue of “Who would die for a lie? … as Jews, they were all, already, under persecution from the Romans. As extremist, fanatical Jews they were willing to do anything and suffer any punishment, in order to help ‘Israel’” (110). It’s certainly true that Jews died and were enslaved in droves when the Romans put down the Jewish uprisings, and this was presumably on the minds of the putative gospel writers (the first Roman-Jewish war was in 70), so the extreme altruism of martyrdom for the benefit of the group seems possible, particularly among Jews—there is a long tradition of Jewish martyrdom that continues to be an important aspect of Jewish identity. However, stories of martyrdom in both the Christian and Jewish traditions may well be at least exaggerated if not entirely apocryphal (e.g., here) because of their usefulness in creating a strong sense of ingroup identity.

Again, there are the questions of who wrote the New Testament and when was it written, including possible redactions and interpolations. I am not at all a scholar on the New Testament, but I note that a recent scholar, Robert Price, dates the first collection of St. Paul’s letters from Marcion in the second century, with the authorship of some letters highly contested, and a strong possibility of interpolations by later collectors:

The question of authorship would have little bearing here one way or the other. In this process, interpolations were made and then gradually permeated the text tradition of each letter until final canonization of the Pastoral edition (and concurrent burning of its rivals) put a stop to all that. … But the first collector of the Pauline Epistles had been Marcion. No one else we know of would be a good candidate, certainly not the essentially fictive Luke, Timothy, and Onesimus. And Marcion, as Burkitt and Bauer show, fills the bill perfectly. Of the epistles themselves, he is probably the original author of Laodiceans (the Vorlage [i.e., original version] of Ephesians) and perhaps of Galatians, too. Like Muhammad in the Koran, he would have read his own struggles back into the careers of his biblical predecessors.

But there are other scholars who continue to uphold the view that the New Testament is a reliable account, or at least reliable enough (see, e.g., Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability of the New Testament: Countering the Challenges to Evangelical Christian Beliefs). I am certainly not in any position to evaluate what continues to be a very contentious area which has been covered in minute deal for at least 200 years, often by highly motivated scholars. At this late stage of scholarship, it seems unlikely that a consensus will ever be reached, especially because a great deal of the scholarship may well be motivated by a desire to defend deeply held religious beliefs—or dispute them; e.g., Blomberg describes himself as “a Christian believer of an evangelical persuasion” (xxv), which doesn’t mean that he is incorrect, but indicates that he would be motivated to defend his beliefs.

Given all this complexity I take that path of humility in trying to assess these issues, resulting in my being an agnostic about the historicity of the New Testament, whether whoever wrote it were liars, and what their real agendas were. I am persuaded that there is no consensus on what was actually written in the first century, and I accept the possibility that the writings that survive as the canonical writings of Christianity may well include later redactions and interpolations that reflect very different perceptions and interests from those of the putative first-century writers.

The Anti-Jewish Statements in the New Testament. I noted above that there are quite a few anti-Jewish passages in the New Testament, including from St. Paul himself. Skrbina claims that “The scattered anti-Jewish statements in all the Gospels—especially John—more reflect an internal Jewish battle over ideology than an external, Gentile attack” (107–108). This is a common scholarly view, but if you are trying to recruit Gentiles to your movement to serve Jewish interests, would you really want to litter your writing with anti-Jewish statements? In fact, these statements, particularly the claim that Jews committed deicide, have been used by Christians against Jews throughout the succeeding centuries, most notably “His blood be on us, and on our children.” Although the major outbreaks of anti-Semitism have always involved far more than Christian religious beliefs—they have typically occurred during periods of resource competition of various sorts (MacDonald, 1998)—I have no doubt that Christian beliefs about Jews fed into and exacerbated anti-Jewish attitudes, especially in the past when vast sections of the European population were deeply religious—e.g., during the Middle Ages when religious beliefs motivated the Crusades and long, arduous pilgrimages to sites where miracles were said to have occurred. It was a period when, e.g., Notre Dame de Paris, the symbol of traditional France, was adorned with anti-Jewish imagery.

Ecclesia (right) and Synagoga, illustrating Jewish blindness in rejecting Christianity

Indeed, Jewish perceptions of the anti-Jewish nature of Christian theology have resulted in Jewish activism to essentially rewrite or reinterpret the New Testament in their interests. Antonius J. Patrick summarizes this strand of Jewish activism in his review of Vicomte Léon de Poncins’ Judaism and the Vatican: An Attempt at Spiritual Subversion:

The pronouncements on non-Christian religions and the declaration Nostra aetate passed in the Fourth Session of the Council (1965) accomplished almost all that the Modernists had hoped for. In effect, these pronouncements repudiated nearly two thousand years of Catholic teaching on the Jews. Ever since, the Church has continually bowed to Jewish pressure in regard to its liturgy, the naming of saints, and in the political realm—its most infamous decision in the latter being the recognition of the state of Israel in 1994.

Poncins, who closely covered the Vatican II proceedings, wrote of the declaration:

. . . a number of Jewish organizations and personalities are behind the reforms which were proposed at the Council with a view to modifying the Church’s attitude and time-honored teaching about Judaism: Jules Isaac, Label Katz, President of the B’nai B’rith, Nahum Goldman, President of the World Jewish Congress, etc. . . . These reforms are very important because they suggest that for two thousand years the Church had been mistaken and that she must make amends and completely reconsider her attitude to the Jews.

The leading figure in the years prior to the Council was the virulent anti-Catholic writer Jules Isaac, and he played an active role during the Counsel. “Isaac,” Poncins describes, “turned the Council to advantage, having found there considerable support among progressive bishops. In fact, he became the principal theorist and promoter of the campaign being waged against the traditional teaching of the Church.”

Isaac had long before begun his hostile campaign to overturn Catholic teaching on the Jews with his two most important books on the subject: Jésus et Israel (1946) and Genèse de l’Antisémitisme (1948). Poncins accurately summarizes the main thrust of these works:

In these books Jules Isaac fiercely censures Christian teaching, which he says has been the source of modern anti-Semitism, and preaches, though it would be more correct to say he demands, the ‘purification’ and ‘amendment’ of doctrines two thousand years old.

Moreover, whatever the beliefs and motives of St. Paul and the Gospel writers, the Church had essentially become an anti-Jewish movement by the fourth century when Catholicism became the official religion of the Roman Empire:

The proposal here is that in this period of enhanced group conflict, anti-Jewish leaders such as [St. John] Chrysostom [who retains a chapel named after him at St. Peter’s basilica in Rome] attempted to convey a very negative view of Jews. Jews were to be conceptualized not as harmless practitioners of exotic, entertaining religious practices, or as magicians, fortune tellers, or healers [as had been the case previously], but as the very embodiment of evil. The entire thrust of the legislation that emerged during this period was to erect walls of separation between Jews and gentiles, to solidify the gentile group, and to make all gentiles aware of who the “enemy” was. Whereas these walls had been established and maintained previously only by Jews, in this new period of intergroup conflict the gentiles were raising walls between themselves and Jews….

The interpretation proposed here is that group conflict between Jews and gentiles entered a new stage in the 4th century. It is of considerable interest that it was during this period that accusations of Jewish greed, wealth, love of luxury and of the pleasures of the table became common (Simon 1986, 213). Such accusations did not occur during earlier periods, when anti-Jewish writings concentrated instead on Jewish separatism. These new charges suggest that Jews had increasingly developed a reputation as wealthy, and they in turn suggest that anti-Semitism had entered a new phase in the ancient world, one centered around resource competition and concerns regarding Jewish economic success, domination of gentiles [especially enslaving gentiles], and relative reproductive success. …

Jews were increasingly entering the imperial and municipal service in the 4th century until being excluded from these occupations in the 5th century—an aspect of the wide range of economic, social, and legal prohibitions on Jews dating from this period [particularly prohibitions on Jews owning Christian slaves—itself an indication of the superior wealth of Jews]. These factors, in combination with traditional gentile hostility to Judaism (because of its separatist practices and perceptions of Jewish misanthropy and perhaps of Jewish wealth), set the stage for a major anti-Semitic movement. The proposal here is that this anti-Semitic movement crystallized in the Christian Church. (Separation and Its Discontents, Ch. 3, 96, 98, 99)

It is quite possible that the anti-Jewish statements in the New Testament are interpolations made much later by anti-Jewish writers motivated by resource competition and Jews enslaving Christians. If so, the liars were not Paul and the Gospel writers, but Christians concerned about Jews in the third and fourth centuries. J. G. Gager suggests that the extant literature from the early Church was deliberately selected to emphasize anti-Jewish themes and exclude other voices, much as the priestly redaction of the Pentateuch retained from earlier writings only what was compatible with Judaism as a diaspora ideology (J. G. Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Oxford, 1983), 7; N. deLange, “The origins of anti-Semitism: Ancient evidence and modern interpretation,” In Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis, S. L. Gilman & S. T. Katz (NYU Press, 1991, 30–31). It’s quite conceivable that, rather than reflecting real intra-Jewish squabbles in the first century, as suggested by Skrbina, these early works were deliberately embellished in order to emphasize anti-Jewish themes in the originals—or they were completely fabricated—at a time when these writers had become strongly anti-Jewish for reasons that would not have been salient in the first century. In any case, this possibility is highly compatible with the view that there was a qualitative shift toward the conscious construction of a fundamentally anti-Jewish version of history during the formative period of the Catholic Church.

Consequences of the Lies. Skrbina ends by claiming that Paul’s lies were successful: “It took a few hundred years, but when enough people fell for the hoax, it helped to bring down the Roman Empire” (122). And he describes the lies as a “mortal threat”: “eventually drawing in 2 billion people, becoming an enemy of truth and reason, and causing deaths of millions of human beings via inquisitions, witch burnings, crusades, and other religious atrocities” (101).

I have never seen a scholarly argument that the institutionalization of the Catholic Church contributed importantly to the fall of the Empire. The Eastern Empire, although losing substantial territory to the Muslims, was only overthrown in 1453 after centuries of battling them. However, it’s certainly a reasonable idea given that Christian religious ideology was the polar opposite of thoroughly militarized Indo-European culture upon which Rome was built. Ancient Greco-Roman culture was fundamentally aristocratic and based on ideas of natural inequality and natural hierarchy. Thus, Plato’s “just society” as depicted in The Republic was to be ruled by philosophers because they were truly rational, and he assumes there are natural differences in the capacity for rationality—a modern would phrase it in terms of the behavior genetics of IQ and personality. Aristotle believed that some people were slaves “by nature” (Larry Siedentop, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 52), i.e., that the hierarchy between masters and slaves was natural. Reflecting themes common in Indo-European culture emphasized by Ricardo Duchesne (The Uniqueness of Western Civilization), the ancients prized fame and glory (positive esteem from others) resulting from genuine virtue and military and political accomplishments—but not labor, because laborers were often slaves and the rightful booty of conquest.

So the Christian ethic of prizing meekness, humility, and labor was quite a change. Within Christian ideology the individual replaced the ancient Indo-European family as the seat of moral legitimacy. Christian ideology was intended for all humans, resulting in a sense of moral egalitarianism, at least within the Christian community, rather than seeing society as based on natural hierarchy. Individual souls were seen as having moral agency and equal value in the eyes of God—a theology that has had very negative effects in the contemporary world.

However, universalism and the Christian virtues of meekness and humility are not the only story and indeed, as Skrbina notes, the sword also makes an appearance in the New Testament. In the Middle Ages Christianity was Germanized (James Russell, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, Oxford, 1996), making it much more compatible with an aristocratic warrior ethnic. And in the medieval period and beyond, Christianity facilitated Western individualism and essentially ushered in the modern age of science, technological progress, and territorial expansion (Joseph Henrich, The Weirdest People in the World, 2020; MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, 2019).

As a direct result, Christians who had a firm conviction about their beliefs eventually conquered the world and have been responsible for essentially all of the scientific and technological progress that created the modern world. Indeed, in his The WEIRDest People in the World, Joseph Henrich argues that the medieval Church invented Western individualism by insisting on monogamous marriage and by “demolishing” extended kinship relations, presented by Henrich as an attempt to understand, as phrased in his subtitle, How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous (Harvard, 2020). I have quite a few objections to his approach (see here), but he is certainly correct that the Church was influential in opposing the power of extended kinship groups and preventing concubinage and polygyny among elites, thereby facilitating a relatively egalitarian marriage regime. Essentially Henrich ignores the ethnic basis of Western individualism that reaches back into pre-historic Western Europe and is certainly reflected in the classical Western civilizations of Greece and Rome. Henrich also ignores genetic influences on IQ and personality. But I agree with a much weaker version—that the Church facilitated Western individualism and so helped give rise to the modern world (Chapter 5 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, 2019).

So it’s not entirely a story of “causing deaths of millions of human beings via inquisitions, witch burnings, crusades, and other religious atrocities.” But the sad reality is that contemporary Christianity, or at least the vast majority of it, is utterly opposed to the interests of the people who have historically made it their religion. For example, Prof. Andrew Fraser has interpreted fundamental Christian texts in a manner consistent with an ethnic form of Christianity (e.g., “Global Jesus versus National Jesus”, and in The Sword of Christ (2020; this book seems to have been banned by Amazon), Giles Corey attempts to rescue an ethnically viable Christianity from the ruins of contemporary, leftist-dominated Christian theology. As I note in my preface:

Religious thinking is by its nature unbounded—it is infinitely malleable [so that, for example, redactions and interpolations on the New Testament could easily have been adapted to create a fundamentally new theology]. It is a dangerous sword that can be used to further legitimate interests of believers, or it can become a lethal weapon whereby believers adopt attitudes that are obviously maladaptive. One need only think of religiously based suicide cults, such as People’s Temple (Jonestown), Solar Temple and Heaven’s Gate. Mainstream Christianity from traditional Catholicism to mainstream Protestantism was fundamentally adaptive in terms of creating a healthy family life. It was compatible with a culture characterized by extraordinary scientific and technological creativity, [territorial expansion], and standards of living that have been much envied by the rest of the world. …

Corey is well aware that contemporary Christianity has been massively corrupted. Mainline Protestant and Catholic Churches have become little more than appendages for the various social justice movements of the left, avidly promoting the colonization of the West by other races and cultures, even as religious fervor and attendance dwindle and Christianity itself becomes ever more irrelevant to the national dialogue. [Guillaume Durocher notes that only 6–12 percent of the French population are practicing Catholics, indicating that Catholicism cannot be blamed for France’s current malaise.] On the other hand, [American] Evangelicals, a group that remains vigorously Christian, have been massively duped by the theology of Christian Zionism, their main focus being to promote Israel. [In general, they have rejected an explicit White identity or a sense of White interests.]

Until the twentieth century, Christianity served the West well. One need only think of the long history of Christians battling to prevent Muslims from establishing a caliphate throughout the West—Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours, the Spanish Reconquista, the defeat of the Turks at the gates of Vienna. The era of Western expansion was accomplished by Christian explorers and colonists. Until quite recently, the flourishing of science, technology, and art occurred entirely within a Christian context.

Corey advocates a revitalization of Medieval Germanic Christianity based on, in the words of Samuel Francis, “social hierarchy, loyalty to tribe and place (blood and soil), world-acceptance rather than world-rejection, and an ethic that values heroism and military sacrifice.”  This medieval Christianity preserved the aristocratic, fundamentally Indo-European culture of the Germanic tribes. This was an adaptive Christianity, a Christianity that was compatible with Western expansion, to the point that by the end of the nineteenth century, the West dominated the planet. Christianity per se is certainly not the problem.

The decline of adaptive Christianity coincides with the post-Enlightenment rise of the Jews throughout the West as an anti-Christian elite, and Corey has a great deal of very interesting material on traditional Christian views of Judaism. Traditional Christian theology viewed the Church as having superseded the Old Testament and that, by rejecting the Church, the Jews had not only rejected God, they were responsible for murdering Christ. …

In fact, intellectual movements of the left—disseminated throughout the educational system and by the elite media—have exploited the Western liberal tradition. The intellectuals who came to dominate American intellectual discourse and the media were quite aware of the need to appeal to Western proclivities toward individualism, egalitarianism, and moral universalism by essentially creating a moral community that appealed to these traits but also served their interests. A theme of The Culture of Critique is that moral indictments of their opponents have been prominent in the writings of the activist intellectuals reviewed there, including political radicals and those opposing biological perspectives on individual and group differences in IQ. A sense of moral superiority was also prevalent in the psychoanalytic movement, and the Frankfurt School developed the view that social science was to be judged by moral criteria.

The triumph of the cultural left to the point of substantial consensus in the West has created a moral community where people who do not subscribe to their beliefs are seen as not only intellectually deficient but as morally evil. Moral communities rather than kinship are the social glue of Western societies. Westerners, being individualists and relatively unconcerned about the prospects of their kin beyond their immediate family, willingly punish other Whites who oppose their moral community, even at cost to themselves (altruistic punishment). Their main concern is to have a good reputation in their moral community which is now defined by the media and the educational system—a moral community that was created by hostile elites out of fear and loathing of the traditional White American majority (see Culture of Critique, Ch. 7).

Finally, Skrbina asks, “Can it really be beneficial to accept a myth as truth? Can one really live a happy, successful, and meaningful life dedicated to a false story or a lie?” (16). I think that the answer is that yes it can. As an evolutionist, my working hypothesis is that when it comes to the realm of ideas, evolution does not aim for truth but rather for success in continuing one’s family and increasing the prospects of one’s tribe. Certainly the religious beliefs of other groups, say Muslims, Jews, or Mormons, may well be false and based on inventions. But the people believing in these lies have often done very well in evolutionary terms and are continuing to do so. Ashkenazi Jewish eugenics proceeded for centuries in a religious context, resulting in a highly intelligent elite able to wield vast influence throughout the West. Islam expanded over hundreds of years, controlling vast territories, with leaders rewarded by large harems and many descendants; Islam is now rapidly expanding in Europe and has higher fertility than native Europeans. It’s well known that seriously religious, fundamentalist Christians in the West have more children on average than non-Christian Europeans, which is certainly adaptive. But they are also more likely to swear fealty to the interests of Israel and in general they are entirely resistant to being informed about the negative effects of multiculturalism or about Jewish cultural influence (whose effects they despise) or even Jewish traditional hostility toward Christianity.

And it can scarcely be doubted that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism have been completely corrupted and actively subverted so that millions of White Americans have been swept up by the multiculturalism and replacement-level immigration as moral imperatives. Jewish activism has certainly been part of this, but traditional Christian universalism and moral egalitarianism are also part of the equation. One might say that Christianity, despite periods when it was highly adaptive, carried the seeds of its own destruction—a chink in its armor that made it relatively easy to subvert once the culture of the West had been subverted by our new hostile elite.

So, in my view, it’s a complex story, and one that is far from finished.


[1] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism (AuthorHouse, 2003; originally published: Praeger, 1998), Ch. 3.

[2] Quoted in Emilio Gabba, “The Growth of Anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude toward the Jews.” In W. D. Davies & Louis Finkelstein (Eds.), The Cambridge History of Judaism. Vol. 2: The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 614–656, 645).

[3] Miron Zuckerman, et al., “The Negative Intelligence–Religiosity Relation: New and Confirming Evidence,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 46, no. 6(2020): 856–868.

 

204 replies
  1. Scipio Africanus
    Scipio Africanus says:

    Professor McDonald has taken a rational, neutral exploratory examination of Christianity in this piece.
    There is no doubt that modern, contemporary Christianity has been subverted and has been transformed into a social justice warrior crusading cult, without acting in the interest of native European populations.
    The following is an argument as to why traditional Christianity and its founding should not be viewed as an intellectual Jewish subversive movement. Subversive movements do not divide your own population. Subversive movements do not attack your own intellectual elite. Subversive movements do not unify your enemy i.e. the goyim. The original founders of Christianity i.e. the apostles and Paul all lead a life of deprivation and were eventually martyred, which would be both illogical and unlikely in a subversive movement. You do not attack for 2000 years the subversive movement that you created. Christianity and its intellectual foundation with the monastic system led to the highest level of European civilization in art, science, architecture and music. If the Gospel accounts were latter adapted with anti-Semitic commentary in 400 AD, whywait so long. The Jews had rebelled in 70 A.D. and two more rebellions lead to the total destruction of Jerusalem and Judea under Hadrian.
    There’s no doubt the Jews are experts in controlling the narrative. One narrative that they have been unable to control is Christ’s resurrection. I have read Giles Corey’s work, traditional Christianity fused with who we are as a people, the aristocratic warrior ethos is a pathway forward. People need spirituality. Remember things are not Christian if they do harm to yourself, Such as open borders immigration.
    Ethos plus Logos !

      • PsychelonB
        PsychelonB says:

        How is the cult from (((Judea))) anything but the core Jewish subversion? Ever hear of “Court Jews”? The “based/pre-subverted” cult from Judea, which arose in middle of the apocalyptic Roman-Jewish Battles (which Jews were losing, the Romans didnt pussy around like us), banned *only* Aryan christians from usury, but *never* Jews. I was born into christ-insanity.

        “Pathological Altruism,” or christian ethics? We know from the 05.0% of Aryan knowledge christians didn’t burn that Jews had been kicked out of the city of Rome due to preaching different versions of Judaism to the slaves, the rabble under Tiberius. The “pre-subverted” church (mostly dominated by biological Jews…bet that drip of magic h2o sure cured them!)’s ban on only Aryans doing usury but never Jews caused Aryan elites to forge an alliance with Jews beyond any previous subversion. How do you think Jews got so damn rich + powerful in first place!?

        They lie, bro’s, the christians lie just as readily as do Jews themselves. Keep fearing a (((Jewish volcano demon))), i was 5 yrs old in kindergarten when my (catholic) priest + religion teachers told us terrified kids (all Aryans) that the Big Bad Invisible Jew watches us “free willed” beings (whom “he has a plan” for..fate,no contradiction) constantly & reads our minds, a jealous volcano demon of the Jews, who would send our bodyless souls into a lava pit after death if we so much as *questioned* the christian tenets in our own minds (unless we went to confession – which has been used for anti-Aryan intelligence collection – in the nick of time). Think pre-christian Aryans did that? How is that not heinous child abuse?

        What greater subversion is even possible than rejecting & denouncing your own organic culture in favor of your alien executioner’s?

        There’s no way to be truly anti-Jewish & pro-Aryan and christian. We weren’t hebrews, and its disgusting that any of you could try to claim such nonsense.

        If christianity is anti-Jewish, why then have Jews never tried to destroy it with the same ruthlessness they destroyed Germany? Why are Aryans a minority of christians today? You unhinged C.I. are trying to create a despicable frankenstein by combining christ-insanity & racialism. How can you even survive Jewry when you’re following their made up rabbi’s demands in a masochistic cuck cult? Ever hear of the flagellants? Look up images of them. The blonde Aryan male self flagellating. Full of guilt. Shame. Fear. Superstition. You C.I. types do not know “your” own cult’s history, nor its teachings. Nor do you want to.

        You are loyal to Judah!

        What deity would punish us for being what we are? What deity would reward us for being masochistic losers who refuse to defend our own children? Think you’ll burn if you resist Jews, cowards?

        You all run for the hills when faced with logical arguments. Very Jewy.

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          “If Christianity is anti-Jewish, why then have Jews never tried to destroy it with the same ruthlessness they destroyed Germany?”

