Is Christianity Compatible with White Racialism?

It is a common misconception among many to assume that Christianity is against all forms of racialism, especially that of White identity or White racial advocacy. The Christian Faith, it is argued, stands opposed to “racism” and ethnic tribalism. Believers in Jesus throughout Europe and America are urged to be “non-racist.” They are to stand against any stripe of nationalism that favors one ethnic group or nationality above another. Along with everyone else in a deracinated society as ours, White Christians too believe that “race doesn’t matter.”

Yet, are such notions supported by the New Testament itself (hereafter, NT)? Has today’s “anti-racism” been the prevailing viewpoint throughout the history of the Christian Church?

I intend to demonstrate in this article that the NT does not deny racial differences among human groups, nor does it foster a multiracial and multicultural framework for the nations. I also want to show that popular prooftexts from the Old Testament (hereafter, OT) and NT cited in defense of open borders and receiving all foreign immigrants as “the Christian thing to do” is horribly misguided and serves to work against the testimony of Christians in their respective countries.

I write as a Christian in the Reformed Baptist tradition.

Are Racial and Cultural Differences Denied in the New Testament?       

Reading through the Gospels and Epistles, one discovers that they are not particularly concerned with the subject of race in the way Westerners are today. The NT doesn’t address contemporary racial questions in ways we might prefer. There is nothing about how a society should implement “equitable racial policies” for its citizens. There is not a word about national immigration policies. Absolutely nothing that would provide a framework or some direction on how racial matters should be solved.

Yes, there is the rule that we should “do unto others as we would have done unto ourselves,” but other than some general notions, there is nothing specific, concrete, and detailed in how Christians should deal with immigration, race-mixing, and other related matters.

The NT assumes the reality of race (in contrast to the idea that “race is just a social construct”), including that of racial and ethnic differences. But it doesn’t dwell on it. Race is not the paramount focus of the Bible’s message. It’s not even a minor concern of it. This is because Christianity is fundamentally a religious category, not a racial one.

Jesus, for example, was aware of the ethnic and geographical differences between Jews and other groups living in Palestine at the time. This is evident when he addressed the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark 7:26–30. But He had no specific mission to solve “systemic racism.” He did address how people were to treat others when He spoke of “loving one’s neighbor” and “turning the other cheek.” Yet these exhortations were in the context of normal, everyday relations and not intended to serve as public social policies.

The apostle Paul was aware of the same sort of cultural and ethnic differences between Jews and Greeks. Yet at no point did Jesus and Paul attempt to erase or delegitimize genuine racial, cultural and ethnic differences among the groups they encountered.

Paul did not urge Jewish believers to abandon their Jewish culture or certain ethnic traditions that were unique to them as a people. In fact, Paul himself was quite proud of his ethnic pedigree as seen in Philippians 3:4-6 even though he thought that paled in comparison with “the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” (v.8).

When Paul was maligned by false teachers who accused him of teaching other Jews who are among the Gentiles to “forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs” in Acts 21:17, he was urged by James and the elders to ritually “purify” himself and the others with him so that “all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law” (v.24).

It is important to recognize that there is a historical transition occurring during this period from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, and so naturally there is going to be some overlap between the two covenants. The Christian elders in Acts 21 did not want Paul’s message to be misunderstood, and they did not want people to reject it based on lies. As a form of concession, Paul subjects himself to a Jewish ritual cleansing to show he has not abandoned his people and culture.

This demonstrates that Paul was not against maintaining certain ethnic customs and traditions unique to Jews. He clearly maintained his Jewish identity. Likewise, he did not require that Gentile believers lose their unique ethnic and cultural identity either, except in those realms that conflicted with the Gospel message. Gentile believers were forbidden from idolatry, fornication, including eating meats that have been ceremoniously offered to idols (Acts 15:19–20).

These types of prohibitions are religious in nature, and not intended as a prohibition of all things ethnic or cultural. The natural deduction from it was that everything distinctive to them as a people was permissible. Greeks did not have to stop being Greeks, and Jews did not have to stop being Jewish. Paul had no interest in erasing ‘Whiteness,’ or ‘Jewishness,’ or ‘Greekness.’

In the same way, Whites do not have to cease being White and everything that goes along with their unique cultures and nationalities. Well-meaning but misguided Christians who urge Whites to jettison their Whiteness or “White privilege” are advocating things contrary to the NT. Interestingly, these same Christians never urge Blacks or Hispanics to do the same. Since Whites are a unique and distinct race from other groups, we can also advocate on behalf of our racial and cultural interests in the same way Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Asians advocate on behalf of themselves.

When Paul gave his speech to the Athenians in Acts 17:26 (“He made from one, every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation”), he clearly assumes that while we have all descended from Adam, there are legitimate boundaries of habitation (national borders) that separates us from each other. At no point does Paul argue that such boundaries should be torn down, nor that each nation should pursue a racial “melting pot” model for its citizens.

One could argue that it wasn’t Paul’s purpose in his speech to address immigration issues and racial diversity as it pertains to nations. True, but it’s interesting to observe that in the many public addresses Paul gives, including the various people he encountered during his missionary travels, there is not even one recorded occasion where he spoke of the need for miscegenation, racial and cultural diversity, or the blending of all people into some grand Utopian society. I think if it were so important for the nations of the world and vital to the Christian message, he would have said so. The fact that he never once did this sort of thing tells me that it’s not an essential of Christian belief.

The great fourth-century theologian, St. Augustine, did not have a particularly high view of Africans and he rightly recognized that they were very much different in terms of race. In his Exposition on Psalm 72, he states: “[T]he Catholic Church has been foretold, not as to be in any particular quarter of the world, as certain schisms are, but in the whole universe by bearing fruit and growing so as to attain even unto the very Ethiopians, to wit, the remotest and foulest of mankind.” So it would seem that Augustine wanted to convert everyone to Christianity while retaining the belief that some groups are decidedly inferior.

R.L. Dabney, an esteemed Southern Presbyterian theologian in the 1860s, wrote the following of Africans and of his concerns over miscegenation:

[T]his miserable career must result in one of two things, either a war of races, in which the whites or the blacks would be, one or the other, exterminated; or amalgamation. But while we believe that ‘God made of one blood all nations of men to dwell under the whole heavens,’ we know that the African has become, according to a well-known law of natural history, by the manifold influences of the ages, a different, fixed species of the race, separated; from the white man by traits bodily, mental and moral, almost as rigid and permanent as those of genus. Hence the offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race, stamped with all the feebleness of the hybrid, and incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. (Discussions, Vol. III Philosophical, p.871)

The observations of St. Augustine, Dabney, and so many other Christians over the centuries were not “racist” and “hateful” tirades. Rather, their conclusions about Blacks were the result of serious contemplation and protracted observations of these people that has been similarly acknowledged by a host of intellectuals and philosophers throughout history.