          “December 5, 1931: Soviet Jew Kaganovich orders demolition of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior…The 340-ft.-tall Cathedral of Christ the Savior is the grandest Orthodox Christian Church in the world…” — M.S. King, “Planet Rothschild, Vol. 1”

          “An Israeli student finishes high school without ever hearing the name ‘Genrikh Yagoda’, the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th century. The GPU’s deputy commander and the founder and commander of the NKVD, Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin’s collectivization orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the gulag system.” — Sever Phlocker, “Stalin’s Jews”, ynetnews.com, Dec. 21, 2006

          “…an unholy alliance of leftists, capitalists, and Zionist supremacists has schemed to promote immigration and miscegenation with the deliberate aim of breeding us out of existence in our own homelands…the real aim stays the same: the biggest genocide in human history, the final solution to the Christian European problem…”– Nick Griffin, addressing the European Parliament, March, 2014

          “Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity.” — Rabbi Baruch Efrati

          “First of all, we have to understand what communism is. I mean, to me, real communism, the Soviet communism, is basically a mask for Bolshevism, which is a mask for Judaism.” — Bobby Fischer

          “…This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany) and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century. And now at last, this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistic Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews.” — Winston Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People”, Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), Feb. 8, 1920

          “The Jews were behind all the persecutions of the Christians. they wandered through the country everywhere, hating and undermining the Christian faith.” — St. Justin

          “I hope the Jews did kill Christ. I’d do it again in a second.” — Sarah Silverman

          “‘We Curse Christianity Three Times a Day’: Can Jews and Christians Truly Reconcile?” — Israel Jacob Yuval, Haaretz, August 14, 2020

          “MK Ben Ari rips up New Testament: Right-wing lawmaker tears up ‘abominable’ book sent to him by Christian organization, throws it in trash bin” — Tzvika Brot, ynetnews.com, July 18, 2012

          “The Messiah will return only once. Edom — Europe, christianity — will be completely destroyed. So, I ask you, is it good that Islam invades Europe? It is excellent news! It means the coming of the Messiah…Islam is the broom of Israel.” — Rabbi Rav David Touitou

          “Once the Jewishness of Bolshevism is understood, its otherwise puzzling features become understandable: hatred of Christianity, for instance, is not a Russian characteristic, it is a Jewish one.” — Arthur Nelson Field

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      I was open to this argument as well, and can understand why so may on the right buy it, but it fails because of the relationship between beauty and truth. What is beautiful comes from truth, and vis-versa. Too much of what Christendom produced, from music, poetry, architecture, literature, etc was beautiful, so it was coming from a place of truth.
      You can also add ‘goodness’ and it becomes a logical, rational trinity to match the metaphysical Trinity of Father, Son & Holy Ghost. Christians are simply good people, they were when they created our civilisation, and even most are today.
      Even then you have the fact that Christianity gave birth to the enlightenment/scientific revolution, which no other civilisation in 10,000 years did. It was an original Christian idea that if there is a universal moral law, might there be a universal natural law? Hence the beginnings of science.

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          Jews hate Christ the most.

          But Whites come in a close second, because most Whites are of Christian heritage.

          Even if most Whites weren’t of Christian heritage, Jews would still probably hate them because the pagan White Romans destroyed their Temple.

        • PsychelonB
          PsychelonB says:

          Interesting they allow christianity all over the radio & that the beautiful cathedrals (which Jews charged Poles to attend, centuries ago) aren’t anywhere to be found outside of Aryan civilization. Nowhere else did such culture come about. Its the blood, idiot. The supposed good of christianity comes from the blood & is fully possible without this sick masochistic death cult.

        • PsychelonB
          PsychelonB says:

          No, “pro Aryan christian”s absolutely do not “get the point.” That’s a huge problem. I for one don’t claim to know the deepest nature of reality, but i do recognize that there’s nothing more insane than going on endlessly about how evil our executioner’s are, but bowing before their volcano demon deity while pathetically trying to square a circle by acting just like “we wuz kangz n shiyt” blacks (who they mock without any hint of the fact they, the descendants of the races who built Ancient Egypt/Persia/Vedic India/Greece/Rome are doing the same in an even more pathetic way).

          My first few years after learning of the Jewish plague, i walked on eggshells, for “unity.” I kept quiet about the cancer of Aryans who claim to want to save Aryans from Jewish subversion obeying a crucified rabbi b/c i grew up in this garbage & remember how it made everyone think + behave (full of hatred towards non christians, even though we insisted to “hate the sin not the sinner”…the christ cuck mind virus makes the Aryan man behave like a perverted Jew). Yet, the “pro Aryan christians” just refuse to stop making passive aggressive attacks to anyone not fully on board with gulping (((rabbi yeshua’s))) rich “chosen” blood. Provoke provoke provoke, when finally the not a christ cuck pure Aryan racial loyalist engages in self defense, all of a sudden the provocateur goes into “muh persecution! Muh war against the (crucified) kang of kangz, (((rabbi yeshua)))!! This dirty ‘persecuting pagan’ is victimizing me & dividing the movement!! Curse the filthy Aryan Romans & praise (((rabbi yeshua))) for ‘his’ word!”

          Notice christ cucks who claim to be pro-Aryan *never* even discuss a cease fire, a serious manly ceasefire? They go on about “unity,” but they constantly promote their stupid Jewish cult & take jabs at anyone not (schizophrenically) on board. If they want unity, they’d keep their demand non-nutjobs (as far as this topic is concerned at least) to stay quiet & refrain from attacking christianity or promoting a different lifeboat so we can survive, but for the same thing to apply to them. You don’t want christianity to be attacked (as it must be, overall, long term) ? Then stop looking down your wannabee Jewish nose. Agree to stop promoting it. If it meant a genuine “lets duke this out after we seriously secure our survival” partnership, i for one would agree to stop exposing christianity or promoting alternatives. “Pro Aryan christians” arent interested in tolerating alternatives, even though we’re all stuck on the titanic (but why would they? They know deep down they cant debate in good faith & they tell themselves they’re about to have an army of supermodels serving them like the kangz they want to be in ‘heaven’ with their crucified Jewish kang of kangz). They’re not even trying to be serious in/about this life. They think theyll be rewarded for inaction after death and thrown into a lava pit eternally if they truly eliminate the Jewish plague…they’ll “be forgiven” by rabbi yeshua if they do as all Aryan generations have done, sell out their kids). Its sick. The fact ive never seen a C.I. even offer a genuine truce about this petty yet gravely serious crap says it all. They just keep smearing with Jewish newspeak slurs. “You’re being divisive!! You’re ‘starting’ religious flame wars”…as they refuse to offer ceasing to promote their *”one* true way.” Their cult is the same cult that destroyed Rome and made a death penalty law for people to look at the temples/statues (culture) they destroyed in the aftermath of 3 Roman-Jewish Battles that Jews had previous to their cult’s subversion been losing badly.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            There is nothing Jewish about Christianity.

            It is, in fact, anti-Jewish — which you would know if you knew anything about the subject.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      The fundamental questions are few, but their answers (from within a white preservationist perspective) are devilishly complex, philosophically and pragmatically:

      Is Christianity true?

      1. If yes, is it *necessarily* bad for the white race? Or is modern multiculturalist theology wrong? If the latter, how?

      2. If no, can Christianity be made racially useful via a new, anti-multiculturalist theology, one which demonstrates sufficiently persuasively either that Christianity a) allows for coercive measures to minimally ensure white preservation, or b) mandates white preservation?

      I’m not an expert (though I suspect neither is Skrbina; one must be skeptical of someone who dismisses the massive academic consensus position – here, eg, that Jesus was, at least, a real historical person, if not necessarily the Incarnate One – with an air of dismissive and unearned knowingness, a common attitude of those who go against crowds). But from my own Christian immersion – family heritage, readings, education, church and community interactions – the real issues at the intersection of (Christian) religion and (white) race concern what coercive or violent measures may be undertaken by a Christian to prevent white enslavement or extinction.

      [I write “by a Christian” because I hew to the old notion that although ethics exist independent of God, they are meaningless in His absence. That is, just as the laws of logic and math cannot be contradicted by God Himself, so, too, are the basic postulates of right and wrong similarly inviolable, as they inhere in the nature of things. However, in a world without God or divine judgment, what would be the point of being truly moral – acting outside of selfish interest in conformity with ethical principle? There are no “insect ethics”; it is eat or be eaten. In a world without God, behaving morally (ie, as though there were a God) might sometimes be prudent, rather like its usually being the case that “honesty is the best policy”. But while prudence may mimic morality, it is not morality per se, which involves an element of self-sacrifice (if I were an atheist, I would still not steal from my friends, not because theft is wrong, as I believe as a Christian, but because I value my friends more highly than what I could steal from them – but this is a form of enlightened self-interest rather than true morality).]

      I say this because so much of the contemporary racial policy agenda of progressive liberalism is either evil, or, at least, not ethically mandatory. Whites as Christians have no obligation to advance nonwhite interests at our own expense, any more than we may aggress against nonwhites for our own benefit. If consensus moral theology determines that is is wrong for whites to enslave blacks, surely it is not mandated that whites allow themselves to be enslaved by blacks.

      IOWs, the only interracial ethical obligations that exist are the basic ones that Christians argue exist between all persons anyway (though shalt not kill, steal, etc). Whites have no ethical obligation to allow nonwhites into white societies; to marry nonwhites; to subsidize nonwhite fertility; to tax themselves in order to finance failed nonwhite countries; to provide school admissions preferences; to avoid teaching our racial history to our own children in order not to ‘offend’ children of other races; to tolerate nonwhite crime; or to avoid investigating and discussing behavioral differences between races.

      If a white Christian does have a positive ethical obligation towards a nonwhite, it is limited to and by the principle of Good Samaritanship: you should help out an innocent nonwhite person who is suffering in your immediate vicinity (eg, a Christian would be acting immorally if a black man collapsed in front of him and he failed to try to aid the stricken man – assuming the fallen man is not an obviously bad person, a criminal ‘homie’, or an antiwhite thug nationalist wearing a BLM t-shirt, whom we can assume is an evil racial enemy, etc).

      Defending any moral proposition is hard, philosophically, but hardly impossible. Everything I have said above could be defended, albeit building up the defense takes longer than stating the conclusions. The real issues involve the extent to which white Christians my violate moral fundamentals in order to ensure racial perpetuity. And within this category, the hardest issues pertain to rectifying the mistakes (and evils) of the past. I think it was imprudent and even evil (depending upon that which only God can judge: the past motivations of the open borders advocates – fatuity, or a desire to steal white nations? ) for white nations to have opened their borders to Third World invasions. But having done so (esp wrt Europe, morally illegitimately), what may we now do to reverse what’s been done to us? What about here in the US? What can a Christian do or demand in the face of coercive multiracialization to restore the status quo ex ante? And what if majorities refuse to see (or do not care to accede to ) the justice of our demands? What is permitted to individual Christians (again, assuming Christianity is true)?

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        Leon,
        When it comes to GOD there are no experts who qualify because of their academic credentials. God is not a matter of logic or academic consensus. I disagree with your statement that:
        “…the massive academic consensus … [is] that Jesus was, at least, a real historical person.”
        It’s long been my understanding that the opposite is true, certainly if you’re not excluding the more contemporary scholarship.

        Next, you write “just as the laws of logic and math cannot be contradicted by God Himself” … assuming a male gender for what cannot be either masculine or feminine. You are speaking of a cosmic God from your human perspective. Understandable, but what about the vast universe out there? How to explain it?

        “… in a world without God or *divine judgment*, what would be the point of being truly moral?” GOD-All-That-Is does not judge; that’s an invention of many formulated religions, and it’s not hard to understand why it is. How else do you keep people in line? Divine judgment is an example of using fear to control people, making it man-made, not “divine.”

        “There are no ‘insect ethics’; it is eat or be eaten.” You do not know what ethics insects may have; you only know from your own human experience. As to ‘eat or be eaten,’ doesn’t every physical (living) organism have a digestive system of sorts? This manner of how living organisms support their physical organism was part of the design by the creator … would you agree? We all prey on and eat other organisms, by design.

        Finally, you’re conflating ‘Christianity’ with ‘Race’ and they don’t conflate. Christianity BECAME the religion of white Europeans; it wasn’t always so. As we know, a lot of “unethical” force and coercion was involved in making Christianity the religion of Europeans. How well that has worked out is a matter of opinion. However, what is a fact is that human evolution moves forward – always forward, never back – leaving your perspective of insisting on sticking with time-honored Traditional beliefs from the past 2000 years of the European heyday somewhat in the dust. We need some new ideas.

        • Leon Haller
          Leon Haller says:

          No serious historian or Biblical exegete doubts the historicity of Jesus. Certainly, it is a minority opinion (including among unbelievers). The real bone of contention (perhaps of all things, whatever the time or place or issue) is whether the miracle stories associated with Him (above all, the Resurrection) actually happened.

          In the Christian tradition, the ‘preferred’ pronoun for God is masculine.

          The alleged non-judgment of God is obviously your opinion. The weight of thousands of years of serious reflection by innumerable authorities more learned and intelligent than we are is that God judges man’s moral behavior and character.

          There is no evidence that animals engage in moral (or any other) reasoning. The insect brain is too tiny to have even the slightest possibility of being able to engage in abstract thought (I don’t really have to inform you of this, do I?).

          I did not use the metaphor I did to dispute digestion. I was merely trying to convey the idea that, in the absence of God, not only are humans animals, but we are nothing more than animals. If that is true, then true ethics, which involves some degree of sacrifice (as opposed to enlightened self-interest), is pointless.

          I was not conflating Christianity with race at all. I was expressing my interest in how to think about white issues from a correct Christian perspective. Obviously, Christianity was not always the white man’s religion, as all races long antedated the Incarnation. The issue, as I started out saying, is simply (obviously), is the Faith true? If yes, does it necessarily lead to race-apathy? Or, is white preservationism compatible with Christian commitment? If it is, then to what extent and in what ways? If the faith is not true, might it still have value even for those whose prime concern is white preservation?

          I think you have failed to understand the general thrust of my comment. Reread it more carefully.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        …”– acting outside of selfish interest in conformity with ethical principle? ”

        “acting outside of selfish interest” is not normally a contentious issue since the negative moral standing of [selfishness] is not usually disputed .

        However , acting outside of [self-interest] is very problematic because self-interest does not necessarily exclude consideration of the interests of others .

        • Leon Haller
          Leon Haller says:

          Not sure of your point. I tried to make my understanding of morality clear: that it consists in not acting out of mere self-interest. Sometimes self-interest mimics morality – a single man risks being late to a job interview in order to help retrieve the dropped parcels of a lovely, woman sans wedding band. The man is not acting wrongly, but his action is hardly of the same moral caliber as if he’d stooped to aid an old woman.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Acting out of self-interest is good – very good. I have made some critical remarks about your “system of morality” way down below, dated May 4th. Maybe you will reply.

            But, acting contrary to one’s self-interest can never be good, it is schizophrenic. In the case of helping to retrieve an old woman’s dropped parcels, if your values are to do good and thereby please God, it IS in your self-interest. Someone else may just feel good after doing a good deed, so it’s in THEIR self-interest too.

            In order to make your own argument over morality sound persuasive, you tell only part of the story. Can’t you see everyone here is doing this?

  2. Robert Penman
    Robert Penman says:

    It is very obvious that all religions are mans attempt to make sense of the world and connect to the spiritual. Flowing from this, it is also obvious that no one religion could possibly “the one and only truth”. The very idea that of the countless billions of stars and planets, God had his “only son” born on one tiny speck, and one must, not only find that story, but follow the correct interpretation of that religion, is too silly to take seriously.

    This is not to say that the Christian Church has not given the West many great things, because it has, but in this religion there is a connection to Judaism, and it is that link that can and has been exploited against European civilisation.

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      But isn’t there only one truth?

      I don’t see how there can be multiple truths.

      There can be multiple opinions, but what is true is true, and that truth is one truth, not multiple truths.

      Is it not at least possible that a religion — Christianity — has discerned that truth? And religions that disagree with Christianity are therefore necessarily false?

      We know that men can discern the truth. For example, the statement “A is greater than C if A is greater than B and B is greater than C” is necessarily true. It cannot but be true.

      I’m not quite sure where you’re coming from, but I hope it’s not the idea that truth is relative. Truth is absolute. Something is either true or it’s not. If it’s true, then anything that contradicts it cannot be true.

      That’s not a statement of intolerance, it’s simply a statement of fact.

      In the West, we’re so afraid of being intolerant that we tolerate things we shouldn’t tolerate, whether it’s a matter of truth, a matter of morals, or anything else that we are afraid might offend someone.

      People can speculate that there are other intelligent beings in the universe, wiser than ourselves, understanding truth while we are mired in falsehood — but that is no less speculative than religion at this point.

      We have no more evidence that other intelligent beings, wiser than ourselves, exist on other planets than we have empirical physical evidence of the existence of God. But for some reason, many give more credence to such speculation than they to a God-created universe.

      “A connection to Judaism” is of no more significance for Christianity than the fact that Jews live in my town is of significance to me. Christianity rejects Judaism, as do I.

      • Crush Limbraw
        Crush Limbraw says:

        Eric – your “We have no more evidence that other intelligent beings, wiser than ourselves, exist on other planets than we have empirical physical evidence of the existence of God. But for some reason, many give more credence to such speculation than they to a God-created universe.” – confirms my own discovery that otherwise intelligent and resourceful writers who are agnostics, atheists, etc – are often vitriolicly opposed to any investigative research into God or Christ, as if they have some mysterious force driving their personal antipathy against it.
        As to your reference of empirical evidence of the physical evidence of the creationof God, I believe Paul addresses that in Romans 1, but I’m sure you know that. Much of my commenting purpose is to address all readers of this section.
        As to truth, Joel MucDurmon has the best definition I have seen – from his book Biblical Logic: “Logic is the systematic study and practice of discerning and telling the truth!”
        A lifetime project, eh?
        Anyways, I impress my grandkids who are now from teens to young adults by teling them that their odds of even plain existence is so small that it would be statistically near impossible.
        The critical thinking required to process that thought is what we call logic – a commodity in short supply within our culture.
        BTW – all homeschooled.
        Keep up the good fight!

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” Is it not at least possible that a religion — Christianity — has discerned that truth? ”

        Christianity has for sure discerned and employed the most powerful/sophisticated psychological terrorism known to any religion .

        There are three major religions that drive world affairs and are the powers behind most major human events . They are the three Abrahamic religions : Judaism , Christianity , Islam .

        Judaism promises death to any Jew that renounces it or seriously opposes it . Jews do not believe in an afterlife . Fullstop .

        Islam promises death to any Muslim that renounces it or seriously opposes it . Islam rejects eternal damnation . Fullstop .

        Christianity promises death to anyone that renounces it or seriously opposes it ; and upon a renunciation , an eternal torment of burning in hell forever after you die . Fullstop .

        The sheeple majorities in the Westernworld and many others elsewhere are very susceptible to that psychological terrorism . They may stop going to church and some even claim disbelief in Christianity but very few outright renounce the messiahsip of JC .

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          “Christianity promises death to anyone who renounces is or seriously opposes it.” Not true.

          “…and upon a renunciation, an eternal torment of burning in hell forever after you die. Fullstop.”

          I see no evidence for that in the Christian New Testament.

          Christ said those who repent (turn away from sin), keep his commandments, and believe in him will have eternal life in heaven.

          The wicked will be destroyed in the same way dead leaves are thrown into the fire.

          Nothing about eternal torment. That was added to scare people.

          What a church or preacher says is not necessarily what Christ said.

          A good example of this is the Catholic idea of purgatory: Nothing about purgatory was ever said by Jesus. It was just added by the church, no doubt to explain what happens to the great mass of people who are not wicked per se but who are not Christians or not “good Christians” (i.e., good Catholics).

          If a used car salesman sells you a lemon, do you reject cars?

          The reasoning of anti-Christians here is mostly on that level.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            “” “Christianity promises death to anyone who renounces it or seriously opposes it.” Not true.””

            Not true ?

            I think you view Christianity and in particular Catholicism thru the pink colored glasses issued by the Vatican .

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            You made an untrue statement. Why not admit it?

            Muslims have been known to call for the death of those who renounce Islam and those who strongly oppose it.

            Christians do not do that.

            You say I view Christianity, and in particular Catholicism, “thru the pink colored glasses issued by the Vatican”.

            If you actually bothered to read my comments here, you would know that I disagree with Catholics.

            If you want to argue with Christians, I suggest you try to know what you’re talking about first.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      From Mr Penman: “It is very obvious that all religions are mans attempt to make sense of the world and connect to the spiritual. Flowing from this, it is also obvious that no one religion could possibly “the one and only truth”.

      Not so. The argument that there are so many different religions, that ours probably isn’t true, is one of the very first most basic, immature atheist points.

      It’s actually the opposite. If all the world’s religions lined up perfectly, then it would be guaranteed they were false/man made. That the worlds’ religions all grew organically, separate in time and place from each other, but also have *so much in common*, tell me we are onto Truth here.

      It’s like when a crime happens, witnessed by a dozen people. When all interviewed separately, if they are all telling the truth, their stories will all differ in the small things, but agree on the main points. If the tales they all tell are absolutely identical, the police would presume a conspiracy, and that they were lying.

      Well, don’t the world’s major religions basically agree on the main points, and simply differ on the details?

      As for the billions of stars and galaxies etc, what better to surround your creation with, than something that would confound, confuse, bemuse and inspire?

      Who really knows what is out there, I don’t trust anything NASA say, they’ve been proved liars too often, only a fool would take their version of the galaxy without a pinch of salt. It might all just be some sort of optical illusion what we see with our telescopes. The extent of the deception from NASA is mind-boggling. They are about as truthful as the CDC, NSA, CIA or any other lying government agency.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Is merely alienating Christians truly enough to suit you, Doctor Sunic? Here and elsewhere, your statements often suggest that you are keeping your revolutionary tricoteur skills in good repair.

      It wasn’t so very long ago that TOO’s contributors and commenters were urged to eschew intramural squabbling and bloodletting. Evidently, that was then and this is now.

    • Scipio Africanus
      Scipio Africanus says:

      Tom,
      You are great asset to the movement and I respect your work. I know that you are vehemently anti Christian with some justification in light of modern day Christianity acting in opposition to the interest of European people. Christianity is not the problem, but rather Jewish intellectual subversion of Christianity. Traditional Christians are potential allies and a recruitable population that can be moved into the dissenting right column. Examples: E. Micheal Jones. Giles Corey and Nick Fuentes.

      • T Sunic
        T Sunic says:

        Yes. I agree. I am not hostile to Christianity – nor to Catholicism (having in my close and distant families and friends Jesuits, Dominicans etc). I only stress that Christianity is not and must not be conflated with our w national/racial awareness. Our own sense of the sacred we should keep to ourselves – and not put it on public display.

        • Charles Frey
          Charles Frey says:

          Your second sentence had better be directed at our enemies, who appear to be on a different track. Indeed they CONFLATE by triangulating their firepower.

        • Mike Bennett
          Mike Bennett says:

          …it is the the Roman Catholic Church and their useful idiot (King Tomislav), that gave the Serbians sanctuary from the Bulgarian King Simeon I, in the year 925 AD! …and the rest they say is….HISTORY! The Catholic Church is to blame for the Serbian “problem” in Croatia, before and after WW2! Read an interesting article. “Croatian-Bulgarian War in 926 AD”, where this stupid King Tomislav fought to save the Serbs from the Bulgarisns, and because of this suicidal, Christian altruism, the Croatian nation was and is in so much trouble!

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      To Mr Tom, you are presuming your side are going to win this argument, that Christianity is a Jewish hoax to make us universalist, pacifist, pro-Jew, anti-usury and all the rest. I don’t think you will win this one, no one will, it will have to be a negotiated settlement.
      To go straight to the point of this site, it’s basically a “how do we free ourselves from these accursed Jews?”, no matter what it calls itself, what it talks about or how academic or intellectual it is.
      And Christianity has a pretty impressive and long lasting record of warning the peasants about these blood-suckers, no matter the worthless & actively harmful state Christianity is in presently.
      Christian & atheist whites can ally, just as Martin Luther & Voltaire, two men who worshipped very different things, both agreed that it would be wise to, how to say it? Do something about these people.

      And to Mr de Craon, you really have this cowardly, limp-wristed habit of throwing slime over other’s statements in a general way, without EVER actually exposing yourself to an actual argument. If you are so clever, why don’t you prove it? Take what someone has said, and prove it false, in a spirit of rational debate? All we get from you is pomposity personified, and snark, bitchy remarks.
      I cannot be the only one here who is embarrassed for you, though no doubt, only I’ll say it.
      There are many commenters(not all, but allot) on this site who mistake tone & effected politeness with what it actually is, a lack of spirit.
      In the name of God, the way we are sinking a bit of fire should be encouraged!

        • Al Ross
          Al Ross says:

          That was an inspired reply , borrowed perhaps from the Sopranos episode during which an Orthodox Jew is threatened with castration and cites the Siege of Masada as proof of his race’s historical superiority ?

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            For better or worse, I know very little about “The Sopranos.” I do know somewhat more about organized crime in New York and New Jersey, however, because all of my father’s uncles (save the one who stayed in Ireland and became a priest) were part of Dutch Schulz’s mob, and at least one of them had blood on his hands.*

            Unsurprisingly, my father talked little about his nefarious relatives (from whom he had been protected by his own father) until I was grown, but he did make plain that, insofar as at least the Northeast was concerned, the Italian role in organized crime was decidedly subordinate to the Jewish role, whatever the media said to the contrary. This piece of firsthand information has served to sour me on a lifelong basis toward the “organized crime” genre of kosher Hollywood “entertainment,” not excluding Scorsese films or “The Sopranos.”
            _________________
            *I ought to add that all of my grand-uncles were dead before I was born. Let deep thinker Emicho make of that circumstance what he wishes.

  3. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    In my short but eventful life I have learned that some of the things most real, most powerful, most eternal, cannot be scientifically defined, mathematically proved, historically verified or even visually seen by man.

    I have studied the Bible and I do have serious issues with much of it. And, there is much of modern day (mainstream) Christianity that I despise. Catholicism I loathe. In general, I have no use for religion.

    The Jews have a hatred for Jesus that – if possible – surpasses that for Adolf Hitler. This is something to consider. Say what you will of the Jews – they are not stupid. Ah – the hatred of the Jews – what better endorsement can Christians have? (Smile)

    Nor are many Christians stupid. I still have many friends from when I was in Mensa and most (though not all) agree on this: Jesus is a Cosmic Necessity.

    For me, Jesus is kind of like Sasquatch. Sasquatch can be disproven by scientists, zoologists, historians, whoever. The only person you cannot convince Sasquatch does not exist is the person who saw him. And so it is with Jesus.

    • Scipio Africanus
      Scipio Africanus says:

      Tim,
      You make a extremely valuable point. Jews despise Jesus and Christianity. It makes their blood boil. They declare in the Talmud Jesus is boiling in excrement in Hell. If the Jews hate Christianity, I want to be one!

      • Mary Feldman Levinson Goldberg
        Mary Feldman Levinson Goldberg says:

        Christ walked this earth. HE was not a jew hoax. If HE was a jew hoax, then why do they HATE Him so much?

        Christ offered the jews eternal life….He wanted the jews to join humanity….but the jews decided they would rather keep their group separate and ABOVE the rest of humankind….and in doing so they sided with Satan.

        What does it profit the jews if they gain the world and lose their souls?

      • Lucius Vanini
        Lucius Vanini says:

        SCIPIO AFRICANUS???
        How dare you associate the name of a great Pagan Roman with a defense of the vilest creed, the stinkingest Sklavenmoral, which has done Europe so much harm!

        If a great many Jews hate christianity–and they do–their hatred has something to do with the idiotic belief in collective guilt–a barbarous belief that Europeans tragically inherited from Hebrews via christianity. The Jews got hit with their own boomerang, so there’s some poetic justice there; but it was disgrace and degeneration for the Europeans to adopt it, and we Europeans are still paying for it.

        I refer to the belief, worthy of desert barbarians but not of civilized Europeans, that sons can be rightfully punished for the sins of their fathers. The desert barbarians’ god, who became the Europeans’ god through christianity, was himself given to such behavior….

        And so the whole nation of Hebrews or Jews became CHRIST-KILLERS lol. It didn’t matter that the magic carpenter was himself a Hebrew, nor that only a handful of Jews had anything to do with the alleged crucifixion, nor that Jews living a thousand years later couldn’t have done it.

        And to show just how stupid christianity made Europeans, all christendom believed that the crucifixion of the magic water-strider represented a “Vicarious Atonement”–that because of it all true-believers could live blissfully forever! Well, SOMEONE had to betray him for the execution to happen. If christendom had had minimal power of rational thought, Judas and the Pharisees concerned might’ve been recognized as instruments of Divine Purpose. But no–the idiots BLAMED them, and not only them but all Jews who lived thereafter.

        What SHAME for the continent and ethnic/genetic cluster I love so….

        And now the Jews, or very many of them, inherit the notion that we are their perennial enemy, who must be destroyed with self-hate, homosexuality and bio-weapons like black Africans.

        Nietzsche is arguably correct in saying that christianity is the worst misfortune ever. Beware of conquered Hebrews bearing gifts!

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          But if Christianity is so stupid, how do you explain why so many men of genius in the past believed in it? If it isn’t in line with Truth, then how come it invented the scientific method? How did it inspire it’s art?
          There are too many examples to mention, obviously, but how come the American elite of 1787, an elite from a fraction of the population the American elite can choose from today, and hard core Christian believers to a man, in the midst of all the mayhem and drama going on all around them, could produce something of lasting genius like the US Constitution?
          How could a similar infinitely smaller elite in England produce the KJB?

          Then we compare these Christian elites of then, to the atheist garbage we have today? If Christianity made them so dumb, why were they so clever? And if losing our faith increases our intelligence, why are we all now so stupid?
          And I happily include myself in this state of stunted intelligence. Even if you don’t believe they are dumbing us all down with things in the food, air, & water, you cannot deny they are attacking our brains with mass cultural garbage, nor that the schools have been dumbed down in the extreme by Christian-hating atheists.

          Haven’t you ever wondered why you pick up a New York Times in this post Christian era, and it’s an insult to your intelligence, yet just try and read something that the middle-class public were consuming on mass in a Christian era, like, try reading an Antony Trollop set of novels. You’ll quickly realise EXACTLY what these Christian-haters have done to all of our brains.

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        Not all Jews share the Talmud view of Jesus. Some claim he was one of their best reform rabbis!! A more sympathetic view began quite some time ago; e.g. Joseph Klausner, “From Jesus to Paul” (1942).

  4. Pannonius
    Pannonius says:

    OMG, where to begin, or end?
    Particularly in the latter part, it ends on a guardedly upbeat note, but it woefully fails when it cavalierly oscillates across the ages, cultures, regions, creeds (ancient, biblical Hellenic, Roman, Germanic, medieval, Moslem, the un- or il-defined West, the US, Roman Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals etc.). And then there is the perennial void between 1453 and the Gates of Vienna, the wholly untouched (ignored) story of The Great Reversal (no, not Reset) between the old West and new East and revival of Christianity in the latter; even as the former in the US experiencing nothing short of creeping Communism in no longer sheep’s clothing.
    And then there’s the proverbial story of the unborn White babies that rate mention on account of the historically prolific muslims.

    I know, I know, the otherwise fine piece was about Skirbina’s chutzpah question, but still. TBC

      • Tim Folke
        Tim Folke says:

        KMAC: I don’t think there is/was anything wrong with what you wrote. The only issue – albeit a big issue – is that Christianity is a very, very touchy subject. White Christians are being attacked at an accelerating rate, and understandably they are getting very gun shy and ready to hit back.

        I think our White Nationalist community does need to discuss Christianity, but from a premise of brotherhood and desire to learn rather than from the standpoint of adversity, criticism or ridicule.

        We need to come to grips with the fact that, within our White Family, there will always be some Christians – including some quite courageous ones who will be your and my best friends and a holy terror to our enemies.

        • Kevin MacDonald
          Kevin MacDonald says:

          I wasn’t addressing my comments to you. Anyway, I agree that there will always be Christians on our side, and we should not alienate them. I tried to make the point that Christianity has not been bad for the West until quite recently, and in a real sense it’s not the fault of Christianity, although Christian universalism was easy to subvert.

          • Ned J. Casper
            Ned J. Casper says:

            The apparent self-abnegation theme in the New Testament is the one element of the religion that “survives” in the secularised west, as in the selective woke misreading of e.g. Matthew 25.40, Luke 6.27 & Acts 20.35, lately manifested by the “Church” of “England” condemnation of its “racial sin” following the mob-driven judgement of Sheep Floyd from Goat Chauvin.

          • Emicho
            Emicho says:

            Trust me brother, you made your point perfectly in your piece, you didn’t even need to simplify it, if you weren’t such a gentleman, you’d have told the above to “Go read what I said, fool.” That’s what I’d have said.
            Anyways, if it means anything to you, it probably doesn’t, but when I saw the headline, and what you were writing about, I’d say it was probably the most excited I’ve ever been to read an article. It didn’t disappoint, I kinda had already half guessed you’d take this position.

            You are inspiring us young’uns all over the world, and for a MacDonald, that ain’t easy for me to say.

          • Leon Haller
            Leon Haller says:

            Prof MacDonald,

            Alas, you are completely missing the point, sir. This is obviously not because you’re obtuse or stupid, but rather, aren’t a believer and thus aren’t looking at the intersection of race and religion from what Christians would allege is the correct vantage.

            For us Christians, the primary issue is not whether the Faith is good for the race, but whether it is (metaphysically, ontologically, cosmologically) *true*. With what we hold to be our immortal souls on the line, we who believe in Christ’s divinity and ethical mandates are not going to use the Faith instrumentally, to attempt to shape it to serve secular ends, even ones as important as preserving the white race and securing justice for whites. Faith and its requirements come first.

            The real issue, as I tried to explain (roughly) in a comment above in this thread, is whether Christianity *necessarily* leads to racially inimical conclusions (ie, to the mandating of behaviors on the part of white Christians which are racially harmful to {morally legitimate} white interests, such as racial survival, cultural perpetuity, and non-exploitation). That’s a big topic, but I at least stated my conclusion that it most certainly does not – that all the Faith requires in terms of interracial moral obligation is a) what might be understood in libertarian terms as “non-aggression” between races, and b) Good Samaritanship (providing aid to a suffering nonwhite in your immediate physical vicinity; I used the example of a nonwhite who medically collapses in front of you, for whom a Christian would be expected – by God, the Eternal Judge – to offer help, such as CPR or calling an ambulance). GS does not encompass the entire planet as some sort of boundless field of care on the part of white Christians (and only it ever seems, white Christians). The New Testament nowhere states that Christians have a moral obligation to liberate the planet from tyrannical oppression, or lift up the world’s backward peoples economically (and reason I think would demonstrate the limited nature of people’s moral obligations – that such obligations relate to interpersonal actions, not intertribal ones, except, wrt the latter, ‘negatively’ – “do no harm”). I then offered many instances of what whites do today which I hold (though have not casuistically demonstrated) are in no way morally mandatory.

            The more interesting ethical issues at the intersection of race and Christianity concern the extent to which Christian white preservationists may deploy coercion or violence against nonwhites (or recalcitrant, race-liberal/brainwashed whites) so as to ensure our racial survival and secure our otherwise just racial interests, especially when our threatened condition is the result of past actions which were either evil at the time of their enactment (eg, throwing open our borders to hostile elite-abetted alien colonization), or at least ethically non-mandatory, but whose effects threaten white survival or other legitimate racial interests.

            The other class of such real race & religion issues concerns the extent to which white preservationists ought to embrace vs reject Christianity as an ideology; specifically, whether, even if the Faith were false, it would be racially better to advocate for it, whilst also seeking simultaneously to cleanse it of its racially inimical, moral theological falsehoods. My own opinion wrt the USA is that it is far better for WPs to get on the right side of the Faith than to be seen insulting and contesting it. We should be theologically challenging Christian race-cuckery from *within* the Faith, rather than loudly proclaiming our antagonism to it. Remember: there are a lot more conservative white American Christians than there are American WPs, and Christians will always place Faith over Race. Therefore, the smarter move, even for atheists, is to show the alignment between a correct understanding of the moral requirements of Christian existence wrt race, than to try to get Christians to reject their Faith in favor of their race. For most, that ain’t gonna happen.

      • Tom Sunic
        Tom Sunic says:

        You are good. I see no reason why we can’t critically and scholarly address the issue of the monotheist mindset? Being White doesn’t mean we must all abide, all the time by all evangelical, Levantine ukases. Saul alias Paul, Augustin, Cyprian, Tertullian, and their latter day secular offshoots, Marx, Freud, Trotsky and Co, were of North African- Levantine ancestry. Not of European ancestry.

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          God is no respecter of persons. He doesn’t care about race. Christianity is about spirit. The true Israel is a spiritual kingdom, not the material one desired by the Jews.

          On the other hand, we live in the material world for the time being, and must deal with that world on its own terms. In Genesis, we learn about the Tower of Babel. Man sought to raise himself to the level of God and establish what amounted to a world kingdom — a leveling of all the races and peoples into one people. God came down and caused men to speak different languages so that they could not understand each other. They had no choice but to separate into nations.

          That, I believe, is what God wants: He judges us as individuals, but also as nations. And “nation” doesn’t mean a geographical place, but a distinct people — racially, ethnically, geographically, culturally, and linguistically distinct.

          That is God’s creation, and there is no reason to think that he would want the nations mushed together such that they lost their distinctness and individual identity.

          On the other hand, different peoples have influenced each other for as long as we have had written history. There is nothing wrong with that.

          To say something is or is not European is fine, but I would caution against purity spiraling in the sense of trying to exclude all outside influences. Christianity was adopted by Europeans about 1700 years ago. Like or not, Christianity is European. Europe is where Christianity flourished, and Christianity is the religion of the White man. White missionaries then brought it to the rest of the world.

          European Whites also have a tradition of paganism, much of which was incorporated into Christianity.

          The problem with churches today is that they are, to a large extent, Judaized, or culturally Marxist, or both. That is not the fault of Christianity, it is the fault of the churches.

          False doctrine, heresy — they have always been a problem in the church. Jesus himself had to admonish his disciples when they failed to understand him. To be a Christian is not to sit back and expect to be fed the truth. You have look for it, and fight for it. That has always been the case and will be the case until the end of time.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” God … doesn’t care about race.”

            Then why did the Lord God command the obvious racial
            kind-after-kind reproductions beginning in :

            The Holy Bible OT / KJV / Book of Genesis / chapter 1 / verse 11 __

            …” Let the earth bring forth grass , the herb yielding seed , and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind “…

            and the kind-after-kind theme for plant life is repeated in the next verse 12 ;
            and God commanded the creation of kind-after-kind reproduction of
            animal life in Genesis 1 / verses 21 , 22 , 24 , 25 ;
            and God commanded the creation of kind-after-kind reproduction of
            himself in verses 26 & 27 ;
            and the kind-after-kind reproduction of man is commanded in verse 28 ?

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            Moneytalks:

            I agree that God cares about keeping the “nations” (different peoples) distinct on this earth.

            But he doesn’t care about race in his own kingdom, which is spiritual, not material.

            Jesus: “My kingdom is not of this world.”

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          Marx, Freud and Trotsky attacked religion, including Judaism and Christianity. Aquinas, Boniface, Luther and Stepinac were not north Africans. Monotheism is a philosophical second-best to atheism. I don’t see any reason in 2021 to switch over to Wotan and Loki, Zeus and Athena, or Osiris and Bes, for that matter.

          • Emicho
            Emicho says:

            I don’t know about Freud & Trotsky, my guess is that Trotsky was just a megalomaniac, and Freud simply a perverted freak, but if they did ‘attack’ Judaism, it was just camouflage.
            Marx was totally different though, he was 100% in it, in every single thing he did, for the ghastly, Satanic, civilisation-destroying international Jewish conspiracy we all groan under today.

        • Seraphim
          Seraphim says:

          How many people who boast a ‘European ancestry’ are of ‘real’ European ancestry? Are you?

  5. Crush Limbraw
    Crush Limbraw says:

    Judging by this article and several others I have read and archived recently, I have confirmed my suspicion that the most dominant religion in Western Civilization today is Biblical illiteracy and ignorance – and that applies to both the churched and unchurched.
    What I find curious is that the writings of many of the authors I often cite have very insightful observations – and then stop investigating further as if there was nothing further to discover! Why?
    Everything is faith based – including beliefs in leprechauns and unicorns – but especially in man’s attempt to play God, meaning we assume ourself to be the final authority on reality. If that isn’t the height of delusion, I don’t know what is.
    Augustine described that as worshipping a creature no greater than ourselves – multiplied by billions of creatures – any wonder we’re up ‘sheeeeets crique’?
    Every one of us, before we’re able to even begin the process of comprehending some new idea or information, has to go through our self-imposed filters of ingrained presuppositions, ignorance and binary thinking – all accumulated over a lifetime of absorbing both truths and lies which have yet to be sorted out as to actual facts and realities. Hebrews 5:11-14 accuses members of the church itself of remaining infants and not maturing so they can discern between good and evil. That’s from a book which is accused of being a Jewish hoax.
    Read DaFreakingBook yourself – study it like it means something and has something to say. Is there a theme from Genesis to Revelation?
    If you do and you can’t comprehend the fact from the Bible itself that Ancient Israel was divorced by God in 70 AD – for rejecting His Son Jesus – then maybe you should stop believing in leprechauns and unicorns, as well as worshiping yourself.
    If anyone is actually interested in reading all about this, I recommend Days of Vengeance by David Chilton. Do your own research and decide by intelligent analysis of all available sources, not just from Jewish narratives.
    Jesus Himself said a house divided cannot stand, when He was accused by the Jewish leaders of expelling demons by the power of Satan. That accusation was idiotic on its face – because they themselves were acting as the children of the father of lies – as they were called out by Jesus.
    Anyone familiar with and understanding the Old Testament would know that.
    The New Testament was the recorded writings of the New Covenant, which replaced the Old Covenant in 70 AD.
    But as I said – Biblical ignorance leads to non-Biblical ‘experts’ defining our Bible, our god and every other part of Western Civilization which was literally built by Christianity – and without it is now collapsing in front of our eyes.
    Every empire which challenges God’s sovereignty destroys itself – HISTORY!
    You can read more if you wish at my website. Nuff said!

      • Crush Limbraw
        Crush Limbraw says:

        This should answer your question in general – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2021/04/review-of-david-skirbinas-jesus-hoax.html?m=0 – but as to the specific issue of Biblical illiteracy and ignorance which I assert in my comment, why do agnostics and atheists stop at the threshold of due diligence in research when they step anywhere near Jesus or Christianity? What is that mystical force?
        I’m sure you’ve heard of Vox Day – a former agnostic – when he dug into the real deal himself, the result has been………..shall we say ‘mystical’?
        Personally, I have great respect for you, Thoma Dalton, and many, many others I archive in DaLimbraw Library……but I am curious why the reluctance to truly investigate the Bible itself? I don’t think it’s an accident.

      • the watcher
        the watcher says:

        The medieval renaissance would not have happened without the influence of Christianity. Do you acknowledge that “small” detail Professor McDonald?

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          I’ll answer that for you brother as I doubt our man will. I’m pretty sure KM DOES acknowledge that, going by my reading of his piece.
          I don’t know this for sure,(I’m actually looking for an argument with someone to prove me wrong about this) but I reckon The Renaissance could have been accomplished by an East Asian nation, or even a pagan European one. It only really took us back to the level of the Romans(hence the word), and most of it was based on previous knowledge.
          That’s why I see the scientific revolution as a much greater leap forward, and absolutely impossible without Christianity.
          It dead simple, it’s the unshakable belief in an unchanging moral order(Xianity), that provided the quantum leap into a unshakable belief in a natural order/law = the scientific method.

          • Emicho
            Emicho says:

            Sorry, to amend that last bit for clarity, it took Christianity to achieve the scientific revolution *because Christianity was either true, or as close to the truth as was humanly possible*.
            It’s BECAUSE all the other world religions either aren’t true, or not true enough, that they wouldn’t make this quantum leap in 100,000 years, whereas Christianity accomplished it, after we were brought up to speed by the Renaissance, in a matter of a couple hundred years.
            Not that I’m any great lover of science, on balance, to me it’s been much more of a curse than a gift, and it will probably destroy us all soon. AND medieval peasants were so, so much more happier & contented than the neurotic, dumbed down, depressed, manic peasant class of today’s dystopia.

          • the watcher
            the watcher says:

            I also acknowledge the influence of pagan Rome i.e. sculpture/art on the Renaissance, however there is no doubt that Christianity played a pivotal role in that development! The general point I was making that despite the terrible nature of the “modern” mainstream churches, Christianity has played an important role in our evolution as European peoples and that both Paganism and the Christian faith should be looked at with a more nuanced eye depending on the historical context!

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          The Renaissance was possible because Christianity incorporated Logos (Gospel of John) into its theology.

          It was not a rejection of Greek thought, but an incorporation of Greek thought, which fully manifested itself during the Renaissance.

          I believe the fusion of Christian and ancient Greek ideas accounts for the greatness of Western Civilization.

          It should also be pointed out that the ancient Greeks and Romans were Aryan/Nordic. Just look at their statues.

  6. Tom
    Tom says:

    Interesting article. I’m not a professional scholar, by even the remotest stretch, but I was puzzled as to why Skrbina would be motivated to write a book declaring the foundations of Christianity to be lies. What’s his motivation? The truth, pure and simple? Is it because he’s Jewish, though MacDonald would have likely declared him to be such? Is it because he’s an atheist and wants to wage war on religion? Is it because he finds Christianity to be an impediment to “ecologically-centered philosophy”? Or is it because he’s your typical academic leftist who wants to score easy points by lynching the Left’s favorite scapegoat – Christianity and its historical culture? I suspect it’s the latter. But what always puzzles me about principled atheists is why they always pick Christianity as the dead horse they wish to beat. I mean, we all know that atheists are fearless defenders of rationality and science but how about maybe going after Islam too. That’s a religion too, I think, unless Skrbina finds that religion to be factual. Then again, such an action could get your head chopped off. Or maybe Judaism? Oops, Skrbina would be banned and turned into a non-person for being antisemitic. How about the eastern religions then? Oh yeah, then he’d be racist and equally banned. Conclusion: Skrbina did the right thing in attacking Christianity. He’s now buttressed his street cred across all western campuses.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      I was puzzled as to why Skrbina would be motivated to write a book declaring the foundations of Christianity to be lies. … Is it because he’s Jewish, though MacDonald would have likely declared him to be such?

      With respect, Tom, the question ought to be why a guy who thinks that dirt and rocks and other inanimate objects possess some form of mind and consciousness—that indeed is the principal contention of this “philosopher’s” book “Panpsychism in the West”—is given such a respectful hearing hereabouts by none other than KM himself when he, Skrbina, has done nothing more in “The Jesus Hoax” than build an intellectual house of cards in which every individual component is a base supposition or a worthless presumption.

      Well, it seems reasonable to conclude that the answer to this question may be found in this linked article and perhaps several others like it. In other words, Skrbina has earned himself considerable cred on this side of the street by going after the Holohoax itself. The linked article also makes respectful mention of Thomas Dalton, another hero of the Christophobic wing (or should that be “majority”?) of the pro-White movement. What results in this instance, alas, is virtually a mirror image of that laughably contemptible spectacle beloved of the Establishment media wherein the opinions of movie stars or other celebrities about manmade climate change or the need for ever more covidian totalitarianism are treated as immeasurably more worthwhile than your opinion or mine.