Christians in prior centuries never thought their religion required them to abandon their race or that which was distinctive of them culturally and ethnically. They didn’t even think in such terms, and the very notion of race not being important would have sounded strange to their ears—its importance was taken for granted. The obsession of far too many Christians in our day with diversity being good and Whiteness being bad is a contemporary phenomenon. It’s just one more example proving that Christians have capitulated to the spirit of the age. It’s not proof of Christians thinking carefully and biblically about issues of race, but of being influenced by those who wish to culturally subvert the West—namely, Jews and their Gentile enablers.

Both Jesus (Matthew 23:37) and Paul (Romans 9:1-5) expressed a deep love for their own people. There is nothing to suggest that it was morally wrong either. Jesus even gave historical priority to His fellow tribesmen (Matthew 10:5-6; 15:24). Nothing about it was “racist” or “hateful,” at least not in the way most Americans seem to think. Yet, we must ask, if it was not wrong for Jesus and Paul, why would it be wrong for Whites to do the same?

When White racialists oppose Christianity on the grounds of what they see on the contemporary Christian scene, I can’t really disagree with them. It’s embarrassing to say the least. Yet, at the same time, I recognize that what they are rejecting is not authentic, NT Christianity, but in large measure a counterfeit version.

Today’s Charismatic movement with its “miracles, signs and wonders,” along with the Christian Zionism popular among evangelicals, are all false belief systems grounded on pretexts and misunderstandings of the Bible. Few churchgoers are even aware of how relatively new these movements are, and how the majority of Christians throughout the centuries did not believe any of these strange doctrines. That alone should make it automatically suspect by anyone sensitive to the Bible’s message.

White racialists who are anti-Christian wrongly assume that all Christians believe such things. They seem to have little awareness that most Protestant Reformed and Reformed Baptist churches have rejected such doctrines. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church have rejected them as well. The sort of nonsense that passes for Christianity today is laughable if it were not so tragic.

Many pastors have rightly lambasted Christian Zionism, and there are a plethora of books written by Christian scholars refuting it as well. This lack of awareness among White racialists is due to their ignorance of Christian theology in general. They don’t understand the Bible’s redemptive history, and they possess even less knowledge of how to properly interpret such ancient texts (i.e., basic rules of biblical interpretation known as ‘hermeneutics’). Like so many of the Christians they condemn, they too are ill informed of the Christian Faith, its history, and its doctrines. Thus, they are largely rejecting a gross caricature of Christianity and not the real thing.

Biblical Texts Allegedly Supporting Mass Immigration to the West   

The “Great Commission” of Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20 to go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel is sometimes cited as support for allowing migrants and Third-World peoples into Europe and America. There is no doubt that Jesus’s words have an international scope and urgency to them. Christians are commanded reach out to all the nations of the world with Christ’s message of salvation. Salvation is not limited to White people alone, and in this sense the Gospel is universal or international in nature (Revelation 5:9-10; Acts 8:27-39).

Yet there is no imperative or hint that we should bring back any Third-World converts to our White nations! The apostolic custom was not to spread Christianity to far away countries and then assist them in immigrating to Jerusalem “for a better life,” but for missionaries to plant churches among the indigenous people in distant lands, appoint elders, and then move on to other regions where the same process is repeated. The indigenous Christians remained in their respective countries where they could minister to their own people in their own language. This was the role of Timothy in the NT who was not a “pastor” per se, but an apostolic assistant who planted churches under Paul’s mentorship.

One must also wonder how Christians can think they are “loving their neighbor” by encouraging hordes of low-intelligence, low-skilled, and non-assimilating Africans and Third-World peoples into their White communities. Blacks, especially, have strong natural proclivities toward violent crime. They are impulsive and they are not known to consider the consequences of their actions before doing them. Is it any wonder why America’s prisons are filled to the brim with young Black males?

How can any of this be good for Christians and their unbelieving neighbors? How can it be good for a nation to take in so many Africans and Muslims as does the U.S. and Europe? What kind of testimony are Christians providing to others when they encourage a host of social problems and skyrocketing levels of crime by their insistence that the West must allow migrants from all over the planet to immigrate? When Christians harbor illegal aliens from Mexico, as does the Catholic Church (Lutheran churches too), how does any of it comport with Paul’s words in Romans 13:1-7 for Christians to submit to the governing authorities? Why would American Christians encourage illegal aliens from Mexico and El Salvador to violate the sovereignty of our nation’s immigration laws? How “Christian” is it to justify such law-breaking?

In their “love” for their fellow man, these same Christians have tossed out their brains.

Some Christians argue that since “God is not partial nor a respecter of persons” based loosely on Paul’s words in Romans 2:11, therefore one’s race is inconsequential. Race doesn’t matter and shouldn’t matter to a Christian, so it is argued. We are all of the human race! But this completely misunderstands Paul’s argument in Romans Chapter 2. His point is that God’s judgment will not pass over those who condemn others for their behavior all the while doing the same (vv.1-3). God will not judge people based on arbitrariness or human partiality. He is fair in all He does.

Thus, Jews will be judged by the very Law they possess and claim to obey, while Gentiles who may not necessarily possess the Law in any codified form, will be judged “by the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness” (vv.14–15). In the end, God will judge “the secrets of men” because it’s “not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law” (v.13). These texts nullify the boasting of Jews who think that because they have the Mosaic Law, they are superior to the Gentiles.

Paul’s words in their context have nothing to do with race or racial diversity. It has nothing to do with national immigration policies.

Christians who promote multiracialism in America don’t seem to understand the concept of a nation. Contrary to what Democrats and even what many conservatives argue, America is not a “proposition nation,” at least not in the sense that merely having a set of propositional beliefs written on some document that we all give assent to makes us a nation.

Rather, a nation consists of blood and soil, a shared race or ethnicity, a common culture, a set of cherished traditions, often a shared religion, a common ancestry or lineage, a common history, and shared values. This was certainly how the American statesman and Founder, John Jay, viewed the newly formed republic: “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manner and customs” (Federalist No.2, 1787).

Likewise, Thomas Jefferson in 1801 looked forward to the day “when our rapid multiplication will expand itself . . . over the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with a people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, and by similar laws; nor can we contemplate with satisfaction either blot or mixture on that surface.”