      What can you or I or anyone else who sees this sort of foolishness and, yes, bigotry do? Well, one option is to ape Tom Sunic and those of like mind who giggle and gloat at the prospect of alienating white Christians and declare that turnabout is fair play; that is, sneer right back at them. Another option is to shake the dust of this place from one’s feet, however reluctantly, and go elsewhere—so long, that is, as “elsewhere” remains something other than the null set. A third option is simply to recall the message of John 15:20: those who have no qualms about abusing the master will hardly hesitate to abuse the servants. Those who take this last option will endure the abuse—thus far, after all, it’s nothing more than some unpleasant words on the screen—and hold fast to truth, wherever truth is to be found, confident in the knowledge that the manifold absurdities of atheism must inevitably become apparent to any man or woman of intellectual integrity. Look at it this way: a heck of a lot more was demanded of Paul and Francis Xavier and Isaac Jogues.

      I hope you find these remarks useful, Tom.

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        Yes, atheists always deign not to notice the SELF-ABNEGATIONAL sacrifices Christ inspired in His followers, so different from what other, transactional religions required. Muhammad said go and plunder around you, and if you die, hey, you get 72 virgins in paradise. I’m a man of the European North myself, but Wotan didn’t inspire his followers to make sacrifices FOR NO POSSIBLE WORLDLY BENEFIT! Again, it was make war, and you get plunder, and if you die honorably in battle, you will feast in Valhalla. Even the Buddha merely offered a way to zone out and avoid all responsibilities. From Kmac’s somewhat childish (or at least scientistic) evolutionary perspective, Christ’s message was not at all “adaptive” for his nearest followers! Nor was it personally beneficial. And yet, … something … happened which caused ordinary (as well as some extraordinary) humans to make unimaginable sacrifices to spread His message.

        Contra Kmac, it is very hard to explain the growth of Christianity in standard social psychological terms, whatever its later adaptiveness. The Axial Age produced all sorts of wandering religious lunatics, self-proclaimed messiahs, charlatans, ‘sophists’, etc. But why was the one who promised His followers nothing in this world (except probable persecution and pain), and Who Himself died in the crappiest way imaginable, the one whose teachings most endured?

        {I wrote something near the top of this thread you might find of interest, M. de Craon.}

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          This comment, Mr. Haller, refers to your comment directly above as well as to the one near the top of the stack. I applaud both sincerely.

          The most important observation you make—most important in that it most needs saying in unequivocal terms—is that resort to the notion of evolutionary adaptation to explain the spread of Christianity as a historical phenomenon is absurd. There are many who will refuse even to entertain this insight, but that fact should not surprise anyone. After all, Skrbina himself would have people believe that inanimate objects possess a form of consciousness. His rubbish is of course entirely consistent with the core notion of atheism that in the primal swamp of distant prehistory, bits of non-life somehow combined to create life. Along with the rest of the human race, I await the duplication of this claim in the experimental laboratory.

          Forgive me for repeating myself, but in another thread I complained that invoking evolution in matters where what evolution could reasonably contribute to understanding had become so common hereabouts as to render its invocation trivial. I also declared my repugnance for the mind-set that would “tailor religion to the imagined requirements of any given secular society—rather, that is, than the other way round.” I see this as being “as distastefully synthetic as any Jewish distortion of objective reality one might observe or imagine.”

          Nevertheless, the attempt to declare Christianity hostile to kinship-based communities and, ultimately, nations or states—an attempt rooted in malice or ignorance or both—is probably never going to be entirely suppressed, not least because malice and ignorance give evidence of being ineradicable human defects in the temporal domain. (Anent this and much else, what’s a heaven for?) I noted with even less surprise than pleasure that Tom Sunic would permit Christians to reside in his ideal white society only so long as they made no public display of their cultishness. Like the Jews, he both dislikes and fears any public acknowledgment of man’s awareness of his creatureliness.

          As far as the morally proper uses of coercion are concerned, your own comment by and large implies the correct answers—at least for anyone who is not openly at war with human nature. One can read specific, detailed guidance on the traditional Roman Catholic attitude in either Aquinas or, more recently, the weekly missives issued by Bishop Richard Williamson under the title Eleison Comments. Aquinas, of course, would have condemned the Second Vatican Council as roundly as have Williamson and a great many others. As Leon de Poncins wrote fifty years ago and more, the prime movers behind subversion of both church and state were Jews and Freemasons. (Some things never change.) An orthodox Christian, fortunately, can be certain that the subversion and ruin of the church will never entirely succeed and will indeed be reversed in God’s good time. Thus, “what will become of the state?” is the question with
          livelier interest for all hereabouts, since no answer offered, however hopeful, inspires confidence in each and every auditor.

          Thank you for investing such close thought in your comments on this page. I hope others profit from them as much as I have.

          • Lucius Vanini
            Lucius Vanini says:

            LEON HALLER–
            Self-abnegation is the LAST thing we Europeans need! We need egoism–pride, self-love, willingness to “resist evil” and fight to the finish (hopefully of our enemies), all of which are contravened by that creed of which you seem to think well. A creed, by the way, which also features cancerous notions like “original sin” and “eternal damnation” (INFINITE torture inflicted by a god of INFINITE LOVE–lol–just the sick irrationality which it foisted on Europeans with its “credo quia absurdum est,” suffices to indict it).

            Renaissance and post-Renaissance Europe was able to be great by NOT being actually christian but only nominally so. Hypocrisy–a virtue when sincere adherence is worse–enabled the Global European Hegemony that followed the Renaissance and emerged in the Age of Exploration and Colonialism. Europe became the mighty continent because of people who sang hymns to the Prince of Peace on Sunday but lived by the sword the rest of the week; who served Mammon rather the magic water-strider; who lay treasures upon the Earth rather than in “heaven”; who’d have turned the other cheek only in reaching for a dagger to plunge into their assailant’s heart….

            The Conquistadors were nominally christians. But real ones? I’ve seen nothing in the “Sermon on the Mount” about invading a strange land and conquering it and carrying off its treasures and exploiting its resources and natives.

            When Europeans had too much meddle to be actual christians, they had an assured future; but, as that meddle decayed, the christian slave-morality gradually seeped into their psyches and institutions until now, enfeebled chiefly by it and inherited privilege, the average European and Euro-American are quietly and docilely embracing replacement, apologizing for their existence as they go and actually feeling virtuous, as they’ve been told that it’s not nice to place one’s own interests above those of others.

            Fact is, where the worst part of christian morality is concerned–its altruism and self-abnegation–today’s Whites are far more christian than were the nominal christians centuries ago. Many or most of them nominally non-christian, they are people who’ve inherited the worst of christian morality while having abandoned christian metaphysics and eschatology.

            Fact is, through christianity Europeans associated slave-morality with morality itself for so long that even though they eventually stopped believing in the associated fables and rites they retained much of the anti-self morals characteristic of christianity…. This is expounded extremely well in TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS, specifically in the aphorism known as “George Eliot.”

            You’re a case in point, Haller. In another comment, above, you say that a man’s stooping to pick up something dropped by a pretty woman hasn’t the moral value of his stooping to pick up something for an unattractive woman. LOL!!! Because in the first case something might be in it for HIM–and that’s not virtue! You think of morality in terms of unselfing! Selflessness=morality. Mind you, there are ALL SORTS of moralities–probably as many as there are peoples and cultures, because what man deems right and wrong is perspectivist. Value judgments correspond to people’s natures, to where people are on the path of development or, as the case may be, of decadence; and among the peoples constituting humanity there are great differences. But for you christian morality IS morality PER SE.

          • Leon Haller
            Leon Haller says:

            Thank you for your reply, well-stated as always, and your generous assessment of my comments on this thread. I wonder if you are not an academic? Your writing reminds me of the Dissident Right online writer “Quintilian”, who has identified himself as a retired professor in his early 70s (and I believe him, at least about his academic background). (I haven’t stumbled across anything by him in some time; I hope he did not succumb to Covid, or anything else.) He once indicated that he was a reader of the monthly journal of opinion First Things. You seem like someone who might enjoy that publication, too (yes, it’s weak on the War on Whites, but race is not the only issue, and under the editorship of R.R. Reno, FT has definitely moved in a more race realistic, and nationalist-friendly direction).

            You have implicated the real issue about which too many here simply assert an opinion and declare victory; namely, is Christianity inherently or necessarily hostile to sub-global (tribal) loyalties? The assumption among anti-Christian white preservationists (as well as liberal Christians) seems to be that, because Christ demands His followers’ primary loyalty, therefore all other loyalties are either nullified or illegitimized. But has this claim ever been persuasively philosophically demonstrated (as opposed to asserted without supporting argumentation)? Not to my knowledge.

            The problem with the anti-Christian WPs is that they repeatedly misidentify the Faith itself with its most problematic adherents. They assume that what those adherents allege as the essence of the Faith (wrt race) is correct. Yet they don’t do this with other institutions colonized by liberals. When every university biology dept. declares, eg, race to be a “social construct”, they respond that this illustrates how our universities have been ideologically corrupted. But if a Christian church offers a similar PC claim, eg, that restricting immigration of genetically dissimilar aliens is immoral, they assume that this globalist propaganda is Christian Holy Writ, even though a more obvious conclusion is that the church, like the university, has been infiltrated and corrupted by liberals. As you say, such obtuseness and unreasonable willingness to assume the truth of the most obnoxious allegations about the Faith reeks of bad motives.

            I’m still trying to think through these issues systematically, not only due to their inherent interest, but especially also their relevance today. Capturing and racially debasing Christianity and thereby driving a wedge between white and white Christian patriots has been a major arena of leftist victory. Even if I were an atheist, I would think it the height of folly to allow the enemy suzerainty over our race’s major faith tradition. Surely even atheist WPs can see that Christianity is worth fighting for (in the sense of working to disprove the hypothesis, apparently shared by both liberals and too many prowhite simpletons, that {taking the necessary measures to ensure} the preservation of nations, the West and our race somehow conflicts with the moral commandments of Christ).

            Anyway, I’ve tried to do a bit more thinking about this in another comment above, addressed this time to Kmac himself. It’s perhaps midway in the thread. I would be curious as to your thoughts. Most others on this thread seem very confused in their thinking about race and Christianity, and cannot seem to be able to address (or even recognize) the core issues in the Christian vs white nationalist encounter.

          • Leon Haller
            Leon Haller says:

            M. De Craon,

            What is the matter with the commenting here? I “replied” to you, but it looks as though I’m replying to a “Lucius Vannini”. I’m referring to my comment of May 4 2021 @ 1:42 am.

          • Leon Haller
            Leon Haller says:

            M. De Craon: I just realized that the comment to KMac that I have posted cannot be “replied to”, so I am reposting here to you directly.

            ——————————————————————-
            Leon Hallersays:
            May 3, 2021 at 12:34 pm
            Prof MacDonald,

            Alas, you are completely missing the point, sir. This is obviously not because you’re obtuse or stupid, but rather, aren’t a believer and thus aren’t looking at the intersection of race and religion from what Christians would allege is the correct vantage.

            For us Christians, the primary issue is not whether the Faith is good for the race, but whether it is (metaphysically, ontologically, cosmologically) *true*. With what we hold to be our immortal souls on the line, we who believe in Christ’s divinity and ethical mandates are not going to use the Faith instrumentally, to attempt to shape it to serve secular ends, even ones as important as preserving the white race and securing justice for whites. Faith and its requirements come first.

            The real issue, as I tried to explain (roughly) in a comment above in this thread, is whether Christianity *necessarily* leads to racially inimical conclusions (ie, to the mandating of behaviors on the part of white Christians which are racially harmful to {morally legitimate} white interests, such as racial survival, cultural perpetuity, and non-exploitation). That’s a big topic, but I at least stated my conclusion that it most certainly does not – that all the Faith requires in terms of interracial moral obligation is a) what might be understood in libertarian terms as “non-aggression” between races, and b) Good Samaritanship (providing aid to a suffering nonwhite in your immediate physical vicinity; I used the example of a nonwhite who medically collapses in front of you, for whom a Christian would be expected – by God, the Eternal Judge – to offer help, such as CPR or calling an ambulance). GS does not encompass the entire planet as some sort of boundless field of care on the part of white Christians (and only it ever seems, white Christians). The New Testament nowhere states that Christians have a moral obligation to liberate the planet from tyrannical oppression, or lift up the world’s backward peoples economically (and reason I think would demonstrate the limited nature of people’s moral obligations – that such obligations relate to interpersonal actions, not intertribal ones, except, wrt the latter, ‘negatively’ – “do no harm”). I then offered many instances of what whites do today which I hold (though have not casuistically demonstrated) are in no way morally mandatory.

            The more interesting ethical issues at the intersection of race and Christianity concern the extent to which Christian white preservationists may deploy coercion or violence against nonwhites (or recalcitrant, race-liberal/brainwashed whites) so as to ensure our racial survival and secure our otherwise just racial interests, especially when our threatened condition is the result of past actions which were either evil at the time of their enactment (eg, throwing open our borders to hostile elite-abetted alien colonization), or at least ethically non-mandatory, but whose effects threaten white survival or other legitimate racial interests.

            The other class of such real race & religion issues concerns the extent to which white preservationists ought to embrace vs reject Christianity as an ideology; specifically, whether, even if the Faith were false, it would be racially better to advocate for it, whilst also seeking simultaneously to cleanse it of its racially inimical, moral theological falsehoods. My own opinion wrt the USA is that it is far better for WPs to get on the right side of the Faith than to be seen insulting and contesting it. We should be theologically challenging Christian race-cuckery from *within* the Faith, rather than loudly proclaiming our antagonism to it. Remember: there are a lot more conservative white American Christians than there are American WPs, and Christians will always place Faith over Race. Therefore, the smarter move, even for atheists, is to show the alignment between a correct understanding of the moral requirements of Christian existence wrt race, than to try to get Christians to reject their Faith in favor of their race. For most, that ain’t gonna happen.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            The entire comment to which you requested a reply, Mr. Haller, embodies a perspective that I share in every important respect. The most forthright, hence perhaps most provocative, paragraph is doubtless this:

            The more interesting ethical issues at the intersection of race and Christianity concern the extent to which Christian white preservationists may deploy coercion or violence against nonwhites (or recalcitrant, race-liberal/brainwashed whites) so as to ensure our racial survival and secure our otherwise just racial interests, especially when our threatened condition is the result of past actions which were either evil at the time of their enactment (eg, throwing open our borders to hostile elite-abetted alien colonization), or at least ethically non-mandatory, but whose effects threaten white survival or other legitimate racial interests.

            I commend you for here honestly facing facts. As an open state of war now exists between those who actually run the USA and a clear majority of its white population (Christians first and foremost), the liceity of coercion employed in defense must, I think, be taken for granted. Of course, it’s in the specifics that questions, concerns, and doubts will necessarily arise. In the context of two thousand years’ worth of Christian doctrine and of the lessons learned from past actions and actors whether good, bad, or indifferent, those specifics will be addressed when the time comes. That is the full extent of an a priori schema I am willing to endorse.

            Among this site’s commenters there has never been a shortage of chest- and table-pounders, but time alone will tell whether their actions will ever speak as loudly as their words. For the rest of us, it is appropriate to exhibit apprehensiveness that resistance to (((our oppressors))) will have to come to blood before anything that was recognizable to our white Christian forebears as genuine freedom can be restored to the USA and the West. But surely we have reached the point where it would be inexcusably shortsighted to believe that freedom will be restored in any other way.

  7. RemRep
    RemRep says:

    Really interesting stuff. I’ll have to check out a few of these books. I love my people and do see some disagreements between tribalism and Christianity. It’s hard to square that circle. God gave us our ethnicity so it shouldn’t be denigrated or harmed but rather, it should be protected and cherished.

  8. Giles Corey
    Giles Corey says:

    Proud to report that, after eight months, Amazon has finally banned my book, The Sword of Christ. I am surprised that it lasted as long as it did. I will look into another way to publish it in the near future. Thank you to all who took the time to read it.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      Sorry to hear this. But Amazon doesn’t publish your book (or am I really behind the times?). Can’t you sell it somewhere else (sadly, it won’t have the same reach …)? How is it they still sell KMac’s books?

  9. Eric
    Eric says:

    There’s a lot to respond to here. As a “professional philosopher” (an absurd concept), Skrbina appears to have paid little attention to Descartes, Hume and Kant — not to mention Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. Philosophy concerns (or should concern) matters that cannot be dealt with on a purely rational or empirical basis — things such as values and ground-level concepts that will probably never be completely understood but are nevertheless relevant to our lives and influence our lives.

    A philosopher recognizes (or should recognize) limitation. As a part of the world, we humans look at things from a perspective, not comprehensively. Our viewpoints — both individual and collective — are necessarily subjective and limited. Even science depends on our cognitive faculties, which themselves are limited.

    We can extend those faculties with scientific apparatus, but the apparatus still has to be suited to our faculties which, again, are limited.

    We do not and cannot see things objectively. This means that science can answer a range of questions, but that range is very limited.

    Reality itself is a mystery to us, as Kant well understood. No one, to my knowledge, has refuted him. Unable to refute him, modern “philosophers” have rejected speculation altogether. They’ve ceded that to religion by default. It is their privilege to do so. But it is not right for them to ridicule those who do speculate, those who do ask and try to answer ground-level questions that cannot be answered empirically.

    These academic philosophers, I’m sorry to say, strike me as a worthless bunch. They neither impart wisdom nor respect it.

    Philosophy has always been a open conversation in which all humans can and should participate. To call oneself a “professional philosopher” is just one of many indications that we have devolved (gone backwards) as a culture. Scientism and materialism are false gods. Certainly, anyone who calls himself a philosopher should know this. Our scientistic and materialistic age is as superstitious as any other.

    As for Christianity, it is not just a belief system, it is a coherent and comprehensive philosophy of being.

    To question its historicity is like questioning the historicity of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which Jews have cried is a forgery. Maybe so, but its predictions seem to have come true!

    If I remember my “Columbia History of the World” correctly, historians around 1950 believed Jesus existed but that we didn’t know much about him. Well, people didn’t have cell phone cameras then. There were no reporters, no TV. It’s interesting to me that people accept ancient Rome and Greece as being historically true, but not Jesus.

    What is the evidence for ancient Rome and Greece? Monuments that still exist. The writings of those times that have been preserved. Well, Jesus was not a physical monument. All we have to go on is the Scriptures and whatever people at the time said about him. I myself do not have a problem believing he existed.

    The idea that Christianity came about as a Jewish hoax in order to weaken the Romans is utterly preposterous. Equally preposterous is another theory I’ve encountered — that Christianity was a Roman hoax to weaken the Jews!

    Hey, wouldn’t be simpler to take things at face value rather than come up with such theories? As KM points out, Jews were unlikely to create a hoax that caused people to be not just practically, but theologically, anti-Jewish.

    My advice to people who want to attack Christianity is: Try educating yourself first. Read the Bible and listen to a good preacher. They’re difficult to find, but I’m happy to make recommendations to anyone who is interested.

    Once you educate yourself, you will understand that Christianity is not Jewish. It’s anti-Jewish, just as Jews are anti-Christian.

    And Christianity is not just anti-Jewish in the New Testament. It is anti-Jewish throughout the Old Testament. God’s unconditional and irrevocable blessing is to Abraham, not the Jews (who don’t exist yet).

    Jesus is not a Jew. He is God in human flesh. He exists before time begins — before there are any Jews — and will always exist.

    The Old Testament is filled with prophets proclaiming the failings of the Israelites and admonishing them to repent. They never do, and the Jews still haven’t.

    I recommend that people avoid the Catholic Church. It is unbiblical. It got away with this because people were illiterate and no bibles were available until relatively late. That gave the Church plenty of time to distort scripture and come up with things like Maryology — the false idolization of Mary and the claim that you need Mary as your go-between to Jesus. Evangelical churches are equally bad, worshiping Jews instead of Jesus.

    Many modern bibles and bible commentaries are bad. Stick to the King James version (Cambridge University Press) and read the older commentaries (Robert Barnes, Charles Spurgeon, Adam Clark, John Gill and Matthew Henry). As for preachers, you want a Jew-wise Protestant.

    One last point. It is difficult enough to unite White people on anything. But you’re guaranteed NOT to unite White people if you diss Christianity. It’s a bad habit, and we need to break it.

    • James J O'Meara
      James J O'Meara says:

      “I recommend that people avoid the Catholic Church. …Evangelical churches are equally bad, worshiping Jews instead of Jesus…. One last point. It is difficult enough to unite White people on anything. But you’re guaranteed NOT to unite White people if you diss Christianity. It’s a bad habit, and we need to break it.”

      But “dissing” the Catholic Church and the Reformed Church is OK? I think that would leave you with the 40 or so people at the late Bro. Stair’s compound in North Carolina.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Yes, criticizing Roman Catholicism and Christian Zionism is okay.

        What is not okay is saying Christianity is Jewish, Jesus was a Jew, Christianity is anti-White, Christianity itself (as opposed to apostate churches) wants to flood White countries with non-White immigrants, Christianity is alien to Nordic peoples, and the like.

        What is not okay is an overall disrespectful attitude towards Christianity that goes beyond intramural theological disagreements between Protestants and Catholics.

        It’s one thing to be anti-Christian, quite another to criticize doctrinal error. Catholics, I’m sure, would have no problem telling you to prefer Catholicism over Protestantism. That would not make them anti-Christian, it would only make them anti-Protestant.

        The great majority of White Americans consider themselves Christian. If you give a White homeless American a couple of dollars, you will like get a “God bless you” in return. Again, if you want White solidarity, don’t diss Christianity.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      Kant? Too easy. My landlord, who graduated also from CSCLB, held his fingers around each eye and said “there are these filters that block seeing true reality.” I had to explain that these Plato ideas came from Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. SEE what he is doing? Claiming knowledge about true reality, which is supposed to be unknowable. Assuming that filter knowledge is true, that implies that a source of unfiltered information is available after all! Kant’s argument is self-refuting, one gigantic circular argument!

      Those who assert that no knowledge is possible- aren’t they claiming knowledge?

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Do you really think Kant would be so stupid as to make a circular argument?

        “Those who assert that no knowledge is possible — aren’t they claiming knowledge?” No, they are not. They are stating an opinion.

        Furthermore, Kant did not say that no knowledge is possible. He agreed with Hume that analytic claims could be known to be true with certainty, while empirical claims could not..

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Eric: James O’Meara caught you out on your, shall we say, marked absence of charity toward Catholics and Evangelicals—evidently your envisioned society would have even fewer fully paid up members than Tom Sunic’s!—and TJ nailed you on your remarkable confusion about Kant. As it happens, I have a gripe, too.

      … Maryology—the false idolization of Mary and the claim that you need Mary as your go-between to Jesus.

      First of all, the word is spelled “Mariology,” and it refers to the study of the Blessed Mother’s place in salvation history and in Christian doctrine and devotion. It is, unsurprisingly, a subset of Christian theology that has roughly as many Protestant practitioners as Catholic!

      The term of derision you were looking for is Mariolatry, a Protestant slander originating with Calvin that falsely accuses Catholics of idolatry. An interesting incidental comment on the widespread confusion attendant upon the two terms comes in the form of one of the example sentences for the word “Mariolatry” found in the online OED. It follows:

      ‘Mary, Mother of God’ is a cautious probing by mainly Protestant thinkers who are keenly aware that most Protestants are inclined to assume that Mariology is synonymous with Mariolatry.

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        @ “Pierre de Craon” (pseud)
        Before Vatican 2 RC theologians were working on a Marian hyperdulia trajectory – Mother of God, Immaculate Conception (Virgin Birth parallel), Assumption (Resurrection parallel), Co-Redemptrix (Redeemer parallel), Mediatrix of All Graces (One Mediator parallel), Queen of Heaven…all imaginary, of course. In recent years, the “protestantization” of the Liturgy has been succeeded by the “secularization” of the Faith. Si monumentum requiris, circumspice.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Since Wikipedia has failed you on my screen name, Ned, your eagerness to display what you have managed to scour from it knows no bounds.

          If you understood even a quarter of what you’d have me think you do, you might be worth chatting with. As it is, however, the pseud label seems to have found a truer home on your own lapel.

          • Ned J. Casper
            Ned J. Casper says:

            @ P. de C. As usual and not only in my case, M. Pierre, you respond with personal abuse instead of rational argument.

        • Gerry
          Gerry says:

          What is it about the RC’s and the Orthodox that they place so much emphasis upon Mary? I have asked this question for some 40 years now and why is because of my father who always looked to Mary rather than to Jesus for his bad life. He was Catholic from Sunic’s homeland of Croatia. It all finally came to a head one day for me when I attending with some Greek friends there church and afterwards back at the restaurant my friend Anna asked me how and what i thought of the service. Well, I wasn’t used to a liturgical format and it was all in Greek to me. I did however, make out the part about Mary and said to her I don’t understand and never have all this prayer and devotion to Mary? Anna replied well she is the holy theotokos. Yes, of course I replied but tell me I said to her do you really believe that God the Father would allow Mary to hear the cries and prayers of not only us today but the ten’s of millions throughout the entire world? Further, if I were in need for say a car to help my children and such and prayed to her for help would Mary even know what I’m talking about? She was born and raised during the Roman Empire. Do you honestly believe that she has been given the knowledge of all of history that she even knows what a car is? That she has seen and knows everything about the industrial revolution and such? Do you honestly believe God would lay such upon her? And I have just more and more questions and by the time i was finished Anna was never the same. Even in the gospels there is not one single word, phrase, or sentence declaring her to be a coequal in redemption nowhere!!! I can’t imagine meeting Mary in Heaven and thanking her for answered prayer or more likely why didn’t you answer my prayers and she with a look of disbelief replying I’m sorry but do I know you? Where do you come from? etc etc etc? Jesus is the one who suffered and died that is the all-important issue. As for a go-between?

          Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Having a different theological opinion is not lack of charity. And truth is not a democracy. It is not determined by how many people it attracts.

        TJ did not nail me on my “remarkable confusion about Kant”, but maybe you’d like to try.

        Which Protestant denominations practice Mariolatry? I’d like to know so I can avoid them.

        Jesus said that the way to the Father is through him, not anyone else. He never said that you could only get to him (Jesus) through Mary or in any other sense said that Mary was to be some kind of mediator for the faithful. If I’m wrong, cite the relevant scripture.

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      @Eric
      To what extent have the Protocols “come true”? You will see just from the two pamphlets on this from Kerry Bolton that the content refers to the situation unfolding at the end of the 19th century. If it were an authentic report of lectures to Jewish leaders, we should know by now who were the author(s) and attendees, their actual date and location, and why there is an absence of Hebrew or Yiddish allusion (as opposed to a Latin RC quote); what to make of allusions to the Metro & Leon Bourgeois, and wholesale if lumpy plagiarism from Joly, and absence of reference to Zionist territorial plans. The document was basically an invention of opponents to the well-established Jewish-Freemason alliance in French and to some extent Russian radical politics; also the current gold crisis. (It is still sometimes attributed to one Matvei Golovinski, who ended up as an employee of the Bolshevik health-service.) For other views, see Cesare G. De Michelis, “The Non-Existent Manuscript” (2004) and Eva Horn & Michael Hagemeister, “Die Fiktion von der juedischen Weltverschwoerung (2012).

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        My point is that it doesn’t matter who wrote them or how they came about. Their predictions were coming true at the time Henry Ford commented on them, and I would say the desired Jewish world kingdom, while not completed, is close to being completed.

        Will it happen? Doubtful, but there have been a lot of successes. The Protocols called for the removal of Church and Throne. That project was completed when Tsar Nicholas II and his family were murdered, the Kaiser abdicated at the end of WW I, and Vatican II took place in the 1960s.

        The last half of the nineteenth century saw numerous assassinations of royals by “anarchists” throughout Europe. The Protocols don’t just talk about what is going to be accomplished, but what already has been accomplished: Regicide and deicide. King Charles, Louis XVI, etc.

        Culture was also on the mind of the writer(s) of the Protocols. They wanted art to become ugly and grotesque. I would say they’ve largely succeeded.

        The goal of the Protocols is world despotism. If it weren’t for Russia, China, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Cuba, the world would already be globalized. The Jews with their money power would control everything, just as they do now in the Anglophone countries and in Western Europe.

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          The Protocols do contain material drawn from Jewish sources but presented in a parodic/satirical form. Nesta Webster’s “World Revolution” exactly 100 years ago described (ch. 2) the “Illuminati” plan to abolish monarchies, traditional families, national patriotisms, spiritual religions, and private property; all highly prophetic. She did not however believe that the Protocols themselves were the actual records of a “secret” steering group of top Jewish leaders; a view confirmed personally by her late Secretary Tony Gittens. (Hitler and Goebbels were arguing over the “authenticity” as late as 1943.)
          My own tentative view is that the Christian writers responsible had in their sights the Alliance Israelite Universelle or certain of its leaders. There was an international Masonic conference about the same time as Herzl’s First Zionist Congress in 1897 which led to the authorship being – most improbably – ascribed to him, or to Asher Ginsberg. The Protocols do not advocate a territorial “solution” to “antisemitism”.
          What Ford’s “International Jew” did indicate was that some Jews were involved in various undesirable activities in the USA; indeed, one can quote more recent Jewish authors themselves in support (e.g. Albert S. Lindemann, Robert A. Rockaway, Robert J. Stoller &c).
          Jewish attraction to communism from (say) 1850 to 1950 was quite explicable, but the notion of a specifically self-conscious Jewish racial direction of the whole movement is another matter.
          It is easy for Americans faced with the influence of Jews in politics and culture, and of Zionist organizations, to find the “Protocols” relevant, but this retrospective judgement ignores the interim experience of Nazism and subsequent creation of Israel.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            Please elaborate on these statements:

            “The protocols do not advocate a territorial ‘solution’ to ‘antisemitism.'”

            “Jewish attraction to communism from (say) 1850 to 1950 was quite explicable, but the notion of a specifically self-conscious Jewish racial direction of the whole movement is another matter.”

            “It is easy for Americans faced with the influence of Jews in politics and culture, and of Zionist organizations, to find the ‘Protocols’ relevant, but this retrospective judgement ignores the interim experience of Nazism and subsequent creation of Israel.”

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      I generally eschew intrawhite as well as intraChristian battles, preferring to focus my fire at “auslander”s. But that said, you sound like a true Reformoron. Christianity may be false (though I don’t think so), but what is undeniable is that Catholicism has a far stronger intellectual tradition than any Deformation sect, whose adherents can only quote (the Bible), but never think.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Name-calling (“reformoron”) plus an unsupported claim about a “far stronger intellectual tradition”.

        You need to do better than that.

  10. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    Thank you Dr. McDonald for this work. Interesting to say the least.

    Wow, Jesus a hoax? lol That’s really quite something and typical, O just so typical of the Universities and her professors.

    As for the Jews how I wish or perhaps don’t people ever bother to mention or that they should mention is that one cannot talk about deicide without mentioning that it was impossible for anyone to kill Christ. Impossible! But no we never ever hear that do we? No!? We just want to continually bash the Jews that they killed Christ over and over again! I really wish this would stop and tell the other side of the story which is what? Jesus was a person of authority, Divine Authority, which means no one including the Jews had any power whatsoever to kill him none. This Jesus made abundantly clear but apparently no one was listening including any body in or outside any university today? or churches?

    Note the words:

    “For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” John10:17-18

    This was or became especially clear when in the Garden of Gethsemane after Peter lopped off the ear of the servant of the high priest what occurred. Well, first a creative miracle whereby Jesus glued the mans ear back on. He then said something of huge importance:

    “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?”

    Using the 12 legions of Rome as an illustration Jesus made it abundantly clear that the history of the planet right then and there stood in the balance. If Jesus so desired he could have ended the Roman Empire right then and there and given the Jews all that they desired and more a political ruler like unto Moses! Further to this is what he said about the peace of Jerusalem and how she would never see it for rejecting him! Hasn’t that been fullfilled in its entirety 2000 years now?

    If the Jews hate Christ and Christianity it is for this reason above all. The Jews are expecting a Savior/Messiah who will be a political ruler not a religious one and O how that finally came to an end on May 20, 363 AD. You mention group conflict well no kidding because try and imagine the amount of effort and money that went into trying to rebuild their temple a mere 200? years after the destruction of the second one only to have it destroyed by an earthquake?

    “The stones were piled high and ready. Costly wood had been purchased. The necessary metal was at hand. The Jews of Jerusalem were rejoicing. Tomorrow—May 20, 363 A.D.—the rebuilding of the Temple would begin! Suddenly, and without warning, at the third hour of the night… the streets of Jerusalem trembled and buckled, crushing two hundred years of hope in a pile of dust. No longer would there be any possibility of rebuilding the Temple.”

    An earthquake that occurred on the very day of its corner stone being laid? The Christians of that time knew this to be a direct act of God period and told the Jews so! Talk about group conflict wow! And the hatred.

    After that event however it was over politically for the Jews and they have been fighting and are continuing to fight for its return ever since.

    As for Rome succumbing to the lies of Christianity come on? Martyrdom yes Dr. McDonald yes indeed. They knew the secret Jesus was alive and because he lives we shall live also. I don’t get this statement however:

    The first Romans to comment on Christianity were Tacitus and Pliny (~115), both of whom disliked Christianity. As Skrbina notes, “the Romans were generally tolerant of other religions, and thus we must conclude that there was something uniquely problematic about this group” (60).

    Uniquely problematic? What doesn’t he know and understand the issue of a lack of knowledge? Were Christians not sent to their death in the arena because of talk among Romans of a new religion that eats the flesh and drinks the blood of their resurrected from the dead God? I must be crazy just for writing that but can you imagine the horror of something like that being dessiminanted among the Romans? And I bet this was fueled by the very Jews who wanted to get rid of Christianity among them. To any Roman to hear this would be utterly horrific news. And so Christianity won Rome with its very own blood. I even heard in Church one morning how the gladiator blood sport came to an end. It was because of a lone monk who walking past the Roman amphitheater became disgusted that after so many years the crowds were still screaming at the blood sport going on and he took it upon himself to do something. He entered the arena screaming forbear in the name of Christ. To stop the madness when all of a sudden he was struck down in front of the crowds. A hush fell over the place and then the seats emptied out and so end? It reminded them all of the horrors of the innocents being martyred. Your article Dr. McDonald should go more into the gory details of what truly happened and why and who may have been the true instigators of it all. But why is it we always hear about the Crusades and the Christians did that or this etc etc? All liars really?

    Beyond this I could go on and on to rebut a great many things suffice it to say Christianity the truth of it all is based upon very solid evidence. Indeed read my book Climate Change the Work of God so that you don’t end up being lied to by today’s liars that climate change is about industrial pollution! What nonsense! Good grief will we never get past:

    “My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge.” Hosea 4

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      The fact that the Jews didn’t have the power to kill God doesn’t mean they didn’t want to kill him. They still reject him. That, ultimately, is the source of their problems and our problems with them.

      They were confronted with truth, beauty and goodness incarnate and they rejected them. They chose “their father, the devil” (John 8:44) instead.

      As you say, they preferred a tribal political messiah. Someone who would help them conquer and rule over the rest of mankind, who they regarded as less than human. Their goal has not changed.

  11. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    O, and just stop and think real hard about this writers title of book “How St. Pauls Cabal Fooled the World for 2000 years lol? Really? That’s a good one? For 2000 years eh?

    And do I really believe Jesus could have ended the Roman Empire with a mere five word sentence? Well, He caused that earthquake that leveled the city of Jerusalem in 363 AD. If He could do that as well as all the other metaphysical phenomena what do you think he could do with a city like Rome?

    Further that being ‘UFO in modern day vernacular’ who rolled away the stone imagine 12 legions of them?

    2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men. Matt 28:2

    Don’t you think you should be grateful this didn’t occur before the crucifixion or in place of the crucifixion rather because we wouldn’t be here reading this now? Get it?

    Do they exist though well that takes believing doesn’t it which we are called to do because guess what God isn’t going to explain to you what he’s made of and He is certainly not going to allow his angels UFO’s lol to be captured and interrogated by the CIA, FSB or any other human crackpot political, military, or scientific.

    O, but we’ve been fooled for 2000 years eh? Yeah good luck with that one? Maybe study Crop Circles and what is written in Matt. 24?

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      It takes some credulity to accept as literal fact that story about an angel alighting on the tombstone but even more to accept the story in the same gospel about dead people other than Jesus coming out of their graves and being seen in Jerusalem.

      • Gerry
        Gerry says:

        Dear Ned J. Caspar

        Literal fact. I can speak of what I am saying not from an academic historical point of view but as someone who has experienced the very REALITY OF IT MYSELF. It is quite the astonishing testimony one in which is too long to go into here really. If you wish you can read about it though and much more in my book Climate Change the Work of God by Gerry Fox. A book which proves the existence of God by way of the words of Carl Sagan:

        Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

        In that book one will find all the evidence one could possibly need and I’m no academic and neither to i have any credentials of any kind from any school. My schooling came from the pursuing God and being rewarded by Him accordingly for it!

        You shall seek me, and shall find me: when you shall seek me with all your heart. Jer. 29:13

        That unfortunately is the way it works with God. You will never come to a belief in Him by way of academics and such. God is not into answering man’s questions. He doesn’t sit in the docket to be judged and condemned by what was created? The book of Job is proof enough of that.

        “But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him. Heb. 11:6

        So I challenge you if you truly want the truth my book and the 2 others I wrote will be the end to your questioning and disbelief.

        Lastly, faith isn’t blind!!! and O you may want to read what is found here:

        https://thesaker.is/exit-terra-did-you-know-we-have-been-contacted-by-aliens/#comment-930932

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          @ Gerry
          I shall try to look out your book, but you are one of those who seem to have been luckily “blessed” by personal experiences denied to the vast majority of human beings past and present. No doubt these mental rewards for searching with the heart are as valid as those of the founder of the Black Muslims seeing Allah in the street, or St Bernadette seeing Mary at Lourdes, or George Adamski meeting a UFO traveller who resembled Venusians in the comic “Dan Dare” strip-cartoon across the Atlantic.

  12. Gerald Christianson
    Gerald Christianson says:

    The NT is not a hoax.
    The Scofield Bible is a hoax.
    I believe that Christ is real, but….in any case, the Christian religion is a very positive thing and has been
    a great boon for the European people until recently…..as the jews subverted and wrecked the religion.
    Of course the jews subvert and wreck everything.
    Edinger and Jung wrote about the greatness of Christ, that Christ is the model of the whole, complete, perfected man.
    The Jews rejected Christ because they prefer to remain an entirely selfish group concerned only for the welfare
    of their ingroup and to hell with the rest of humanity.

  13. HISP
    HISP says:

    The evolutionary psychologist and primatologist Clara B. Jones , along with the economists Michele Piccione and Ariel Rubinstein, have established a scientific basis for understanding culture within coercive human relations.

    The paper, Culture–gene co-evolution, norm-psychology, Maciej Chudek1and Joseph Henrich elaborates on how coercive arrangements, including group conflict, enters into rapid cultural change.

    Jones has examined culture, behavioral phenotype, as especially ‘plastic’ in primates, and demonstrated how powerful primate sub groups may manipulate behavior in weaker groups to yield exploitative, differential resource and reproductive benefits to the powerful group. Under a rigorous definition, she defines Intraspecific Social Parasitism in primates, including of course, human primates. A major component of Intraspecific Social Parasitism (Human) , (HISP), often includes ‘Involuntary Altruism’, instigated by Phenotypic Manipulation.

    These three strands of research then lend further scientific support to Dr. MacDonald’s historic analysis. of western cultural decline as manipulation under HISP. , especially in the realm of values-religiosity as an evolved solution to human social problems.

    Moreover contemporary re-emergence of ethno -nationalism may be evaluated as Host defense against a foreign, hostile, global parasite:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5mjXwifEr0

  14. Right_On
    Right_On says:

    A bit off-topic, but which Christianity are we talking about? The celebrated mystic Angela of Foligno (1248 – 1309) came to regret her marriage after she felt the call to a religious life. She later opined :
    “In that time and by God’s will there died my mother, who was a great hindrance unto me in following the way of God; my husband died likewise, and in a short time there also died all my children. And because I had commenced to follow the aforesaid way and had prayed God that He would rid me of them, I had great consolation of their deaths, albeit I did also feel some grief.”
    A modern believer would be left slack-jawed in astonishment that someone who called herself a Christian could express such views, but Angela would have had little interest in the insipid, maudlin pronouncements of modern Churches.

  15. TWR
    TWR says:

    I have been in medicine for fifty years. My life is almost over thanks to those pesky eternal cell lines. With Jesus or without him, with religion or without it and with evolution or without it I remain humbled by the complexity and beauty of creation. The million fold molecular actions required for the formation of a simple protein molecule, that heal the wounds I create, allow me to write, bless me with the gift of sight and ponder the ideas and thoughts that permeate this article and its responses, to this day fills me with awe.

  16. anonym
    anonym says:

    For me, Christianity is the ultimate testament to the magnitude of Jewish conmanship.

    Jesus, “the King of the Jews”, was conceived by God, born by a virgin, walked on water, raised the dead, went down to hell for three days when he died, came back up to earth to be “resurrected”, ascended to Heaven, and will one day come back to establish King David´s divine paradise on earth.

    Why would ANYONE ever think that this is a historical person? Well, as Nietzsche said: “The first thing to be remembered, if we do not wish to lose the scent here, is that we are among Jews”. Only the Jews could sell this garbage and make people buy it.

    Christianity, it seems to me, is just one of the many instances when the Jews tried to improve themselves. Paulus and his Jewish friends created a New Testament in opposition to traditional Judaism, where he tried to mimic greek mystic philosophy, and give it a Jewish flavor. Jesus is simply just a Jewish version of Dionysos, but without the spiritual essence, hence, the “miracle of Jesus” – that he was a historical person, in the flesh, as oppose to Dionysos who was a mystical mythological figure.

    What´s worth saving from Christianity comes from Plato, whom they plagiarized. So, read Plato instead, who´s books are actually readable, as oppose to the Bible.

    Karl Marx seems like a Paulus of the 1800s, who also despised his fellow Jews. From “On the Jewish Question”:

    “Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew – not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities…. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange…. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of the merchant, of the man of money in general.[…] The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews. […] In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

    Karl Marx created communism for the Jews, to save them from themselves, but, like Paulus, couldn´t help but spread the Jewish problem, and it´s communist “solution”, to the europeans.

    Same can be said about Freud, who´s ideas is completely bizarre for a european, until you realize that all his patients was Jews and that his whole reasoning is based on Jewish life experience.

    Same for the theories of Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick and Milton Friedman, who´s “free trade” gospel was portraying Jewish international userers and merchants as heroic savior figures who was going to bring us all wealth and world peace.

    It´s all about salesmanship. Who wants to buy normal, sensible, usable things, when you can buy magical, divine, life saving, everlasting, supernatural things?

    • Odin's left eye
      Odin's left eye says:

      Anonym thank you for helping to expose the truth about the evil Christianity cult. As our ancestors knew before Christians murdered them and destroyed our organic religion, there’s a better way.

    • the watcher
      the watcher says:

      The pre-Christian pagans believed in human sacrifice: for example the bog bodies of northern Europe, at least the Christians put a stop to that! Also, who led the charge against the activity of Usury, not the pagans that’s for sure!

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Your critique appears to reject the miraculous and supernatural because it is based on a materialist view of the world.

      Marx and Freud would agree with you, being materialists themselves. I think the same could be said of Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick and Milton Friedman.

      What evidence do you have that Christians plagiarized Plato?

      I would not rely on the Jew Marx to explain Jews to the goyim.

      “What is the secular basis of Judaism?” Marx asks. The answer to that question is “tribalism”.

      But instead of “tribalism”, Marx says, “practical need”, “self-interest”, “huckstering”, “money”.

      By doing this, Marx conceals the problematic nature of the Jews.

      They are a problem because of their tribalism, their in-group preference, their contempt for non-Jews. This makes them Trojan Horses in their host nations.

      • anonym
        anonym says:

        I don´t believe in the Jewish UFO or it´s holy “son”, but I do believe in Gods presence in nature and in us all.

        The best book that I have read about Christianity is “The Jesus Mysteries” by Freke and Gandy. Despite it´s slightly tendentious title it´s a book that puts the New Testament in its jewish/greek/roman context, which makes it abundantly clear that Christianity is a patchwork of plagiarisms from greek/roman mysticism. It started with Philo, and continued with Paulus, the gnostic preachers (Valentinus, Marcion, Basilides etc.). Like the early critic Celsus ascertained, is practically every word of wisdom that comes out of Yeshuas mouth plagiarized from Socrates.

        It started as gnosticism (which also seems to be the source of Kabbalah), morphed into literalist Christianity as it spread among Rome´s poor, and became more and more germanized in the medieval era (which is why some of Christianity actually makes some sense).

        The most problematic aspect of Christianity, for me, is that it meant a Jewish hijacking of the european spiritual and philosophic tradition. The story about Jesus, especially the “Passion”, is really just a pathetic, autistic pantomime of the mystic initiation of the Hero – the essence of the Aryan mystic tradition. The tradition of the dying/resurrected son of God – i.e. Osiris, Horus, Marduk, Oden, John Barlycorn, Dionysos etc. – who´s myths formed the initiation ceremony of the kings, pharaos, priests, and the entire intelligentia of the babylonian, persian, egyptian, greek roman aryan culture.

        Instead of an initiation where you actually experience something life changing, which informed the magnificent science and the art of these cultures, we got the magic Jew Yeshua, his bad, meaningless pantomime, the perverse awful Catholic church, the equally awful protestants, their bizarre squabbles over a fictitious Jewish fairy tale, which led to countless insane wars, witch burnings, and essentially, a european millennia down the toilet.

        I have nothing against good Christians who put on their Sunday best and go to church and sing for an hour, and form a meaningful european sense of home, but I can´t stand when they lean on Jewish insane superstitions and paranoid fears when taking political and cultural decisions. Monogamy, the nuclear family, and romantic love is European, not Christian. There´s not a single sound relationship in the entire Bible, only whoring, harems, misogyny and complete f***ing insanity (“stone them by the gate”, “burn them in fire”).

        I also don´t think we need a pagan alternative (Odinism, Wicca etc.) The true religion of Europe is art, science and philosophy. Finding harmony, beauty and order in nature, is what Pythagoras, Plato et al, meant when they talked about seeing God “face to face” (in combination with the mystic initation).

        What we have to regain is the sense of the mysterious – the sense of wonder and awe in front of nature, and trying to reconnect to it, after a millennia of Jewish alienation, atheism and paranoid fear of the “demonic” nature.

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          First of all (and I’m speaking on the Bible’s on terms), God is not a Jewish UFO. He exists before time, before there were any Jews. Christ is not Jewish, because Christ is God manifested in human flesh. Therefore, Christ exists before time, before there were any Jews. Even Abraham is not Jewish. He was a Babylonian.

          Furthermore, only a fraction of the Israelites were “Jews” (from the tribe of Judah, which was only one of twelve tribes of Israel).

          So, this conflation of God, Jesus, Abraham, and the Israelites into “Jews” is a work of profound dishonesty by people who simply want to throw mud at Christianity in the hope that some of it will stick.

          I often hear people call Christianity just another part of “Jewish monotheism.” To me, that’s an odd claim, because the Jews have worshiped multiple Gods: e.g., Moloch, Chiun, Baal, Chemeth, Ashtoreth, Astarte, Milcon, Ein Sof, Keter, Hokmah, Binah, Hesed, Gevura, Tifereth, Nezah, Hod, Yesod, Malkhuth and Shekhinah.

          As for “plagiarism”, it is one thing to make vague connections between different religions, philosophies, quite another to make a groundless charge of plagiarism. Christianity is not a “stealing” from the Greeks. It is a unification of revelation (which you may believe in or not) with Logos, a concept that incorporates Greek philosophy.