These citations hardly support the racial “melting pot” model that America would later morph into with its multiple languages, cultures, and ethnic groups all competing for dominance. Indeed, Christians who promote the diversity cult are contributing to the endless racial conflicts that plague America.

Yes, propositional beliefs are part of the mix, but it’s not the only factor nor even the most important one. One’s race always takes priority. If Christians don’t think so, they ought to inquire among the Israeli people on just how important a shared ethnicity and culture is. They might learn a thing or two.

One of the strongest proof-texts among Christians in support of mass immigration is found in the OT and how Jews were commanded to treat “strangers” (Leviticus 19:33-36). These people were basically foreigners, sojourners, or people traveling through or staying temporarily in the land of Israel. While they are permitted to live among the Israelites, they must also obey the laws of the land (Leviticus 18:26; 20:2). Are the millions of foreigners who have invaded the U.S. similarly required to obey the laws of our land?

Thus, God wanted the Israelites to be considerate and hospitable to foreigners who entered their land because “you were once aliens in the land of Egypt” (Leviticus 19:34).

Moreover, the way in which the subject of “strangers” is treated in the Mosaic Law strongly infers that it is a periodic and sporadic thing, something that happens every so often but is not normative. In America and most of Europe, unfortunately, mass non-White immigration is normative. They are flooding our once great nations, and they are producing more children than the indigenous Whites by far. It is projected that by the year 2030, Whites in the U.S. will be a demographic minority in the very country their ancestors founded.

OT passages that speak of “the stranger among you” cannot be twisted to support mass immigration no matter how hard one may try. Jews in ancient Israel knew back then as well as Jews in modern Israel know today that allowing any foreign group into one’s country in large enough numbers is a recipe for national suicide. The arrival of foreigners, then, ought to be restricted to a manageable number. These kinds of common-sense immigration policies are no longer followed in the U.S.

Any discussion of race and Christianity would not be sufficient without at least some reference to the Tower of Babel recorded in Genesis 11:1–9. This incident shows clearly God’s design for the nations, and there is no indication that it has been nullified under the New Covenant.

When American Christians promote non-White immigration to their country, they are not thinking about the social consequences of it in terms of crime and what kinds of repercussions it will have on the nation’s economy. They are not only uninformed about genuine racial differences, but they don’t bother to think how this might impact future generations of their own countrymen nor even the perpetuity of the Christian Faith in North America.

In the U.S. a growing number of the immigrants turn out to be Muslim which has a long historical record of hostility toward Christianity. This is especially the case in Europe where almost all of the migrants adhere to the Islamic religion. These sorts of practical considerations never seem to enter the thinking of Christians who advocate for more non-White immigration.

Paul’s words in Galatians 3:28 (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”) is another passage grossly misunderstood by Christian zealots eager to erase all racial differences. Their use of it reminds me of the old adage that states: “a text without a context is a pre-text.”

The words of the apostle in Galatians 3 denote the essential oneness of believers regardless of their class or economic status, including their ethnic makeup: “for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (v.28). Gentile believers should not fear that they possess a lower status in God’s eyes because they are not Jewish for “if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to the promise” (v.29).

Besides, had Paul really believed that all racial and gender differences were mere “social constructs” and done away with in Christ, it seems strange that he would command the women to be “silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35). In his letter to Timothy, Paul also declares “Let a woman quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Evidently, not all ethnic and gender distinctions were erased in the way race-denying Christians imagine.

The Founders of the U.S. saw no contradiction between Christianity and the recognition of differences between the races. They did not view it as either “hateful” or “bigoted” to speak openly of such differences because it was common knowledge and readily apparent when one encountered those of other racial groups.

More than that, our Founders and some of the most respected Americans knew that Blacks and Whites were much too different in terms of intelligence and temperament. Any notion that the two races could exist peacefully together as equals in the same society was viewed as overly charitable and idealistic.

On the wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington D.C., there is a quotation from him that reads: “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate that these people [Blacks] are to be free.” That’s where the quotation stops. But in the full quotation we are further told: “Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government.” Truth is, Thomas Jefferson wanted Blacks deported and separated from Whites so they would be “beyond the reach of mixture.”

Many Christians would see Jefferson’s views as reprehensible and antiquated, but I think he foresaw many of the problems that would arise as a result of miscegenation and the kind of society it would produce.

Jefferson was not alone. Abraham Lincoln had very similar views: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality . . . I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men.”

Before Lincoln was assassinated in April 1865, he was still seeking to colonize freed Blacks in America to Liberia (Haiti today) though the funds needed for his colonization project had run out by that time.

American Christians who refuse to acknowledge real and abiding differences between the races reveal that they are woefully uninformed of both their own Bibles, and that of their own history.

Racially naive Christians make the same mistake that Utopian liberals make. They want to create a nation that bypasses the realities of life and the natural order of things. Christians, like liberals, want a perfect world now—and doggone it, they’re going make it happen come hell or high water! They then create a mindset for themselves and implement social policies that intentionally place blinders over their eyes. Everything they see and hear is filtered through a false worldview that instantly jettisons any inconvenient truths about race.

In the case of Christians, it’s their failure to recognize the “already-not yet” teaching of the NT. Without going into complex detail, the NT teaches that while the kingdom has arrived, it has not yet reached its full expression. That will come in the future when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord. Thus, while we see the kingdom now, we do not yet see it in its full glory. This is also known as the “inaugurated eschatology” of Geerhardus Vos who was Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton Seminary from 1893–1932.

The point is that there is a day coming when all racial differences and conflicts will be set aside. Society’s greatest and most complex problems will one day be solved. They will no longer exist when we reach the eternal state. But that day has not yet arrived. Every attempt to go ahead of Christ and His timetable will prove to be futile.

In the meantime, Christians must face the harsh realities of racial differences, including the lies we’ve been fed about racial equality. This does not mean that we should enslave Blacks or anyone for that matter, nor parade around wearing white sheets with pointed hoods. Instead, it means we stop lying to ourselves. We recognize that there exists an on-going soft genocide waged against Whites throughout the West. Whites are obligated to resist it both for themselves and for their posterity. And if Christians really do love the Truth, they are obligated to resist such lies too.

106 replies
  1. James Bowery
    James Bowery says:

    The Bible is a lot of words. To merely claim that “basic rules of biblical interpretation known as ‘hermeneutics’” is they key to understanding the Bible relegates to another bunch of words the meaning of the Bible. Even if one follows those “rules” there will be differing interpretations of those rules of interpretation, if not differing rules of interpretation.

    Ultimately, this is what Nick Szabo (originator of the idea of cryptocurrency, legal scholar and computer scientist) has called an “argument surface” — analogous to the cyberwarfare term “attack surface”. The larger the argument surface, the more vulnerable a people is to attack by those who specialize in argument.

    Stop torturing our people while standing upon a podium.




    When you stand behind a pulpit before a people who have a natural history including calling out someone who dishonors them into a state of nature to kill or be killed over a matter of honor — over a matter of what I call “moral territory” — and are backed up by a “civilization” that would have them executed for pressing you down into a slimy bog for cowardice if you refuse the challenge, you speak not with God’s authority but with Satan’s authority.

    When I speak of “moral territory” I am speaking to this heritable individualism also going by the name of “moral community” described in KMac’s book, “Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition”.

    Competition between moral communities for membership — and free departure from any such community as well as freedom to exclude anyone for any reason whatsoever from their moral community — is the natural history that arose along with the Yamnaya’s “market” dynamic that preserved individual agency from the EHG heritage just as did moral communities preserve it from the WHG heritage.

    Another torment that is particularly egregious among “Christians” (and I mean the one’s of the conservative denominations) is the failure of their young men — that failure being the failure to ensure that by the age of 18 they aren’t — every single one of them — in possession of a homestead that they themselves have built under the guidance of their elders. They should have been raised by their churches _focused_ on the technological aspect of “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” — from an early age starting with the recapitulation of stone tools if not twigs stripped of leaves to probe termite hills as with chimpanzees.

    The “Christian” churches failed. Holocaustianity won.

    Get over it.

    Move on.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      Thank you for your comments James. I appreciate the dialogue even if we don’t end up agreeing.

      You wrote: “To merely claim that “basic rules of biblical interpretation known as ‘hermeneutics’” is they key to understanding the Bible relegates to another bunch of words the meaning of the Bible. Even if one follows those “rules” there will be differing interpretations of those rules of interpretation, if not differing rules of interpretation” – No, my point was not that simply adhering to basic hermeneutical rules of biblical interpretation is “the key to understanding the Bible” as if all controversial matters will be instantly resolved by doing so. There will always be some debate about this or that passage because we do not always have all the information we need. As Paul says in I Corinthians 13:12: “For now we see in a mirror dimly” . . . “now I know in part.” We have sufficient but partial knowledge, and so there is the need to question and probe the text to get a better understanding of its meaning. Even still, the basic rules of interpretation remain the same.

      My point was that a good many misunderstandings of what the Bible teaches would be rectified or at least better understood if people applied some very basic and sound principles of Bible interpretation. This sort of thing is needed whether one is interpreting a newspaper article, legal documents, historical speeches of our American Founders, or even ancient texts. It simply means we read words in their context, pay close attention to the language employed, try to understand the historical context and setting, try to discern the author’s intention, the audience to whom the document is written, figures of speech, the customs and culture. This is especially so necessary when reading the Bible. These basic principles are so badly neglected by modern Christians as well as those who are critics of the Bible. I’ve seen it more times than I can count.

      Basic hermeneutical rules of Bible interpretation are almost universally agreed upon by serious Bible scholars, translators, and those who write commentaries on the Scriptures. No one is making up their own rules as they please because these are essential rules for interpreting any ancient historical document. It’s a matter of asking the right kinds of questions and seeking to understand what the author meant in its historical setting at the time such words were penned.

  2. Freki The Ravenous
    Freki The Ravenous says:

    I for one do not believe christianity is compatible with “White Racialism”. For one, it is a “global” religion. And I do not share deities with non-Eurocentric people or take part in globalist ideologies. For two, it IS a semitic faith. And no matter how pro-White people try to spin it and make it fit their racial beliefs, it is and always will be an offshoot of judaism. And while we are speaking of “offshoots”, judaism began life as a breakaway cult from the bigger caananite pantheon of semitic Gods. To be more to the point, they conflated 2 Gods into one, El and Yahweh. Eventually claiming that conflated God was the God of the Hebrews. After their exile in Babylon the Royal house and the Temple took on the stance that their God was everyone’s God and they were his chosen people. So in essence, christianity is an offshoot of an offshoot.

    Lastly, as a student of history I know how it was christianity spread across Europe. And it was done with subversion, extortion, bribery, and genocide. Charlemagne, Olaf Tryggvasson, the Teutonic Kinights, church missionaries such as Boniface, and so on ALL committed the most horrible crimes against humanity to force christianity on Europe. The religion literally robbed the soul of the European cultures it took over. Do you have any idea how many times christianity got the credit for behavior that we had long before that faith popped up ? What it didn’t kill it took as it’s own. Seems a very jewish thing to do to me. I am a practical Man. And I just can not resign myself to an ideology, a foreign one at that, that was forced on my ancestors. To me it would be no different than accepting the ideology of say someone who killed my grandparents and forced my parents to parrot those killers beliefs. For example. I find betrayal in that kind of behavior. Europeans the world over have been living a near 2,000 yr old case of stockholm syndrome. And until we break the chains we will never be free. NEVER !

    Return home to your ancestral faiths.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” Return home to your ancestral faiths.”

      Forget about that .

      Faith is the last bastion of a hope
      that is based on fantasy and not fact .

      Supposing it is possible for them to do it , most Whites need to spend less time living in the hopium of the fantasies of their Christian faith and move on to make greater practical efforts
      ( such as do the chosenhite jewmasterss and as do many peace-loving adversarial Muslims ) in adequately dealing with the political facts-of-life before they degenerate into
      a self-fulfilling apocalyptic cult prophesy .

    • Pilot
      Pilot says:

      @Freki Good post. Religion has enabled and aided bringing in swarms of nonwhites into the US and Europe. Religion was behind getting rid of white authority in So Africa.
      People that have “God’s plan” as their agenda do not care about having a white nation, or keeping our values. They want a rainbow of kumbaya on earth, so they can get big rewards in heaven.

  3. George Kocan
    George Kocan says:

    I have seen this definition of racism numerous times, “Racism is the systematic oppression of one race over another.” As a Catholic, as just a guy, I have no desire to oppress anyone. In the same vein, I do not want malicious people, using race as a pretext, oppressing me and my family. The Civil Right Act of 1964, is based on the illogical premise that race, sex and religion do not matter. Therefore, the illogic continues, I am supposed to discriminate against White Catholic people in favor of colored, women Muslims, Jews and whatever, to show that I am not a racist, sexist, etc.