          It was this unification that made a Christian Europe the only part of the world where science could fully develop. Likewise, it made Christian Europe the only part of the world where tribalist morality gave way to universal moral concepts and the development of the idea of individual rights and freedoms.

          Christianity did not hijack anything from Europe, it added to what Europe already possessed.

          Yes, there were witch burnings and persecutions, but they have been exaggerated.

          I believe it was a strong, almost fanatical Christian faith that was able to unite the disparate peoples of Europe to fight of 1,000 years of attempted Muslim conquests. Not only fight off the Muslims, but take back the Holy Land for a period of time.

          Today, the churches in Europe are empty and the Muslims are taking over.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            “Yes, there were witch burnings and persecutions, but they have been exaggerated.”

            That’s totally false. Rather than exaggerated, they’ve been swept under the rug.
            Are you really such a passionate Christian, Eric? Or do you just need to be in the conversation, whatever it is?

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            Carolyn: As usual, you add nothing to the conversation but your snark. And when you’re invited to support your charges with evidence (as in the recent article on Jewish paranoia), you fail to do so.

            I don’t know why they put up with you here. If it were just a matter of your attitude towards me, that would be one thing. But you fight with almost everyone.

            You obviously have some kind of agenda, but we don’t know what it is because you don’t show your hand.

            You are the one who “just needs to be in the conversation”, not me.

            The witch burnings have been exaggerated. Same with the burning of heretics. I’ve seen videos claiming millions of Europeans were killed by the Catholic Church. Not true.

            But if you can come up with historical evidence giving numbers of executions in Europe and the places where they occurred, I will happily admit I am wrong.

            I do not need or want your approval, dearie.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            “You are the one who “just needs to be in the conversation”, not me.” – Eric
            Well, in this thread of 141 comments, I count 14 from you and 2 from me. That’s also typical of other threads.

            “You obviously have some kind of agenda, but we don’t know what it is because you don’t show your hand. – Eric
            LOL. I have a well-known website with my name on it that’s been online for 11 years, containing content that goes back to 2007, where my “agenda” is expressed very clearly. You’re the one who won’t answer innocent questions and uses “snark.” But I’ve noticed that snark from a man is acceptable, but if even slightly detected in a woman, not.

            “If you can come up with historical evidence giving numbers of executions in Europe and the places where they occurred, I will happily admit I am wrong.” – Eric

            The best historical evidence we have is that we know who won and who lost. It’s always the winner who uses the cruelest tactics. Both sides will argue from their own place of interest. I just picked this one statement out of many you’ve made of a similar nature – that is, with no concern for historical accuracy but only to bolster your opinions.
            Your level of knowledge is commensurate with what you reveal about yourself here:
            “I’ve seen *videos* claiming millions of Europeans were killed by the Catholic Church. Not true.”
            Another one who expects to learn history from Youtube videos. That’s a bigger problem to WN than the Muslims.

          • Ned J. Casper
            Ned J. Casper says:

            True, Judah=Jews was only one tribe among the Israelites according to “the Bible” which also says the Jesus was Jewish (Hebrews 7.14, Revelation 5.5 & Luke 3.31-34.

            The notion that he could not have been “a Jew” but had a non-Jewish father (Ernst Haeckel, Emil Burnouf &c) has been revived hypothetically by James Tabor. Mary could have been from the tribe of Levi scattered as far north as Galiliee but linked to Temple service.

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          @ anonym
          Freke and Gandy hit on some truth by accident rather than accurate scholarship. Read the refutations of their book, via online research.

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          Carolyn: My comments don’t get posted until they are approved by a moderator. If you can find any reason why the moderator made a mistake in posting one of my comments, feel free to let him know. I comment because I have something to add to the conversation, while you only comment to detract from it with personal attacks, snark, and unsupported claims.

          Yes, I am well aware that you are “the Great Carolyn Yeager” (great in your own mind, certainly), and it is apparent that you want everyone to remember that at all times. But I’m afraid that there have been many, many people much smarter and more important than you to occupy my attention. So I just haven’t paid attention to you. And I don’t plan to anytime soon.

          I am, however, glad that you let slip what I have suspected for quite a while: You place great importance on the fact that you’re a woman. You are hypersensitive about male “sexism”.

          So we males are supposed to automatically give you a special pass and extend privileges to you that we would not extend to each other. Well, sorry, Carolyn. To me, you’re just words on my computer screen. I couldn’t care less about your gender.

          But if you really want to know my position on that subject, I believe women should conform themselves to nature and not take on the roles of men. We need White children to be properly raised by their White mothers. We do not need “career women” horning in on a man’s world.

          It’s not surprising to me that you still haven’t backed up your claim that I was wrong when I said that witch burnings and persecutions by the Catholic Church have been exaggerated.

          But you are incapable of admitting that you are wrong.

          In support of my claim that persecution by the Catholic Church has been exaggerated, I cited some videos. Instead of showing that no such claims have been made (which would prove your case), you make a new accusation — suggesting I get all of my historical information from YouTube videos, or that I accept all such videos as historically accurate. Yet another accusation for which you have zero evidence

          You are quite pathetic, Carolyn. You can’t admit it when you’re wrong. You’re dishonest. Your style is passive-aggressive, and you’re ruled by emotion rather than reason. I recommend you read Commander Rockwell’s comments on women. In your case, I agree with them.

      • the watcher
        the watcher says:

        I never mentioned “Plato” you did, neither am i a materialist either, i am opposed to “Usury” and “Finance Capitalism” btw. How on earth you drew that conclusion is beyond me! Regarding my original comments: the point i was making was that history in general is more nuanced than some people like to make out and that both Christianity and Pagan philosophies (Romano/Greek or Celtic) have had both a positive and negative effect on the World!

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        Opinions about this vary – see e.g. the collection made by Julius Carlebach, “Karl Marx & the Radical Critique of Judaism” (1978) – but looking at all the comments he made about Jews I think he actually drew attention to their “problematic” nature. His non-Jew collaborator Engels shares responsibility for the brutality and destructive policies of Marxism.

        My answer to the question here about the absence of territorial Zionism in the “Protocols” is: where is it advocated therein? The only external “links” are two passages from Theodor Herzl, “The Jewish State” (1895), but in a context that generally contradicts the internationalism of the “Protocols”: (1) Government actions against Jewish rights would drive them, rich and poor, into revolutionary parties and precipitate economic crises [VI.-Conclusion] & (2) “When we sink, we become…subordinate officers of all revolutionary parties; and at the same time, when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse” [II.The Jewish Question].

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      Nietzsche had a very balanced view of the Jews, especially in contrast to his view of German nationalists. Rand is a special case; and readers may be interested in comparing the “economic” argument in her essay on “Objectivist Ethics” (ch.1) in “The Virtue of Selfishness” (1964) with Hitler’s “economic” argument in “War and Peace in the Struggle for Survival” (ch.1) in “Hitler’s Second Book” (2003 ed). Incidentally, there are several explanations of her pen-name, which is also an anagram of “D. Aryan”.

  17. C.T.
    C.T. says:

    Regarding mythicism, I started reading critical New Testament books in the 1980s (a classic is Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus). But it wasn’t until a few years ago that I read the book that really opened my eyes, Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt (2014).

    > “I have never seen a scholarly argument that the institutionalization of the Catholic Church contributed importantly to the fall of the Empire”. – KMD

    What about Edward Gibbon’s magnum opus (see also the central essay of my website)?

    > “I tried to make the point that Christianity has not been bad for the West until quite recently, and in a real sense it’s not the fault of Christianity, although Christian universalism was easy to subvert”. – KMD

    Christianity was bad from the beginning. My website also collects texts on how large-scale miscegenation worsened in Constantinople, and let’s not talk about the miscegenation that the Spanish and Portuguese perpetrated in the Americas since the 16th-century, courtesy of the Church’s universalism (see also Ferdinand Bardamu’s scholarly article ‘Why Europeans must reject Christianity’, pages 125-185 of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour).

    • Odin's left eye
      Odin's left eye says:

      C.T. your central essay is highly educational and leads logically to its conclusion: “The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul…. I call Christianity the one great curse … the one immortal blemish upon the human race.”

      I would strongly recommend your central essay and also your The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour to anyone genuinely interested in the truth of this subject. In particular, I strongly support the Revaluation of all values! section in the latter work.

      I was a naive Christian for much of my life before discovering eye-opening material such as yours.

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      @ CT
      The different writings of Carrier and Schweitzer are important contributions among two centuries of both extensive critical, and apologetic, studies of Christian origins. In recent years the development of high-quality precise analyses of the documentary and (albeit limited) archaeological material, from various viewpoints, have been accompanied by commercially popular, eccentric and incompatible publications (to cite Revilo Oliver, Barbara Thiering and Barry Downing among scores).
      It is one thing to dredge the New Testament for items relating to “antisemitism”, and another to investigate as objectively as possible evidence for the existence, message, activities and personality of Jesus and Paul, and their possible idelogical relationships,in their contemporay cultural context. Many observant Jewish and liberal Jews, “Christians” and non-believers see the NT as an ultimate “cause” of “the Holocaust”, while their opponents quote the same passages as a somewhat anachronistic critique of Ashkenazim running the ADL, AIPAC, WZO, B’nai B’rith &c, plus the Zuckerberg, Wexner, Soros, Mirvis, Epstein, Wolfowitz, Blankfein, Eisner, &c galere.
      So we had Jesus the Aryan (Walter Grundmann) or Jesus the Jew (Geza Vermes), and Paul as Shuel the first Jew Bolshevik (Alfred Rosenberg) or Solon the first Gentile Nazi (Hyam Maccoby).
      For the record I do not think that Jesus was God, or that he rose from the dead, or that the concept of sacrificial atonement through crucifixion, which was probably a Pauline theological synthesis for pagan audiences, is a credible or attractive concept. One thing worth mentioning about the Acts of the Apostles narrative is the attack on Paul by a combination of mob & magistrate; deja for “far right” activists today. Poor old Paul, not many people today like him, whether for his opinion on predestination or on sexual deviation.
      For a lazy student’s quick introduction to the controversies over NT origins, before the quite recent “myth theory” revival, I recommend the witty yet scholarly survey by Charlotte Allen, “The Human Christ: The Search for the Historical Jesus” (1999).
      Christians have no good reason for wanting the white world to be inundated by Muslims, Hindus, African animists or Chinese communists.

    • the watcher
      the watcher says:

      Are you familiar with Hitler’s table talk? If not it will surprise you to know then that the Fuehrer spoke quite positively of Christianity, strange for a national socialist not to know this!

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        @ the watcher
        Hitler’s recorded opinions on Christ & Christians changed to some extent over the years; see e.g. Rainer Bucher, “Hitler’s Theology” (2011). In earlier years he seemed to have seen Jesus as a model as a young hero fighting against financial Jewry, and retained the view that he was not Jewish (at any rate by paternal ancestry). But Hitler grew increasingly opposed to Christian clergy who were too compassionate, internationalist and philosemitic for his liking (see e.g. “Table Talk”, August 11, 1942).

      • PsychelonB
        PsychelonB says:

        Man, (most of) you “pro Aryan christians” really lie like Jews. To anyone not with a rotted soul, read “Hitler’s Table Talk” YOURSELF, dont take my or this lying bastard “watcher”‘s word for it. (Pdf of “Table Talk” is on Archive.org for free).

        “christianity was the Bolshevism of Antiquity….the coming of christianity was the heaviest blow to hit humanity” (paraphrased quotes of Hitler, who early in his career, had to be a politician in public, he said some pro-christ nut stuff since Germans were fanatical christians who never would have supported an open anti-christian, just like most of you, but behind closed doors, he spoke against christianutty more than against Jews themselves…this naive Aryan gullability must end, so do your own damn research & grow your own mind if necessary). Take one step back & you will see what committed slime balls the devout “christian racialists” are).

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          My understanding is that “Table Talk” (which does not purport to be literal quotations from Hitler, but rather notes made about what Hitler supposedly said according to whoever wrote those notes) was compiled and published only after Germany was conquered and under the heel of the Jewish boot.

          When I read the book, I did not find it credible. Hitler, a cultivated and well-educated man, comes off as a subliterate thug.

          At that time, nothing could be published in Germany without the approval of either the Jews or the Communists (i.e., Jews).

          Anything that was published would have therefore been intended to defame Hitler using lies.

          Telling Christians in the United States and elsewhere that Hitler was anti-Christian would be a great way of doing that.

          If you want the real Hitler, read “Mein Kampf”. And if you can come up with some anti-Christian statements in that book, I would like to know about them.

          I think George Lincoln Rockwell was wise when forbade his troops to criticize Christianity or talk about religion at all.

          I believe 90% of this anti-Christian rhetoric among White advocates was planted by Jews. What better way to keep the White advocacy movement tiny when most Whites consider themselves Christian?

  18. Polemeros
    Polemeros says:

    What made Friedrich Nietzsche, a barbarian German from the dark cold forests of the North, assume that he had a right to become a teacher of the Greek classics? Why did he assume that these southern Mediterranean texts of a far distant nation were somehow his? What gave him that sense of being European?

    It was not the ancient primal paganisms of the Germans and the Greeks. These had NOTHING to do with each other. And long before the madman’s time, these mythic worlds had run their course and faded.
    (If they were so wonderful, why did their peoples not resist the new faith more manfully? )

    It was the “universalism” of Christianity that led him to assume a common heritage with a nation that would have considered him merely a barbarian.

    Now the mythic world of Christianity is fast fading as well. Its time among us is over. What will replace it we do not know. But I grow tired of the cheap sophomoric cartoons of nationalists who deem their Christian ancestors so poorly, since both they and their pagan forebears have together created us. Without Christianity, there would be no European man. And irony of ironies, no Nietzsche.

  19. Crush Limbraw
    Crush Limbraw says:

    Since you reviewed this book which calls Christianity a hoax based on Jewish sources, why not…..equal time?
    Suggestion – make that a request – to Kevin MacDonald: Please review Paradise Restored and Days of Vengeance – both authored by David Chilton. I have read them both more than once – they and those written by Gary North have contributed more to my understanding of Christianity than any others – all of which was done using the Berean example of checking the Bible to see if that is true.
    Prove all things!
    Both books are available online for free – https://crushlimbraw.blogspot.com/2021/04/does-evil-exist-and-why-does-god-not.html?m=0 – this post also includes an excerpt in PDF from DoV and was archived on the the topic “Does Evil Exist?”
    I would look forward with great interest to read your reviews of both books.
    Thank you!
    BTW – I also realize that reading a cookbook does not make me a cook – it’s only the beginning.

  20. Charles Stegiel
    Charles Stegiel says:

    https://vridar.org/series-index/russell-gmirkin-plato-and-the-hebrew-bible/.

    Russell Gmirkin in his new book, Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible draws attention to striking similarities between the Pentateuch (the first five books of the “Old Testament”) on the one hand and Plato’s last work, Laws, and features of the Athenian constitution on the other. . . . . The key to this close linkage is the Great Library of Alexandria.

    The main stimulus for Gmirkin’s new study is a desire to examine more closely some of the parallels presented by Philippe Wajdenbaum in Argonauts of the Desert: Structural Analysis of the Hebrew Bible. (Again, see earlier Vridar posts on Argonauts.) According to the Acknowledgements in Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible it was Thomas L. Thompson who suggested this study to Russell Gmirkin, and Gmirkin explains that his focus was on Wajdenbaum’s discussion of the parallels between Plato’s Laws and the Pentateuchal laws as the most persuasive section of his book.

    • Seraphim
      Seraphim says:

      The proliferation of gimmicks like Gmirkin’s ‘studies’ and Sunics outbursts perfectly illustrates the warnings of St. Paul that:
      ” For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables”…”giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth”.
      We can’t complain that we have not been warned.

  21. Messenger Charles
    Messenger Charles says:

    “The Jesus Hoax attempts to convince the reader that there is no rational basis for Christianity and that the motivation for its main originator, St. Paul, was antagonism toward the Roman Empire. Within this framework, Paul was a Jewish nationalist whose goal was to recruit non-Jews to oppose the Roman imperium:”

    Oh so many errors just in this short paragraph.
    1) The Holy Scriptures cannot be rationalised.
    2) The Holy Scriptures can only be Spiritually discerned.
    3) Paul did not antagonise The Romans.
    4) Paul, like his Master, antagonised The Jews.
    5) Paul was a Benjaminite Israelite, not a Jew.
    6) Jews are Shelahite Hamitic Canaanites, not Semitic Israelites = The Serpent Seed from The Garden.
    7) Paul’s role was to preach the good news of the coming Kingdom of God and shepherd those that The Father was calling, whether Semitic Israelites or non-Israelites. This did not include the Jews who were 100% anti-Christ.

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      @ Messenger Charles
      Points (5) & (6) are historically unfounded, “spiritually discerned” by largely mistaken “British Israelites”. The “Garden of Eden” is a myth, and “Serpent Seed” a myth on stilts.

      • Messenger Charles
        Messenger Charles says:

        Historically unfounded? Myths? Says who, and what price you read all that nonsense in a book published by a publishing house owned by Jews?

        The Holy Scriptures are the foundation to ALL knowledge, and your comment reminds me of Paul’s words: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” – Romans 1:22.

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          @ Messenger Charles
          None of the books I have read critical of British/”Aryan” Israel fantasies was written by Jews, but mainly by Christian or non-religious historians. Where is the “serpent seed” in the books, selected by the Roman Catholic Church some three centuries after Jesus, known as the Bible?
          Let me ask you a question: do all or only some of the human races on the present planet descend from Noah and his family, and what was the approximate date of the survival of his “ark”?

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          The cited “ark” story refers to Tower of Babel archaeology, another issue, and to the so-called Anunnakai (cf. Christian O’Brien, “Genius of the Few” [1984], Zecharia Sitchin, &c). The article also mentions Apollonius of Tyana, whose ancient miraculous biography has its resemblances to that of Jesus; a similarity often cited by theorists of mythical or legendary origins of early Christianity. The Flood chronology usually provided by some fundamentalist Christians and Jehovah’s Witnesses is incompatible with historical and geological evidence.

  22. Gary Mcentyre
    Gary Mcentyre says:

    I feel sorry for those who haven’t found GOD and JESUS.

    I do however agree with Martin Luther that jews have rewritten the bible in order to suit their interests and that anti roman sentiments and later anti gentile or eurpean sentiments may have been a contributing factor to the corruption of the book.

    This does not in any way mean JESUS did not exist.

    I know people who had relatives who met JESUS back in the day and he did indeed have a shine around him, like often depicted later in portraits and the like.

    Also Pontus Pilatus did see JESUS and described him of being of light complexion and also not as darkhaired (was it wheat coloured?) as most people in the region.

    https://www.nairaland.com/5251828/according-pontius-pilate-jesus-white

    If people do not see that Christianity is TRUTH (well except for the ani white anti European anti western lies that has been placed there by hateful race-mixed so-called jews), when seing the wonders of our world.

    Yiu seriously think it’s all evolution and GOD did not create evolution and guide it?

    And if you like me think GOD is behind so-called evolution it is our calling and responsibilty to allow that evolution is continued.

    But the actions of anti-white, so-called “jews” of the racially mixed kind makes this not possible. They use propaganda against evolution and mass immigration in order to force a mixture between WHITES and other evolutionary developments such as subsaharian africans who also mixed with pre-neanderthals. By these deceitful propaganda efforts, hidden by a thin weil of entertainment, ads, “music”, Obama and the like people are fooled to having kids with races that are behind WHITES in evolution and very very different.

    I mean WHITES could have kids with neanderthals and did so, as did other races.

    This is anti evolutionary and against GOD’s will obviously.

    • Odin's left eye
      Odin's left eye says:

      Gary you highlight an important point. For spiritually aware people the issue is about evil Christianity, not the reality of God (consciousness, quantum vacuum, Oneness, etc).

      The enemy tries to fool us by mixing truth with lies, e.g. God + “Jesus” (Christ Con), ecological catastrophe + “Anthropogenic Global Warming” (Climate Con), seasonal colds/flu + “pandemic” (Corona Con), etc.

      • Gary Mcentyre
        Gary Mcentyre says:

        While I do think JESUS was christ, I do agree that mixing truth with lies can be the most successful propaganda and war weapon.

        Since I do think and has heard proof that JESUS was christ what would then be more powerful for anti WHITE anti roman, anti European race-mixed, socalled “jews”, than to distort and change the true religion to suit their interests as etno centric socalled “jews”.

        This is even more powerful, because people tend to follow the TRUTH and if part of it is changed then that is the ultimate weapon so to speak.

        So the fact that the bible has been changed to subvert WHITE peoples societies is a disaster, In effect I think a new bible where such elements are at large taken out could be relevant.

        This is not exclusive to Christianity though it also happened to “judaism”, with the pedophile elements at one instance in the talmud, the snake thing control the world and the like.

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      @ Gary Mcentryre
      Millions of people before, during and since Jesus have not “found” him.
      There is a strong case for human control over our own evolution, best made by non-Christians like Julian Huxley.

      • Gary Mcentyre
        Gary Mcentyre says:

        I assume you mean eugenics and the like.

        I do not see any need for eugenics, WHITES have become smarter in the last 70 years without such things put into place. Probably through education a more technologically advanced society and the development of culture.

        And advanced culture and technological development combine with evolution, natural evolution (I do consider eugenics in part as forced evolution) does raise the IQ level and and our civilisation.

        But as mentioned this is being utterly destroyed by the aforementioned race-mixed socalled “jews” and their control over communication and propaganda in effect in the media and the like. But I do see the same aspect with other racially mixed groups such as people being part gypsy or tattare (a gypsy like group also from india, but from different casts and most often mixed with WHITES) who tend to push their racial group, in effect their DNA by control of media and industry and other aspects, such as stealing aggressively from WHITES everything they do…

        It offsets natural evolution and is therefore our greatest threat along with the climate and polution of nature and increased infertility due to chemicals in plastics and other things.

        • Ned J. Casper
          Ned J. Casper says:

          @ Gary Mcentyre
          The improvement in white IQ is contestable; see the studies by Edward Dutton (2016) & Richard Lynn (2008 &c). Crossing between very different races can be dysgenic through hybrid depression, and/or regression to a lower average IQ level which is admitted by Kenneth Dyer in his “Biology of Racial Integration” (1974).

  23. Barkingmad
    Barkingmad says:

    We are not the same biologically as we were 2,000 years ago and can’t be the same in any other respect, either. Too much water has passed over the dam. The issue isn’t Christian or antiChristian, or at least it shouldn’t be; it’s White identitarianism. If you go with the basics of White preservation, never mind if someone interprets the bible literally or follows a more manufactured Christian religion.

    How about “I don’t know if Christ existed or not, if he was crucified and resurrected or not – the reality is that countless generations of our ancestors bought this ideology and the way of life (good and bad) developing from it; it’s all baked in the cake of our lives, like it or not.”

    Big mistake to ridicule Christianity (or atheism) if when push comes to shove we all want the same basic thing. Being a “cultural Christian” should be good enough even for the Christianity-haters. Our enemies will hate us no matter what religion or antireligion we claim to adhere to.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      As I commented here a long time ago, I can’t really get enthused over the bathroom habits of Kings, Prophets, Philosophers or Gods.

      Largely, because they are all based on previous scribblings in dead languages, without the possibility of fact-checking. To cite Irving: why would you believe the thesis of a book, founded on the theses of ten prior books, where the author doesn’t even speak the language required for PRIMARY research.

      I was baptized as a Lutheran toddler but would definitely send any child of mine, were I to be sufficiently fortunate to have fathered one, to a local Catholic School, for by now hopefully obvious reasons. I say that even though I sat illegally in Luther’s private chair in his Wittenberg. study. .

      Having survived altogether too many normally lethal circumstances, I am convinced that Christ put in overtime on his most frequent caller.