    • Swaytonious
      Swaytonious says:

      No.. racism is the belief in the superiority of one’s race over all others (And thus the inherent right to rule)

      You’re using Jewish definitions.

        • thetruthnotdoctrine
          thetruthnotdoctrine says:

          Perhaps it’s more to do with perceptions than definitions when it comes to the Jews:

          “Cabalist Jews believe that perception is reality. They are reality inventors. Thus, they have taken control of the mass media and movies to shape perception. That’s why politicians and media today lie unabashedly.

          — The Jew, Henry Makow PhD

    • felix
      felix says:

      In a benign world and at a benign time I would agree with you. But when you are in competition with the people who wish us to destroy you the notion of just being left alone is a recipe for disaster. There are times when one has to play to win that is to say oppress another.

  4. Dr ExCathedra
    Dr ExCathedra says:

    I have a long and intense history with Christianity, whose practice and belief I left some decades ago and with whose history I am familiar.

    My assessment is that for most of its time as a significant force in White nations it was comfortable with the natural coalescence of people into tribes and nations, etc. (As it was with the natural order of patriarchy and hierarchy). Blacks were correct in saying that Christianity is the White Man’s religion. Indeed, without the unifying force of European Christendom, how could one expect that a northern German barbarian like Nietzsche could assume that Mediterranean Greece and Rome were a natural part of his personal and cultural identity? It is the Christianity he rages against which made that possible.

    BUT, increasingly since WW2 and exponentially in the last 60+ years, and recently at a dizzying pace, Western Christianity has finally succumbed to centuries of attack by and infiltration by the Enlightenment (the real culprit or at least the major one) and is now functionally anti-White and must be left behind. Like a once-healthy organ now dying from a viral cancer and threatening the body it once served.

    I wish it were not true but I see no prospect for a reversal.
    I say this more with sadness than with anger.

  5. conrad gaarder
    conrad gaarder says:

    Mike Huckabee comes to mind. Nice man, but he really has his head up Israel’s butt. I think he goes there several times a year, as do a number of conservative radio talk show hosts, on their many “Stand with Israel” tours.

    • The Infant Phenomenon
      The Infant Phenomenon says:

      Huckabee is a fraud. He may be, as you call him, a “nice man,” but he is still a fraud.

      He *knows* what I also know: Hardly *any* self-described “Christians” are instructed in the Faith and in the Scriptures AT ALL. They are waiting to be fleeced by frauds who know that, and there is no lack of frauds waiting to fleece them.

      That is *not* our problem.

      If people are too lazy to study or to undergo *serious* instruction–like the commenters on this thread–that’s on them. You can’t fix stupid.

      No, you can’t fix stupid.

  6. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    This is indeed a confusing subject. On one hand, due to Christians believing in a very poorly translated Book (the Bible) instead of a Person, they give carte blanche to whatever Is on the agenda of the Jews, since their Book mistranslates ‘Judean’ as Jew. Benajmin Netanyahu was quite correct when he referred to mainstream Christians as “useful idiots”.

    BTW, ‘The “Great Commission” of Jesus in Matthew 28:19-20 to ‘go into all the world and proclaim the Gospel’ was added at a later date. Serious Bible students are aware of this.

    Another problem – to the great advantage of American Jews – is that nearly all mainstream Christians do not realize that nearly all Jews (i.e. – the Ashkenazim) in the world today are not Semitic and their ancestors never set foot in ancient Palestine. A number of excellent research works, such as The Thirteenth Tribe by Aurthur Koestler should be required reading for all mainstream Christians.

    Having said that, there are still quite a few good Christians who are savvy to what is going on and who are much, much too valuable to just alienate them from our duty to secure the existence of our people and a future for White children. As I write this I am reminded of what A.H. wrote in Mein Kamph: “By resisting the Jew I am doing the work of the Lord”.

    When dealing with Christians who see what is facing our folk yet cling to the ‘Jews are God’s chosen people’ canard, the one thing required above all else is PATIENCE.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      Thanks Tim, I appreciated your comments. Too much to say at this point, but I will note that the Bible “is a poorly translated book” is not quite accurate. Sure, there are some variants that cause debate as one sifts through the plethora of ancient manuscripts in an attempt to obtain the original words, and yes there is not always agreement among scholars on what is meant and how it should be applied. But these differences are in large part minor or at least not as severe as some people imagine when one considers how most scholars today are generally confident that the Bible they hold in their hands reflect the original ancient authors.

      Sure, they may debate on what it means and whether it’s historically true, but most scholars don’t really debate whether we have an accurate and reliable transmission of the ancient texts. The finding of the Isaiah scroll that was dated a 100 years before Christ, reveals about a 98% agreement with the manuscripts of Isaiah we currently possess. The only disagreements are minor variants that do not negate the central message of the book nor its doctrinal tenets.

      Again, the issues are not so much related to translation per se, but to meaning and which variant best reflects the author’s intention. In the vast majority of cases, our Bible(s) has been accurately translated from the original documents though as in most things not everyone will agree.

      Granted, some translations are better than others. Some of them are paraphrases while others seek to follow a literal, word-for-word translation. It all depends on the purpose of the translation which is why I have many of them. The science of textual criticism also helps us to sift and decipher which manuscripts or small scraps of parchment best reflect the original words. The subject is much too complex to get into now, but I recommend two books that may be of service to you: Daniel B. Wallace, ‘Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament,’ and that of the late F.F. Bruce, ‘The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?”

      As for Matthew 28:19-20, there is debate among biblical scholars as to whether it was added later or not. Again, too much to get into at this point. I favor the longer reading as opposed to the shorter reading. The early church fathers (especially Eusebius) generally support the longer reading. Even Bart Ehrman, who is an agnostic and critic of the New Testament, agrees that the long form of the verse reflects the original. If you really want to ferret it out, there are extended discussions concerning it online by such scholars as Darrell Bock, Daniel Wallace, Craig Blomberg, and others.

  7. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    The article makes much of an absence of race-related doctrine in Christianity, and the author seems to think that such absence leaves Christians free to be White Nationalists if they choose. Well, they ARE thus free to choose–to be at odds with moral doctrines that ARE stated and explicit. If Christian morality enjoined taking rather than giving, pride rather than humility, fierce retaliation instead of non-resistance and even the invitation of further aggression, and bias toward the strong and highly-placed instead of for the lowly and poor (like blacks usually are), then becoming White Nationalists would be consonant with Christianity.