      When I scrolled down and found your comment, I knew you wouldn’t disappoint. Totally agree with you. Hope your children are behaving and you still cope with your Texas commute.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Barkingmad and Charles: Neither of you ever disappoints. Rather, you invariably edify. Thank you.

  24. Erich Sieger
    Erich Sieger says:

    Does Matthew 15:10-20, Mark 7:19 and Acts 10:9-13 present instructional quotes of Jesus that essentially abrogate the old Law, or more specifically the Kashrus dietary laws, for the Gentiles and the new covenant? If so, why have no Christian clergy, no Christian leadership, acted through the power of Christ to free Gentiles or Christians from the oppressive yoke of kosher certification that is hastily being imposed us not just in America, not just in Canada, not just in Western countries, but the world? Our communications with the people running http://www.TheKosherQuestion.com tell us that they have attempted many times to commission an authoritative clergy-authored essay written on this very pertinent subject matter, and they scatter away and ignore the significance of the reality unfolding before our very eyes.

    Are these Christians blind to what is going on, or are they turning the other cheek from the urgent pleas of their own flock, the descendants of Europe who built up the Christian religion? We read what is going on with the kosher certification racket and it screams of John 2:16 – “Get these [doves, sellable products, or today ‘kosher certified goods’] out of here! Stop turning my father’s house into a marketplace!” Reaction from church: crickets.

    I really do appreciate what the company behind the KosChertified app is doing, as I myself would never have been made aware of this religio-secular practice in our free marketplace that has probably raked in billions of dollars over the course of this last century. Sure, we don’t live for mammon, but then why isn’t Christianity defending itself against this rape of our livelihood and means for sustenance? These bible passages mentioned above appear to me as fundamental to the Lutheran church I was raised. Now, I read in the social media account of kosChertified that the umbrella group NGO, Orthodox Union, that runs the largest kosher certification agency in New York City receives kosher revenue, and then publishes formalized Resolutions in support of a convicted spy, Johnathan Pollard! They fund various organs that support their interests, and employ a powerful OU Advocacy Center that boasts of “open door policy” with key politicians. Was my purchase of kosher-certified aluminum foil and peanut butter unwittingly funding the early release of this traitor? Am I complicit in subverting my own homeland? And why are no Christians in an uproar over this revelation, denouncing the thousands of companies that are patronizing this duplicitous affair?

    Are the people behind http://www.TheKosherQuestion.com acting in response to Christ’s message, through God, through the bio-spirit that runs through their soul, or from their innate human instinct of what is right, and what is wrong? I don’t work for KosChertified, but they sure have delivered a “red pill” that I could not ignore.

    Thank you, Dr. MacDonald for bringing this book to our attention while serving us additional context to examine this controversial theory. Should I be prepared to sacrifice my son and daughter to the monster that is revealing itself more every day, doing nothing but turning the other cheek and sustaining my faith? My real question is this: Can Christians of the West tolerate and unite with Westerners who act in supporting their unique people of European descent, even if they are religiously skeptical, agnostic, or otherwise? I sincerely hope they find a common ground and understanding that will work to defend their homelands and people in these desperate times.

    On another note: I work intimately with some of the most advanced unclassified technology we have today, and I have had the acquaintance with Vice Presidents of corporations that lead and manage the progress of our technology. When you combine the silence from my aforementioned kosher critique (i.e. nobody is even defending fundamental aspects of Christianity; see Dr. Andrew Fraser’s “Dissident Dispatches” for more on religious evolution) with an awakening of who is owning and controlling our technology, with open eyes to technological advancement and GNR (genetics/nano-technology/robotics), with a reading of Ted Kacznski’s unrefuted and eye-opening Manifesto, you may find yourself reading the philosophical books of Dr. David Skrbina, and you may humbly ask yourself, “Do we have any prophets today?”

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Apostate Christian churches have been worshiping Mammon instead of God. Jews have the money and power in our society, not Christians. So they get to control our diets. Christian churches won’t do anything about it, and I don’t see animal rights organizations doing anything about it either. Everyone is afraid of the Jews. It has been that way for a long time in our majority-White nations.

  25. RUDOLPH GESTL
    RUDOLPH GESTL says:

    What advantages did Christianity give the Jews?
    1. It gave them a monopoly on lending money, or more broadly financial services.
    2. It made Jerusalem a destination city. Don’t discount this.
    3. It fostered anti-Semitism.( a term I don’t like) The real enemy of the Jews is not anti-Semitism but assimilation. Hatred drives them
    together and they always seem to find enough Goys to protect them.

  26. moneytalks
    moneytalks says:

    That is very interesting , very informative and intellectually stimulating . It is an outstanding article .

    However , there too many broached relevant issues worthy of serious discourse to be included with this comment . Below is just one consideration out of the multitude of broached and worthy salient issues .

    Prof KMac noted in the Review that __

    “” Finally, Skrbina asks, “Can it really be beneficial to accept a myth as truth? Can one really live a happy, successful, and meaningful life dedicated to a false story or a lie?” “”

    and KMac responded __

    ” I think that the answer is that yes it can.”

    Skrbina’s question has enormous importance to Christianity in particular and deserves a careful response . That one seems to be a little too casual and slightly ambiguous . I presume that his answer means __

    [ not normally , but yes it sometimes may be possible under very special conditions
    for very few people ]

    instead of an unqualified

    “yes it can”.

    Historical records show that “truth” is either immortal or usually vastly more durable than the “lies” that counterpose it . In other words , when a lie eventually dies , histories show that not only the social lives that were founded on it are cancelled , but the associated physical beings are often also subsequently cancelled .

    Prof KMac should be more careful about responses to questions such as that in order to avoid inviting a fusillade of charges of hypocrisy because of the fact that he made a profitable career in science which is traditionally supposed to be mainly about the pursuit and establishment of [true reality] for the benefit of Humanity . Have no doubt that lives based on a lie/myth contrary to reality generally cannot ultimately benefit Humanity .

    The Lord God JC said __

    ” And ye shall know the truth ,
    and the truth shall make you free ”

    ( Verbatim quote from the :
    Holy Bible NT / Book of St. John / 8:32 )

    Clearly , Whites need to seek the truth in order to escape their ignominious enslavements and/or genocides against themselves .

    The vast majority of Westernworld Whites are at least nominal Christians whom are now , according to verified evidence , apparently without any significant religiosity . Most Whites in effect are without a religion even though they remain thoroly Christianized .

    The new religion of

    {{{ The PRIME DIRECTIVE }}}

    is about truth and reality and

    is not about a lie or a myth .

    It is absolutely different from and not about
    “Star Trek General Order 1”.

    The DIRECTIVE is about the real potential for
    actual eternal physical survival of humanity
    regardless of any evolution
    ( not yet immortality of individual persons ) and is not about vague indefinite notions of an unobservable spiritual survival
    that may or may not be real .

    If Mankind
    ( except some women and most children )
    chooses to live in a lie or in a myth about

    the true reality of

    {{ The Solar TOTAL Extinction Event }}

    and thereby consequently fails

    to develop technologies needed
    to thrive-n-survive beyond that extinction event

    before it is too late

    then Humanity
    ( includes White Christians and all others )

    will perish forever

    along with all the other dumb animals and plants here on Earth

    into the DOOM of OBLIVION pursuant to

    any TOTAL Extinction Event .

  27. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    Well OF COURSE Jesus is a hoax, a myth! Sorry to break it to ya, O ye faithful, but in the real world people don’t get born of virgins; they don’t get “begotten” by moralizing gods chronically enraged at their creations not living up to their expectations; they don’t walk on water or raise the dead or rise from the dead or feed a multitude with a small bit of grub or turn water into wine.

    The reason why you are faithful is that it TAKES faith to believe in such manure, unless one is an utter imbecile, because the tales are as likely and as intellectually respectable as Jack and the Beanstalk. And what is faith except believing because one wants to? No creed that has CREDO QUIA ABSURDUM EST for a slogan is fit for persons of integrity and decency, let alone for a movement to save the European ethnic/genetic mega-cluster….

    Of course, one way the apologists for the christian superstition attempt to salvage something from the junkpile, is saying that “Oh, the miracles didn’t happen, but Jesus lived: he was a wise man by whose teachings we do well to live!” But the Jesus of the bible is the only Jesus we “know” of; and besides if Jesus was a mere mortal sage the whole “begotten son of god” and “Vicarious Atonement” business goes where it belongs, in the ashcan.

    That so many commenters in a relatively thoughtful White-Nationalist site have STILL not got past this mischievous superstition from West Asia–and defend a cult which brought the disease of altruism to Europe, instilled its young with psychopathological notions like “original sin,” poisoned the minds of Europeans against their own bodies and the process whereby life is perpetuated–makes it unsurprising that we seem headed for obsolescence….

  28. Arch Stanton
    Arch Stanton says:

    Jesus was not a Christian. Jesus had nothing to do with Christianity, a religion that did not exist until the Temple administrator, Saul/Paul’s, invention of it long after Jesus’ death. Jesus was indeed a revolutionary, but his was not sedition against Rome. In fact, Rome’s procurator, Pilate, exonerated Jesus, finding no fault in him.

    Temple followers – “The Lost sheep of Israel”

    Matthew ten and fifteen describes Jesus clearly commanding his disciples to “go not unto the gentiles” even avoiding Samaritan Jews that created their own version of the sacrifice while refusing to pay tribute to the Temple. These groups had no need for Jesus’ ministry because they were not victims of the Temple priests. As Jesus said, “I have come only for the Lost Sheep of Israel.” The “lost sheep” were only the Temple Jews lost to the corruption of their priesthood’s bloody, sacrificial laws.

    The second Temple of the first century was the elite Jews’ first successful effort at establishing a central bank. The second Temple was in fact the very first version of the Jews’ modern Federal Reserve bank. The priests were so successful at this effort, that Rome borrowed money from Temple coffers to fund their construction projects. Examination of the Temple structure amply illustrates the Temple’s opulent wealth.

    Wealth was extracted from Temple followers in the form of sacrificial tribute. How much tribute? It was said of that era that a man worked one day to feed his family, one day to pay his rent, one day to pay his taxes (to Rome) and all the rest went to the Temple. As Temple Jews observed a six-day work week, this meant half of their labor went to funding the Temple. Can you smell IRS income taxes in this description?

    Fish were outside the sacrificial system. Thus, fishermen at the bottom of the socioeconomic structure which is why the majority of Jesus disciples were fishermen. The story of Jesus producing the coin from the mouth of a fish is a metaphor for the taxation levied against fishermen whose produce could not be offered for sacrifice. This is why the fish became the later Christian’s secret symbol.

    Jesus was a renegade priest, initiated into the priesthood by his cousin John, also a renegade priest. The so-called “baptism” of Jesus was actually the Mikveh initiation of Jesus into the priesthood. This gave Jesus the authority to question and rebuke or rescind Temple law. Soon after his initiation Mikveh, Jesus was anointed with oil by a woman. Anointing had once been part of the initiation rights of a priest, but by the time of Jesus, the practice had been stopped due to the high cost of anointing oil.

    After this event, Jesus went into the desert to meditate on his coming mission that would result in his own blood sacrifice. It was here his adversary “Satan,” who was in fact also a Temple priest, had been dispatched to threaten and lure Jesus into following and worshiping the Temple’s highly profitable, sacrificial god YHVH.

    The Gospel story is all about Temple law

    The word “Torah” has two definitions, “law” and “instruction.” Therefore, the five so-called “books of Moses” are in fact legal tracts, not historical accounts. These stories set legal precedence for sacrificial tribute. The story of Cain and Able sets legal precedence for the meat sacrifice over the grain sacrifice. The story of Abram’s sacrifice of Isaac sets the precedence for redeeming the firstborn son from the Temple, that served as representative for YHVH. The Temple god assumed ownership of a child as the law stated, YHVH owned all the children.

    These were the legal matters Jesus addressed in his ministry. The so-called “miracles” attributed to Jesus were in fact matters of law, as by first century definition, a “miracle” was the “unintended outcome to the law.” When Jesus had unblessed wine decanted into ritually pure washing jars, he performed a “miracle” by ritually purifying the wine without performing a priestly blessing that would require tribute from the host.

    A priest refusing tribute for a blessing would have raised a few eyebrows, not to mention a few questions. As Jesus was not prepared at that point to display his authority, he used a simple trick to accomplish his mother’s request. While the guests were mystified at how this happened, the story clearly says the servants cleaning out and refilling the water jars knew exactly what had transpired.

    Later Christians assigned the “miracle” term to Jesus’ healing and other inexplicable acts like walking on water, yet healing was never considered “miraculous” by first century Jews unless it violated the law by being performed on Shabbat. As for walking on water, what better way to mystify and astound a gullible audience about the divinity of Jesus?

    How bad was Temple oppression? People were burying their loved ones alive to avoid the onerously expensive Para Aduma purification ceremony requiring the very rare and expensive ashes of the red heifer.” The Para Aduma was invoked if one made the mistake of coming into contact with a body a Temple priests had declared dead. The state of quietus in the first century was determined by a priest. No matter the actual physical state, when a priest said one was dead, that settled the matter.

    The first story of this nature, the raising of the Jarius’ daughter. As Jarius was a wealthy, influential member of the community, the story highlights the prohibitively expensive nature of the Para Aduma. The more well known story of Jesus’ “raising of Lazarus from the tomb” was in fact a staged, public event rebuking the Temple’s requirement for the Para Aduma. This is made obvious by the fact that a crowd was brought over from nearby Jerusalem to witness the event.

    Jesus did for his people what Adolf Hitler would do for his people almost two thousand years later. Jesus’ successful attack on the Temple disassembled its predatory financial system and its corrupt laws. Jesus’ final blood sacrifice began the process that would eventually lead to the physical destruction of the Temple 37 years after his celebrated crucifixion.

    This destruction completed the process of delivering Temple Jews from their priesthood’s onerous sacrificial demands. The Jews have been trying to rebuild the Temple and its predatory sacrificial system almost from the day its walls came a tumblin’ down.

    This is why Jesus and Hitler are unquestionably the two most hated men in Jewish history. The Jews hatred for Jesus provides proof of his existence and much of the Gospel’s stories. Jews are far too pragmatic to waste their venomous hatred on myths and fictitious characters of such magnitude. Jews would not hate Jesus as they do unless he and his mission to destroy the Temple had been every bit as real as Hitler and his mission to rid Germany of the Jew.

    The real story of Jesus and his ministry debunks the magic, mystical hyperbole that invariably accompanies Jewish myths, like the holocaust and those miraculous myths attributed to Jesus by Saul/Paul and later Christians.

    Jesus was a real person, a Temple priest, a genuine “son of god.*” However, Jesus never claimed to be a god or a “messiah” and no messiah ever promised to deliver the Jews from their religious oppressors. Like so many other Jews that came before and after him, Jesus was in fact an agent of change.

    *The term “son of god” referred to the Temple’s high priest or “kohein gadol.” This was the son of YHVH, privy to the father god’s words he then delivered to the people. This same situation is found today in the Catholic Pope and modern Mormon “Prophet” who deliver the Jewish god’s words to their followers. You can read more about Jesus as high priest at Margaret Barker’s Temple Theology web site: margaretbarker.com

    You can read about the Essene conspiracy to bring down the Temple at my website: conspiracyofman.com

    • Ned J. Casper
      Ned J. Casper says:

      @ Arch Stanton
      Yours is one of several studies linking Jesus to the Essenes – in different ways.
      Hundreds of different books, from the scholarly to the silly, pick bits and pieces from the NT and other writings, and reassemble them within quite incompatible “theories”. “Proteus” of Nazareth?
      One could provide an almost alphabetical selection: Jesus the Altruist [R. A. Belliotti], Buddhist [H. Kersten], Communist [R. Montero], Dwarf [M. D. Magee]……Freemason [R. Lomas], Gnostic [M. W. Meyer], Healer [S. L. Davies], Invention [R. M. Price], Judahite [J. Taylor], King [R. Ellis], Legend [G. A. Wells], Mushroom [J. M, Allegro], Nazorean [E. Hilsenrath], Orator [P. Perkins], Prophet [B. D. Ehrman], Queer [P. Oestreicher], Revolutionary [S. G. F. Brandon], Sage [J. D. Crossan], Thaumaturge [M. Smith], Ufonaut [R. Dione], Vegetation-myth [D. Murphy]…..zzzz.

  29. echo chamber
    echo chamber says:

    Seems to me that most commentators (and KMD) are missing the main point. The Jesus story has no substantiation, no contemporary confirmation, and the NT dates are far too late, at best, to be truthful and accurate. The Biblical version is almost certainly false, and yet Paul and the Gospel writers act as if it were indubitable fact. They promoted a false story as truth — a story which furthermore served their ends, by demanding that the people worship a Jewish rabbi (Jesus) and a Jewish god (Yahweh). It was a hoax, pure and simple. Buy the book, read the whole story, and then decide.

  30. Adûnâi
    Adûnâi says:

    @Tomislav_Sunich I have a question to you (I hope its relevance to the topic to be visible). You seem to be an anti-Communist, and you tend disparagingly to refer to the states before the fall of 1991. I ask you – Why is that?

    I will not deny that Russian Socialism had idealist underpinnings where economics was valued over blood, and yet, how can you not see the healthy reality of the Soviet system? That every kind of anti-Sovietism turned out to be much, much worse? That the hatred of Communism is merely an Eastern European form of Christian self-destruction? That the loss of a belief in the Party line was a spawn of American anarchist debauchery, of insidious Christian influence seeping in through the cracks in the Iron Curtain?

    The Warsaw Pact had strong states, mighty armies, fertile women. The ideology was officially and explicitly atheist. School textbooks had pimitive racial maps (still had in the 2000s Ukraine). They might have helped Africans and Chinese, but at least, they were not importing immigrants. And for sure, they were worshipping neither Jesus nor Israel.

    In my view, the Soviet Europe was kindred of the Faustian Spirit. Its failure is the failure of Europe. Modern Americans are the total opposite – their hysterical, ignorant and darkness-worshipping religion is growing reinvigorated with every passing year. Whereas the antiquated, noble and naïve Soviets were losing to this degeneracy – and thus I will blame Communism, but only for its insufficient hatred towards Christianity within and America without.

    Brejnev’s funeral was the doom of Europe. Where can you see such splendour now? Such impeccable execution of Chopin’s March? All European countries wither and die. A miraculous eucatastrophe alone can break this spell.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZyDTIt3xE4

  31. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Thank you Kevin for this wonderful piece. It is definitely a keeper as are all of the reply’s.

    I could write much on what is I believe, a ‘core’ subject of our cause but much is going on for me today. I did want to respond before too much time passed and offer what I could.
    We do not want to alienate American Christians. I have been to more than a few Trump rally’s and marches and I can safely say that they are at least 95% Christian and it is an out in the open, loud, no holds barred orchidaceous Christian celebration. Prayer groups, preachers, priests, speakers on the main stage are many times clergy. 80 million votes for Trump in the last election. We have millions upon millions on our side and I am guessing that many of them know who the enemy is, they are of course just afraid to come out and say it in the open. That’s what we need to do. We need to find a gentle way to get the subject of Jewish supremacy and its pernicious effects on our country out into a national discourse, or at least amongst these millions of Christian Americans.

    I’ve always disagreed with St. Paul in regards to the resurrection. He stated that if Jesus did not ascend that his existence was in vain. Not at all true. No matter what you believe, to the Jews, Jesus is public enemy number 1. He exposed the rotten Pharisees for the liars that they were and freed the people from their lies and he still does. Matthew 12:13, the story of the man with the withered hand… Jesus is telling and showing everyone to ‘take off the mask” in essence! He also tells the disciples to ‘stop being afraid of the Jews,’ ~ John 20:19. Why are they afraid of their own people? Shouldn’t they be afraid of the Romans?

    In “The Devil and Karl Marx,” by Paul Kengor, Kengor spends about a third of the book discussing the Kremlin’s and the CPUSA’s obsession with infiltrating American church’s beginning in the 1920’s all the way through to today. Destroying the belief in a God other than themselves is a must for the communists.

    No matter what one believes, the founders of our great country were devout Christians and turned to God in their quest to create the greatest country that has ever graced this planet and in many ways they succeeded. (See ‘The Origins of American Constitutionalism,’ by Donald Lutz).

    Again, no matter what you believe, we need Jesus guys lol…! He is on our side. And we need all of the good Christians in this country too. Before the Jews really blew the lid off the joint, I guess you could say in the ‘60s,’ before then, white American Christians were still in control of the country and not perfect, but it was certainly better than it is now-think of the 50s.

    Jesus put up with none of the Pharisees lies and told his own people not to put up with their garbage either. We need to figure out a way to do that too. We’re running out of time.

    • Adûnâi
      Adûnâi says:

      1. > “He exposed the rotten Pharisees for the liars that they were and freed the people from their lies…”

      Does Christianity come with the ignorance of geography? Jesus lived in Palestine, in Asia! How does this concern Europeans or Americans?

      2. The history of American Christians clearly shows them to be enemies of the European race – in the 1860s they killed each other to give blacks citizenship, in the 1940s they murdered Germany for furthering the interests of the White race.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        To hear your side tell it, Jesus lived thousands and thousands of miles away from Europe.

        In fact, Palestine is on the Mediterranean, as are Greece, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Slovenia, Malta, Cypress, Italy, France, Spain and Monaco — all European.

        There was no “great wall” around Palestine separating it from Greeks, Romans and other Europeans. At the time of Jesus, Palestine was a Roman province.

  32. Laurent Guyénot
    Laurent Guyénot says:

    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 of their chosenness. … 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.” 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. 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! …
    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. 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 where Jews were forbidden to enter, Rome adopted officially a religion that announced the fall of Rome and a new Jerusalem? … 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.
    This is from my article “How Yahweh conquered Rome”, which argues in the same line as David Skrbina (whose book I haven’t read yet). In that article and others on unz.com, I have argued that Christianity was created as—and has functioned as—a Trojan Horse for Jewish Power inside the Roman city.
    I see in the comments two sensible arguments against this thesis. One of them goes like this: “If Christianity was created by Jews to ruin Roman civilization, why do Jews hate Christianity?” This objection misses the point: Christianity was not created by “the Jews”, but by a cabal of elite Jews (priestly Jews, if we follow Flavio Barbiero’s thesis in The Secret Society of Moses: The Mosaic Bloodline and a Conspiracy Spanning Three Millennia). From that point of view, Christianity created the perfect Judeophobic environment that Jewish elites needed to control the Jewish people.
    The second objection goes like this (and here: “Christendom has created so many great things, beauty can only come from truth, etc.” Here is my answer, from the same article: “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. … 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) , were not monks; Johann Sebastian Bach wrote Church music, but he was not an clergyman; many European geniuses like Dante, da Vinci or Galilee, were nominal Catholics by obligation, but secret lovers of Sophia (read “The Crucifixion of the Goddess”). The source of the artistic, scientific and cultural genius of the White race is not Christianity.
    All that being said, Christianity is syncretistic and has preserved many non-Jewish elements from pre-Christian civilizations (Roman, German, Celtic, etc.): the Virgin Mary is obviously the eternal Queen of Heaven (so much hated by the Jewish priest Jeremiah), Christmas is just as “pagan”, Easter almost as much, and even Jesus, as immortal son of God, is basically a Greek hero (the most sublime one, as Simone Weil saw him). The only problem is the preposterous notion that Jesus is the Messiah that the sociopathic Yahweh promised his sociopathic people. If only Christians could renounce this ridiculous claim (and vomit the Old Testament by the same occasion), there would be hope. Otherwise, they will continue to worship the Jews.
    I am not speaking from an atheistic standpoint: on the contrary, I lament that the grotesque impersonation of the universal God by the tribal Yahweh has ultimately ruined faith in God. The worst thing that Christianity has brought us is atheism and materialism.