    But Christian morality does not so enjoin. No, it says the opposite. Hence, while it doesn’t explicitly tell us to be racially self-abnegating, its all-embracing altruism, its enmity toward “selfishness,” are very consonant with racial self-abnegation–if indeed they don’t imply the rectitude thereof. So, again, when Merkel said that her migrant-friendly politics are alone consistent with Christian teachings, she was spot on. In contrast, Whites who combine self-identification as Christians with Viking in-group preference, together with readiness to strike back against threats to their group, are hypocrites–they behave against the grain of the creed they profess to honor. Europeans did this for ages and thus (with the help of the Pagan revolt known as the Renaissance) were able to revive European greatness after a long nadir. But there were drawbacks: (1) they were monsters of falsity; (2) their lip-service to Christianity preserved the religion for such Europeans as were able to actually practice its morality of unselfing.

    That Christianity doesn’t talk much about race is, at the very least, no positive help to the development of White in-group preference. So why must we even consider it, since there ARE creeds which do explicitly deal with race and explicitly enjoin White Racialism? There’s the Cosmotheism of William Luther Pierce and the Creativity of Ben Klassen. These Racialist creeds not only call for doing whatever will enable Whites to preserve themselves, to prevail and prosper, but enable Whites to be self-consistent, WHOLE, honest, without hypocrisy.

    The article seems to place importance on the bible’s recognition that there are different kinds of humans. Why? Has that any more importance than remarking that a pine is different from an oak tree? Such a prosaic observation doesn’t say that different kinds can’t be integrated or even amalgamated. And as long as nothing is said about preferring the kind which one belongs to, it’s of no help to us; and again there still are the other parts which contravene self-preference, pride, resistance–things all of a piece with racial White self-assertion.

    That Christians today don’t ask blacks or non-White Hispanics to “jettison” their racial identity, while Whites are urged to jettison theirs, is a wholly natural outcome of Christian “otherself-interest” and condemnation of egoism and pride, These Christians–and the bigger group, the post-Christians who’ve inherited Christian altruism while having dispensed with the metaphysics–think they are being righteous or moral because they are selfless–inasmuch as they, being White, are willing to let those who are NOT White get a leg up on them. Pure decadence, of course.

    The failure of Saul of Tarsus (whom the articles refers to as Paul) to condemn boundaries between peoples begs another consideration to accompany it–assuming that he did believe in a Second Coming which would sweep away the world order and replace it with something quite different. His not decrying something as a problem could very well have betokened an unconcern about it–a contempt for something whose days are numbered.

    So as not to write an article here lol in the comments section, I’ll basically limit myself to the above. Yet I must say I’m struck by the author’s partiality to Jews. Funny, in his posts in TOO’s comments section, which I’ve read and controverted, I saw sweeping statements about the incurable wickedness of Jews. His disapprobation thereof is such that I recall him asking, during a discussion of Jews’ racial nature, why we should even WANT Jews to be White–as if our desire could determine their ethnic/genetic character; and that sounded to me like pretty deep hatred. Well, such hatred would be understandable enough–if it weren’t for the fact that he ALSO derives his beloved creed, his pantheon of soothsayers, and his very God from that same ethnic group! Saul, and every one of the 12 disciples and the apostles was an ethnic Jew, as was the carpenter of Nazareth, born the son of the God of ISRAEL and a scion of the House of King David of Israel. Hmm. The bad guys include the very best guys?

    And I’d be very curious to know whether the authors contends, like some Christians do, that Christianity and Judaism are wholly separate phenomena. He seems to think that passages of the Old Testament, the pre-Christian Judaic scriptures, are one with his creed. Well, if so, isn’t the messianist religion adapted for the goyim in some degree an extension of the original messianism just for Jews, such that tenets of the latter also apply to adherents of the former?

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      If I ever had any idea of rekindled interest in Christianity, your legalistic, enumerated, attempted sequential logic, syllogisms sealed that door shut.

      Look, it has a very low utility. Bad design, breaks down, anthropomorphic and a retro enticement and marketing that uses miracles for the largely illiterate (88%) population of the time. It is so unnatural, synthetic, and internally a mess. Look at this:

      The Eightfold Path

      The path to liberation from these miserable states of being, as taught by the Buddha, has eight points and is known as the eightfold path. The first point is called right view — the right way to view the world. Wrong view occurs when we impose our expectations onto things; expectations about how we hope things will be, or about how we are afraid things might be. Right view occurs when we see things simply, as they are. It is an open and accommodating attitude. We abandon hope and fear and take joy in a simple straight-forward approach to life.

      The second point of the path is called right intention. It proceeds from right view. If we are able to abandon our expectations, our hopes and fears, we no longer need to be manipulative. We don’t have to try to con situations into our preconceived notions of how they should be. We work with what is. Our intentions are pure.

      The third aspect of the path is right speech. Once our intentions are pure, we no longer have to be embarrassed about our speech. Since we aren’t trying to manipulate people, we don’t have to be hesitant about what we say, nor do we need to try bluff our way through a conversation with any sort of phoney confidence. We say what needs to be said, very simply in a genuine way.

      The fourth point on the path, right discipline, involves a kind of renunciation. We need to give up our tendency to complicate issues. We practice simplicity. We have a simple straight-forward relationship with our dinner, our job, our house and our family. We give up all the unnecessary and frivolous complications that we usually try to cloud our relationships with.

      Right livelihood is the fifth step on the path. It is only natural and right that we should earn our living. Often, many of us don’t particularly enjoy our jobs. We can’t wait to get home from work and begrudge the amount of time that our job takes away from our enjoyment of the good life. Perhaps, we might wish we had a more glamorous job. We don’t feel that our job in a factory or office is in keeping with the image we want to project. The truth is, that we should be glad of our job, whatever it is. We should form a simple relationship with it. We need to perform it properly, with attention to detail.

      The sixth aspect of the path is right effort. Wrong effort is struggle. We often approach a spiritual discipline as though we need to conquer our evil side and promote our good side. We are locked in combat with ourselves and try to obliterate the tiniest negative tendency. Right effort doesn’t involve struggle at all. When we see things as they are, we can work with them, gently and without any kind of aggression whatsoever.

      Right mindfulness, the seventh step, involves precision and clarity. We are mindful of the tiniest details of our experience. We are mindful of the way we talk, the way we perform our jobs, our posture, our attitude toward our friends and family, every detail.

      Right concentration, or absorption is the eighth point of the path. Usually we are absorbed in absentmindedness. Our minds are completely captivated by all sorts of entertainment and speculations. Right absorption means that we are completely absorbed in nowness, in things as they are. This can only happen if we have some sort of discipline, such as sitting meditation. We might even say that without the discipline of sitting meditation, we can’t walk the eightfold path at all. Sitting meditation cuts through our absentmindedness. It provides a space or gap in our preoccupation with ourselves.

      The Goal

      Most people have heard of nirvana. It has become equated with a sort of eastern version of heaven. Actually, nirvana simply means cessation. It is the cessation of passion, aggression and ignorance; the cessation of the struggle to prove our existence to the world, to survive. We don’t have to struggle to survive after all. We have already survived. We survive now; the struggle was just an extra complication that we added to our lives because we had lost our confidence in the way things are. We no longer need to manipulate things as they are into things as we would like them to be.

      Adoption of these teachings would have precluded our many fratricidal wars, importing and keeping of slaves, higher general morality, and less social psychopathy. Also, colonization would not and is not permitted under these principles.

        • Poupon Marx
          Poupon Marx says:

          Here is a short essay by Chesterton, aka Windy:

          To the Buddhists was given a conception of God of extraordinary intellectual purity; but in growing familiar with the featureless splendour, they have lost their heads; they babble; they say that everything is nothing and nothing is everything, that black is white because white is black. We fancy that the frightful universal negatives at which they have at last arrived, are really little more than the final mental collapse of men trying always to find an abstraction big enough for all things. “I have said what I understood not, things too great for me that I know not. I will put my hand upon my mouth.” Job was a wise man.
          Buddhism stands for a simplification of the mind and a reliance on the most indestructible ideas; Christianity stands for a simplification of the heart and a reliance on the most indestructible sentiments. The greater Christian insistence upon personal deity and immortality is not, we fancy, the cause so much as the effect of this essential trend towards an ancient passion and pathos as the power that most nearly rends the veil from the nature of things. Both creeds grope after the same secret sun, but Buddhism dreams of its light and Christianity of its heat. Buddhism seeks after God with the largest conception it can find, the all-producing and all-absorbing One; Christianity seeks after God with the most elementary passion it can find—the craving for a father, the hunger that is as old as the hills. It turns the whole cry of a lost universe into the cry of a lost child.
          G. K. Chesterton (from The Speaker, Nov 17, 1900)

          I find it demeans GK and makes him out for the dodderer. He unsuspectedly and inadvertently posits Christianity as inferior immature. The congregation/members = The Flock. Church leaders = the Shepard. Lambs and limitations, God defined by space and time>over there, up there.

          Who made up the silly “Father, Son, and The Holy Spirit”. What are their dimensions? Holy Ghost? Was his name Casper?

    • The Infant Phenomenon
      The Infant Phenomenon says:

      “And I’d be very curious to know whether the authors contends, like some Christians do, that Christianity and Judaism are wholly separate phenomena.”

      Yes, they *are* wholly separate. What are called Jews today are also wholly separate from what the Scriptures refer to as “Jews.”

      First of all, it is quite plain in the Gospel according to St John, where the word “Jew” undergoes a very clear transformation as you read from beginning to end. This is why we are told that on Quasimodo geniti Sunday–the Octave of Easter–that the disciples were hiding in an upper room “for fear of the Jews.”

      In John 8, Christ calls them “Children of your father the devil.”

      Also, and mainly, because so self-evident, Judaism ceased to exist when the Romans razed Jerusalem in A.D. 70, thereby brining the Temple sacrifices to a permanent halt.

      No Temple sacrifices = no Judaism. Period.

      What is called “Judaism” in our time is Phariseeism, even according to their own publications. What is called Judaism today originated in the second century after Christ. Jewish publications state that quite clearly even if one is too lazy or stupid to read the Scriptures and see it for himself.

      This topic is necessary *only* because so-called “Christians” are abysmally–willfully–ignorant of the Scriptures and of the Sacred Tradition. There is no defense for this. There are precious few teachers and almost NO students. But that doesn’t prevent the abysmally ignorant from making fools of themselves on comment threads like this one. The situation could be fixed, but nobody is willing to DO anything. It’s a fatal combo–ignorance, stupidity, and laziness.

      You have ONLY yourselves to blame.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      LV Writes: “Funny, in his posts in TOO’s comments section, which I’ve read and controverted, I saw sweeping statements about the incurable wickedness of Jews. His disapprobation thereof is such that I recall him asking, during a discussion of Jews’ racial nature, why we should even WANT Jews to be White–as if our desire could determine their ethnic/genetic character; and that sounded to me like pretty deep hatred. Well, such hatred would be understandable enough–if it weren’t for the fact that he ALSO derives his beloved creed, his pantheon of soothsayers, and his very God from that same ethnic group!” – As usual, you read far too much into my words and unfairly judging my motives. Yes, I am very critical of Jews, particularly of their long history of subverting White western nations. But I don’t “hate” Jews nor do I have a “deep hatred” for them as you imagine. I don’t “hate” Blacks either, though I am critical of both Jews and Blacks. I don’t believe they are good for White societies though I do not wish to harm either group.

      My point in a comments thread inquiring why we should even want Jews to be seen as White was simply that since Jews insist on not being viewed as White so badly, then perhaps we ought to give it to them and not see them as ‘fellow Whites.’ It was simply a sarcastic, rhetorical point. I wasn’t trying to deny the reasons you have provided on TOO and on your own website why Jews should be viewed as White which I find fairly persuasive (I admit haven’t I fully resolved that question yet). But how you concluded that my words reflected “a pretty deep hatred” is both wrong and bizarre. My criticism of Jews is akin to my criticism of Blacks in the sense that I am speaking of what is generally true about each group, their patterns of behavior, their attitudes, and not necessarily that of every single individual within such groups.

      You also wrote: “Saul, and every one of the 12 disciples and the apostles was an ethnic Jew, as was the carpenter of Nazareth, born the son of the God of ISRAEL and a scion of the House of King David of Israel. Hmm. The bad guys include the very best guys?” – Yes. Why is this so hard to understand? Do you believe that every single Jew without exception wishes to subvert the West and destroy Christianity as well? Is the Jewish author of ‘Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil’ (Gerard Menuhin) a bad guy? I don’t think so, especially after reading his wonderful book. Even the Austrian Corporal recognized that not all Jews were exactly alike with the same subversive motives against gentiles.