    • David Skrbina
      David Skrbina says:

      I appreciate Laurent’s comments, most of which I agree with. Yes, the achievements of Western Civilization come from an inner ethnic strength; they came despite, not because of, Christianity. Yes, the genius of the White race lies in its creativity and intelligence, not in weak and depraved Christian values. Yes, the Christian myth, invented by Paul and friends, does function as a kind of Trojan Horse, invading and attacking from within the greatness of the Greek/Roman worldview. And yes, Christianity preserves many pagan and pre-Christian elements (such as the demigod Jesus, who was clearly drawn from Homeric tradition; read the Iliad to hear about many other, earlier demigods).

      But I disagree on a number of points as well. (1) The “chosen” lie, being in the OT, predates, and is of a different category, than the NT — virtually all of which is a Pauline construction, a hoax, as I have argued in my book. (2) The Jews got Palestine in 1917, with the Balfour declaration, which was part of a “contract with Jewry” (Temperley); this was only realized in 1948, when they got UN confirmation. But all this came as a consequence of vast Jewish influence in the governments of England and America. The ‘chosen’ myth had little do with it, except for the few true-believing Christian Zionists. (3) The Romans adopted the OT only by default. They bought the hoax of a Jesus-savior (NT), and the OT ‘chosen’ myth came along for the ride. It’s not that big of a mystery.

      I close with the request to read my book, “The Jesus Hoax”, in full. The above review by Kevin MacD, while excellent, leaves out many essential details. Many critical commenters here simply do not understand the full picture (FYI, I’m not Jewish, not a Zionist, and not a leftist). It’s fine to be critical, but please be a knowledgeable critic.

      • anonym
        anonym says:

        Haven´t read your book yet, but looking forward to it.
        Discussing Christianity in the midst of Europe being gang raped, run over and burned down might seem ridiculous, but understanding the lie of Christianity really puts everything else in perspective and makes the insanity of today more logical, or at least predictable.

    • Adûnâi
      Adûnâi says:

      How is Jesus a Greek hero if he’s literally the opposite – an icon of weakness, pestilence made manifest, a grovelling worshipper? He was not strong, he did not command respect, he is the transvaluation of healthy values into malignant ones.

      Another point I fail to understand is in calling Yahweh and his Jews “sociopathic”. The buzzword is a newspeak term akin to “Beijing” or “gender” and means nothing. Our ancestors drank blood, committed human sacrifices and burned forests – and that is better than the miscegenation and cuckoldry of modern Christian cancer.

      And a third point – what’s wrong with atheism? Is this part and parcel of American psychology where one has to fear the words “racist” and “atheist”? The American mob should have no authority – it is precisely the American Christians who promote race-mixing and sodomy.

      Other than that, thanks for the amazing read.

      • Igor
        Igor says:

        Chivalry, self-sacrifice, humility and the noble values we have come to think of as quintessentially Western come from Christ. Alfred the Great was the Christian king par excellence. Charles Martel sought to convert the Muslims he conquered. Your knowledge and analysis of history is deeply flawed.

      • Ned J. Casper
        Ned J. Casper says:

        There is a theory that the gospel of Mark (normally supposed to be the first of the four) was modelled on Homer. Another is that the gospels were largely cobbled together from “Old Testament” and other “parallels”. There is a book arguing that Hitler based himself on Ibsen. Both in fiction and fact, religious myth and mundane politics, life is full of coincidences.

    • anonym
      anonym says:

      To Laurent Guyenot. Perhaps also look into Francesco Carottas theory (the book “Jesus was Caesar”) about how the Jesus myth was intertwined with the history and legends about Julius Caesar. Carotta goes overboard in his book, IMO, (he finds ways to claim that everything Jesus is taken from Caesars life). But there is obvious instances where the creators of the gospels seems to have incorporated events of Caesars life. For ex. Jesus meeting with Nicodemus of Bethany and Caesars meeting with Nicodemes of Bethynia.

      The deification of Caesar led to the Imperial cult, and at some point this cult seems to have merged with the cult of Jesus, which would explain how and why the romans eventually came to accept the completely alien Jewish Christ figure and the equally alien Jewish teachings.

      The same method seems to have been used throughout all of Europe during the Christianization. Genuine european gods and traditions was incorporated into the Jewish lie, to make us accept and adopt it. Albeit in a new distorted and counterfeited form.

      Its quite mind blowing, and really impressive, in a bizarre way.

      Love your books and articles BTW. Invaluable.

      • Laurent Guyénot
        Laurent Guyénot says:

        I did read and appreciate Joseph Atwill’s Caesar’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus (in which Caesar refers to Vespasian, not Julius Cesar). I will try Carottas’ book (expensive, though). Thanks.

  33. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    All these anti-Christian attitudes stem from a single source, clearly expressed by the Apostle John:
    ”Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world”…”Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also”.
    Jews and Greco-Roman ‘pagans’ are on the same page (to say nothing of the pseudo ‘Norse paganism’) of denial of Christ’s divinity (which makes them ‘atheists’).
    They should heed the advise of Gamaliel to the persecutors of the Apostles: ”And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: 39 But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God”.
    But better the advise that the Christ gave to Saul: ”The Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks”.

  34. Igor
    Igor says:

    Paul did not seek to overthrow the Roman empire:

    “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” (Roman 13:1)

    Also, the New Testament was obviously written before A.D. 70: an event as massive and traumatic to the Jews as the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple by Titus would have definitely merited a mention.

  35. Leon Haller
    Leon Haller says:

    No serious historian or Biblical exegete doubts the historicity of Jesus. Certainly, it is a minority opinion (including among unbelievers). The real bone of contention (perhaps of all things, whatever the time or place or issue) is whether the miracle stories associated with Him (above all, the Resurrection) actually happened.

    In the Christian tradition, the ‘preferred’ pronoun for God is masculine.

    The alleged non-judgment of God is obviously your opinion. The weight of thousands of years of serious reflection by innumerable authorities more learned and intelligent than we are is that God judges man’s moral behavior and character.

    There is no evidence that animals engage in moral (or any other) reasoning. The insect brain is too tiny to have even the slightest possibility of being able to engage in abstract thought (I don’t really have to inform you of this, do I?).

    I did not use the metaphor I did to dispute digestion. I was merely trying to convey the idea that, in the absence of God, not only are humans animals, but we are nothing more than animals. If that is true, then true ethics, which involves some degree of sacrifice (as opposed to enlightened self-interest), is pointless.

    I was not conflating Christianity with race at all. I was expressing my interest in how to think about white issues from a correct Christian perspective. Obviously, Christianity was not always the white man’s religion, as all races long antedated the Incarnation. The issue, as I started out saying, is simply (obviously), is the Faith true? If yes, does it necessarily lead to race-apathy? Or, is white preservationism compatible with Christian commitment? If it is, then to what extent and in what ways? If the faith is not true, might it still have value even for those whose prime concern is white preservation?

    I think you have failed to understand the general thrust of my comment.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Thank you for answering; I appreciate it because I really would like to have this conversation with you.

      “I think you have failed to understand the general thrust of my comment,” you end. No, I think I understood your general thrust just fine: Is the Christian story true, and does it matter? I can answer that: No, it’s not true. Your problem is you can’t prove it IS true. As you put it: Is the Faith true? It wouldn’t be faith if it could be proven, would it? So believers choose to believe it, or to defend it whether they believe it or not. I happen to know that not needing to actually believe it is especially true for Catholics. Like you, I see Catholicism resting on a stronger foundation than Protestantism for that reason.

      It’s like Elie Wiesel’s stories [one example is here: http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/one-fact-proves-more-than-any-other-that-night-is-a-work-of-fiction/%5D that are not true – but they serve a ‘good’ purpose by advancing the Jew’s version of truth. In the same way, you want to advance the White man’s truth and standing: Is it good for Whites? [“If the faith is not true, might it still have value even for those whose prime concern is white preservation?” you ask.] So yes, you are joining Christianity with White Men specifically, even though you denied it. If you determined it didn’t help White Men, or hurt them, would you abandon it?

      Since I brought up Elie Wiesel, shall we ask: Is the Holocaust true? Many accept that the Holo-cost has become a religion, and has thus similarly grown beyond the need to be proven true. It’s strength and numbers make it a dominant force, not its truth.

      For the rest: I think of GOD as real, eternally so, supreme knowledge & intelligence (which can be known but not with the intellect), and unconditional love. Not as a representative of a particular culture, let alone religion. That doesn’t mean I can’t adhere to a particular culture and religion if I wish to.

      But even if you see GOD differently, it makes no sense to place a gender on GOD. God is an “It”, pronoun-wise. People consider “It” disrespectful, but there’s no reason for that. Most want to see GOD as a Super Man of sorts, with a soft side for them. That’s the reason for Jesus. And I’ll add here that I value greatly many of the words that come from Jesus, but that’s a different conversation.

      The same goes with “learned and intelligent men” over “thousands of years” – the truth is we who are living today know more than the most ‘learned men’ from thousands of years ago. We have the benefit of their knowledge and further expansion of all knowledge since. We are leading edge thinkers.

      Individual insects don’t function from their tiny brain matter, but from their group/species oversoul. We humans also have group direction and guidance from our larger group Self. You, Leon, are not by your own single brain doing all that you do and knowing all that you know! Don’t take all the credit.

      If we didn’t have the animal kingdom to live among, mankind would be more savage that we are. Animals have unselfishly brought us incredible gifts which we’ve used to advance our culture. Animals also bring balance and healing to us, and unconditional love, by being in sync with Nature.

      You are way too impressed with Men, specifically white men like yourself. It’s better to see the larger, cooperative, interwoven picture. Do you find that dangerous?

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      To Leon – I want to say a little more about God as judge. You often bring up the need for ‘evidence’ – so I ask you where is the evidence that God judges mankind, or the actions of humans? Your answer to that is “innumerable authorities more learned and intelligent than we are … over thousands of years of reflection.” In other words, humans say so.

      This is clearly an inadequate answer; you are projecting. Man wants orderly societies and figured out “thousands of years ago” to threaten their people with terrible punishments from a powerful invisible God if they didn’t obey. But it was these “authorities” who provided the punishments, and God only took charge after death so that was left to conjecture and imagination. This worked for a long while, but now we are having reports of “near-death experiences.” These occur when someone’s heart stops after a traumatic injury, but they are able to be revived and return to normal physical life. There are thousands of these individuals and many have been interviewed about what they experienced.

      They report remarkably similar, although not identical, experiences. They are always positive, with a common element being the feeling of overwhelming love and well-being. They usually see their whole life in exact detail laid out before them, both what pleases and displeases them, but there’s no blame or shame. Only the recognition they wish they had done better or differently. With very few does Jesus or any Christian figure appear. More likely they see a family member who’s passed on, greeting them with joy, or no one. They notice that they “understand” so much more and have no fear, only anticipation for going forward in the lovely, amazing new world they’re in. But then they’re called back in various ways for various reasons, and THEY make the decision or simply allow that to take place. Their lives are transformed from this experience.

      This is real evidence from real people. It doesn’t fit your moral framework that only men are capable of creating a moral order based on “Divine Judgment.” This idea is devised by men, in the interests of men. I am not anti-men. I hasten to add that Adolf Hitler, billed as the world’s most feared authoritarian and male-supremacist, did not adhere to this type of moral framework; he never once spoke of ‘divine judgment’ or anything close to it. Yet, he was not an atheist; he expressed confidence he would continue after physical death, and in pleasant conditions. He was right.

      • Lucius Anthony Vanini
        Lucius Anthony Vanini says:

        CAROLYN YEAGER–
        You ask Haller for evidence–he has none. He has FAITH, the habit (or vice) of believing things because one wants to.

        Then again he does ask why his brand of belief grew more popular than so many others, notwithstanding that it didn’t promise temporal rewards (the Borgias might’ve disputed that); and he seems to imply that it MUST have been the truth, or why would it have become so successful.

        By that line of reasoning, if it makes popularity a criterion, McDonald’s is superior to haute cuisine, and rap to Mozart. And in Medieval times, were there more Christians than Hindus or Buddhists or Muslims? And if Islam can now or soon claim more adherents, will that make IT the truth and nothing but the truth? Actually, truth ain’t democratic, and it’s more likely to be the possession of a few than of the many….

        By the way, you are of course dead-on right that christian altruism is, well, not exactly altruistic lol because while it accepts the short end of the stick in the here and now it has as its ultimate desiderata the avoidance of eternal torture and the enjoyment of eternal blessedness. Its willingness to accept the short end of the stick in this world (lol as if there were any good reason to believe in any other world) is what makes it a problem where the continuance of our great ethnic/genetic cluster is concerned.

        Yes, altruism is in truth a strategy, often unconscious, of egoism–an unhealthy one.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Hi LAV – Haller is not going to answer; he has no answers, he just follows Doctrine. I believe he’s never had a real spiritual experience in his life, so he doesn’t know from experience. Real knowledge comes from experience.

          While I’ve never been against Christianity, my experience as a truth-seeker has taught me that it is not the best religion we could have. It has its enthusiastic followers, for sure, but don’t think it can last much longer among European people. So you do have to wonder how we got stuck with it.
          I don’t like the over-conspiratorial type of speculation being indulged in here. It doesn’t lead anywhere and is a waste of time.
          Rather than toss around the vagaries of altruism and play God, it’s better to just legitimize self-interest. It’s easier to understand.

          • moneytalks
            moneytalks says:

            ” Rather than toss around the vagaries of altruism and play God, it’s better to just legitimize self-interest. It’s easier to understand.”

            Superb observation .

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          ” Actually, truth ain’t democratic,”…

          Actually , [ scientific truth ] does have at least an element of democracy since it is established by empirical consensus of more than one person .

          • Lucius Vanini
            Lucius Vanini says:

            CAROLYN YEAGER–
            Your (I paraphrase) “acting in self-interest can often be virtuous, whereas acting against self-interest can never be” is WAHRHEIT to the max and desperately needs to be learned by Europeans and people of the lineage everywhere.

  36. kerdasi amaq
    kerdasi amaq says:

    Mythicism is really an attempt to rewrite history as the anti-Christian mythicists wish it to be; as opposed to how it really was and their basic argument is to bully everyone into accepting their outlook. That’s all.

    Rome was really a glorified extortion racket, whose fall is nothing to lament.

    The real problem that Israelites posed to Rome was their monotheism. That is something that a polytheistic society cannot assimilate.

  37. Aristo Boho
    Aristo Boho says:

    To Doctor MacDonald & Fellow Commentators,

                 I regret to inform you that I shall not be participating any further by contributing any REPLY-COMMENT, which has been when I’ve done so, a great pleasure. Doctor MacDonald, I take nothing away from your scholarship as the author of “The Culture Of Critique” of which I was one of the first to ever acquire, and I had even spoken with you by telephone back in the nineteen nineties. But since you have censored my REPLY-COMMENT with regard to your REVIEW herein of Professor David Skirbina’s blasphemous work, sadly so also for him, I can not persist with this web site BLOG of “The Occidental Observer”.
              I don’t give myself airs, nor am I behaving negatively egocentric, but abusive I was not! For a believer someone to call Christ Our Lord a water treader, that is abusive! So I ask you why is the one permitted yet not the other? How I described Professor Skirbina as a philosopher might not be appreciated but I cannot see how it is vulgar or that he’d collapse from it.In the past I was offended by someone being genuinely untoward with Misses Carolyn Jaeger, a lady. He should not have been censored but reminded herein of a proper way of replying to a person, especially a woman.
            I must say you reveal an agenda with canceling me out. And just observe I’ve never thought of erasing from any cultural interlocution or intellectual discourse one who might be even blasphemously anti-Christian, because in this day and age, this present moment exactly, unity is called for against the enemy, whether from a Christian or any other religion including Atheist or Jew or Muslim. Goodbye everyone and may God Bless You All whatever your beliefs might be. Aristo Boho 

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Hi Aristo,

      I don’t know any particulars about your commenting problem, but I sympathize and have had my problems too, in the past. However, I try to remember that comments are entirely a privilege given by the site owner, not a right. There’s no question there are some favorites here, who can seemingly do no wrong.

      I especially enjoy your comments because of your scrupulous courtesy and careful language, so I hope you will be able to continue posting them here. Thanks for your courtesies to me; I “have” noticed them. All the best …

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” I especially enjoy your comments because of your scrupulous courtesy and careful language, so I hope you will be able to continue posting them here.”

        Thank you Carolyn for putting it so perfectly well what I could not think to do .

      • Aristo Boho
        Aristo Boho says:

        Hello Carolyn,

                 Thank you for your understanding. The particular is that I use a term somewhat synonymous to the word crackpot composed by Mister Walter L. yet and hence not a vulgarism when I refer to Professor David Skrbina.I can not see or comprehend what problems you, or anyone else could’ve had in the past given the fact Doctor Kevin MacDonald our host has from my little experience with “The Occidental Observer” been most lenient, and gave the impression of being somewhat of a Constitutional-Libertarian when it comes to Freedom of Expression, as in contrast to many another cultural-intellectual web site. Sadly, there are favorites, and the particularly well liked we can accept, but for the fact the preferred can do no wrong as you have accurately observed.

              Because of your kind language perhaps I shall return to post COMMENTS-REPLIES. I too, sincerely, appreciate yours likewise. You have an active mind not ensconced into a stagnant corner of a belief system. Metaphysics is a great interest of mine but I just felt that to elaborate or compose a quasi essay in disagreeing with Doctor MacDonald and Professor Skirbina would be the equivalent of banging away with a hammer on a nail that has already been perfectly established by a master carpenter. Let us face it, unity is called for! I wonder if some of our fellow commentators realize the dire darkness of our present situation as Europeans, Caucasians, Whites? Such antagonism created  between we who are revolutionaries-counter-revolutionaries is a weapon our enemies need not be concerned to wrought. A number of years ago, perhaps a quarter of a century, ergo long before the Islamist attacks on Roman Apostolic Catholic churches in France, so-called comrades in Scandinavia, Black Heavy Metal Neo-Nazis, burned down a number of churches gong back to the Medieval. These deranged individuals cast an ominous shadow upon persons like you and I, despite we have nothing to do with them. And they’re not tolerated to-day, as they definitely wouldn’t have been in the nineteen twenties and thirties by either authentic Fascists and National Socialists, An author like Professor Skirbina, who appears to be a secular Jew, is cannon fodder for these types,with you and I as the target-victims of their volley. Doctor MacDonald has allowed, like our socially engineered  mainstream media and its fabricated consensus reality, for a one sided or should I say, a disequilibrium discussion. And this is what takes place in the halls of establishment education, read instruction, concerning the truth of the World Wars and the Israeli-Palestinian oppression-struggle.  If one is antagonistic or even blasphemous about Christ Our Lord, or a Social Darwinian Atheist, to the point of imploding and exploding everything to satisfy their own subjective state of being then all is forlorn for us.It is a psychosis. An analogy, with the exception that here we are dealing with the utmost dishonesty for the sake of nefarious Powers & Principalities, is the pretentious Federal Bureau Of Investigation raid on Attorney-At-Law Rudolph Giuliani’s Manhattan home with the orders to sequester all electronics, yet omitting to take three hard drives that have to do with his Hunter Biden investigation, which when you come to think of it, the agents disobeyed orders by not taking them into custody.  It also proves what a farce all the allegations of someone’s sexual misconduct and the true motives of Me Too and Transgender: one of the hard drives had kiddy pornography on it.
              Finally do you not find it curious Carolyn how if he is a secular Jew, Professor Skirbina is honoured by many salivating anti-Christians, or anti-God full stop, but these same persons when it comes to other subjects, and there should be secular Jews who have at times something to offer in our favour, in our defence, such as Jurisprudential Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz when it comes to civil liberties and I know very well his negative side, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics Avram Noam Chomsky, and above all  Investigative journalist, Glenn Greenwald, and a lady who I just discovered, Misses Ilana Mercer, all of them will be immediately thrown onto a rubbish heap and discarded as infiltrating enemies of World Jewry or Zionism. And what a discovery Misses Mercer is!     Please keep well and God bless you; Aristo Boho. Who knows perhaps Doctor MacDonald might reconsider? And I am sincere when I state he is a scholar. Too bad.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Aristo, because you write so much and cover so much ground in a single comment, it becomes difficult to reply to any one thing.
          You haven’t established that David Skrbina is a Jew, a secular Jew. You first say, “[He] appears to be a secular Jew” and then continue with the *assumption* he’s a Jew. I don’t think he is a Jew, just like Laurent Guyénot is not a Jew, but is very anti-Christian. A probable reason KMac is allowing the discussion is because there are so very many anti-Christians among White Nationalists and White Separatists. This is an existential problem for the White race. Much as you’d like to, you won’t make it go away.

          • Aristo Boho
            Aristo Boho says:

            Dear Carolyn,
                      I can understand you when you say it becomes so difficult for one, some, to answer any one thing. This is how I am when I write. I assure you I don’t do this to impress; I am sincere and yes, one could also say I’m didactic. Perhaps even of another era. But such is my personality. I do not care for little sound bites. I see everything interconnected and not as an incoherent whole. Nothing is planned out or pre-planned on my part.
                   I want to thank you, I’m truly grateful, because I am quite meticulous and precise, that you’ve pointed out that I should not have stated that Professor David Skrbina is Jewish. I could be taken for holding a certain adverse fanatical state of mind that anyone who attacks Our Saviour Jesus Christ is Jewish, which as you can read in my previous COMMENT-REPLY isn’t so. I apologise, happily so. I read cursorily and wrongly the COMMENT-RELY of Mister Tom of April 27th, 2021, which is most unlike me. Until you kindly responded previously I was fed up with the topic as opposed to more important battles for us to face, and having been considered abusive, which I wasn’t, yet not angry. I am sure you know well there’re many Jews who believe there was a Jesus Christ and as we can see many who are not who deny His existence. Yes, you’re right when you state there is an existentialist problem for the White Race given as we know that many White Nationalists and White Separatists who are anti-Christian. If you’ve ever personally encountered some of them as I have both in America and Europe it’s a transparent phenomenon that they are as blasphemous and lewd about Our Lord and His Mother The Queen Of Heaven as the filth volume of The Babylonian Talmud is. The truth shall set us free!!!https://davidduke.com/what-the-talmud-really-says-about-jesus/ And with regard to what I composed of the horrific events in Scandinavia they are also like The Communists and Islamists! And you are correct as to why Doctor Kevin Macdonald allows for such a discussion, and this is exactly where my Fascist nature clashes with a Constitutional-Libertarian strain that I have. Once again many thanks Carolyn for pointing out my carelessness about Professor Skribina. God Bless, Aristo Boho 

  38. Walter L
    Walter L says:

    Was reviewing this Jewish crackpot theory about Christ and Christianity one of Kevin MacDonald’s good ideas?
    I don’t think so.
    All it has done is turn off Kevin’s many Christian supporters and whip up the many atheists, pagans, and anti-Catholics who claim to be anti-Jewish, but are really first and foremost anti-Christian.
    Good Catholics and good Christians are your best soldiers in the fight against the Organized Jewish attack on White Christian society.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” Good Catholics and good Christians are your best soldiers in the fight against the Organized Jewish attack on White Christian society.”

      Maybe so . However , Christianity appears to be the worst enemy for the preservation of the White genomes and establishment of a WN ethnostate . How do you think Whites got into their existential predicament ?

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Muslims tried to take over Europe for a thousand years when Europe was strongly Christian. The Muslims failed.

        Muslims are taking over Western Europe now when Western Europe is not strongly Christian — when it is hardly Christian at all.

        America was strongly Christian from its founding until about 1965. And it was 85-90% white.

        America has not been strongly Christian since 1965, and whites are barely 60% of the population.

        The thing you blame for our “existential predicament” is actually the thing that would have prevented that predicament.

        Of course, the Christianity that would save us would have to be authentic. Not the fake Christianity of cultural Marxism, globalism, and Zionism that have been able to pollute our churches because Americans stopped taking their faith seriously.

Comments are closed.