      Interestingly, the prophets of Israel themselves would not be so welcomed among their tribesmen today when one considers how vigorously they denounced their own people. If what Jesus and His apostles said about Jews and the Pharisees is considered ‘anti-Semitic,’ then by that same standard so would the prophets in the Old Testament. Clearly, they recognized good and bad among their own people. This helps to explain why I can see Christianity which began with Jews as not inherently destructive to Whites. Christianity stands against Judaism. Both religions are diametrically opposed to each other.

      • John Alder
        John Alder says:

        Who was it that said : How odd of god to choose the jews but odder still are those who hate the jews to choose the god who chose the jews. I myself despise the whole rotten tribe of hebrew rodents. If we go to a nuclear war over a country presided over by a perverted jew you will know who to thank.

      • Lucius Vanini
        Lucius Vanini says:

        As promised, I’m back with an account of what you said of Jews before writing your article. This is from TOO’s “TANSTAAFL & Rational Discussion of Jews,” Jan. 28, ’22.

        “Jews go out of their way to make Whites their enemies. They culturally subvert their countries. They seek to destroy every last vestige of the White man’s historic[al] religion. They vilify Whites every chance they get. They weaponize other minority racial groups to turn on their nations’ White majority. They view even the slightest rise of Whites uniting on behalf of their own racial identity and cultural interests as nothing less than a second rising of Hitler and the Nazis. This is the….degree of ill will they have toward their fellow Whites.

        “If this is how Jews view us, and if these are the sort of things they have a long history of doing against our people, why on God’s green earth would we ever want to see them as White?”

        Long-winded and telling us what we already knew, BUT ALL TRUE as regards Jewish behavior. Now, in a reply to me here, you say that your writing about not wanting to see Jews as White was only sarcastic. Well, it certainly doesn’t sound like it. Then you say here that there are exceptions to the rule, and ask : “Do you believe that every single Jew without exception wants to subvert the West…..?”

        That there ARE exceptions is my own position and always has been. But exceptions are quite few–which is why they’re called “exceptions.” I perceive that there’s a tiny handful of Jews not pathologically xenophobic toward even those closely related to them ethno-genetically (as the Ashkenazim are to us). But YOU see a long line of Jews from Moses to Saul of Tarsus, together with the carpenter of Nazareth, as not only on the good guys’ side but being the very best guys.The divine guys, the solely holy guys.

        I wouldn’t trust an all-hating culture to produce a religion for ME! Long before Judeo-Chr. appeared, these Hebrews considered themselves “God’s Chosen People” and viewed other peoples with disdain at the very least. And the ethnic Jews who founded Judeo-Chr. lived at the time of seething Jewish hatred of Europeans, of resentment heightened by Roman rule (not so long after Greek/Macedonian rule). Hence look at the version of messianism they adapted for us: one which anathematized self-interest and resistance to aggressors, as well as enjoining charity to anyone who asks, irrespective of what it might mean for us…. “….in humility value others above yourselves,” Philippians 2.

        Apropos of that, you’ve still not presented the biblical passages overriding the clear injunctions re non-resistance and turning the cheek and blessing one’s enemies. You suggested that they don’t call on the Christian to obey them where race and collective interest are concerned.

        And also, in view of what you’ve said here, I implore you to show passages overruling “Blessed are the merciful” and “Give to the one who asks” in connection with starving Africans. If you can do that, showing that blacks far away don’t qualify to receive the benefit of such teaching, you’ll convince me that indeed the the self-identifying Judeo-Christians (e.g., pope, Merkel, Chr. NGOs everywhere) who think otherwise are mistaken. As I see it, based on the scriptures, THEY are the self-consistent Judeo-Christians, not you.

  8. Crush Limbraw
    Crush Limbraw says:

    “Few churchgoers are even aware of how relatively new these movements are, and how the majority of Christians throughout the centuries did not believe any of these strange doctrines. That alone should make it automatically suspect by anyone sensitive to the Bible’s message.” – it’s worse than that. Few churchgoers are aware of hardly anything beyond their weekly rituals, being fed pabulum from the pulpits – Hebrews 5:11-14.
    In fact, that was a major motivation for me in 2015 to start my website and library. It’s been a slog but I think there is some progress, largely driven by events and not my ‘brilliance ‘.
    The fundamental problem is that we have hidden the Kingdom of God in our pursuit of pietism – – that is just an introduction to the subject, collected from articles by various authors archived in my library. It begins the process of understanding why our churches lost our institutions, our culture and our country.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” It begins the process of understanding why our churches lost our institutions, our culture and our country.”

      The overwhelming majority of facts show that chosenhite jewmasterss are ultimately the main recipients of those Christian losses and they now own/control the USA .

      A process of understanding based on facts will clearly reveal that Christianity is a sheeple-oriented religion
      of self-enslavement to chosenhite jewmasterss .

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      …”” ” the Bible’s message.” “”

      Which Bible ? What message ?

      Most of Christianity is now a “lost cause” if for no other reason than its inveterate and excessive abundance of vague and ambiguous Bible discourse that consumes huge amounts of effort and time in futile attempts to definitively conclude an endless spiral of discourse .

        • moneytalks
          moneytalks says:

          …” how can you make such sweeping statements when they are based solely upon ignorance? ”

          For the same reason that pious Christians claim that on Judgement Day , after you have been dead for at least a few days , God/JC will decide if you go to heaven forever or not where their claim is pure fantasy in total “ignorance” of the nonexistence of any such verifiable reality .

          • John Alder
            John Alder says:

            The burden of proof is on those making a claim. Doubters have every right to ask for proof. We are taught to do due diligence in all other matters so why not when it comes to religious claims? Many of the people who tell us things about religion also told us Santa Claus was real and went to great lengths to keep us believing until it was no longer possible to keep the scam going. Apply the same logic to religion and see what you discover.

          • John Alder
            John Alder says:

            I read recently that Pat Robertson of 700 Club and Christian Broadcasting Network fame is worth an estimated 200 million dollars. Telling people what god likes and doesn’t like has put a nice amount of cash in his bank account, more than what the gullible sheeple who send him money have in their bank accounts. What a profitable racket and it’s legal !

          • thetruthnotdoctrine
            thetruthnotdoctrine says:

            What is a ‘pious’ Christian? In Truth I know of no such creature, so what they claim must be a lie and an irrelevance.

            And what makes you think Christians, or anyone else for that matter, are going to heaven? I think you have fallen for the Christian RELIGIOUS con-trick.

            Roman Catholicism is NOT Christianity; Eastern (Russian) Orthodoxy is NOT Christianity; Anglicanism is NOT Christianity; Protestantism is NOT Christianity.

            The Counterfeit Cainite-Judeo-Christian Religion:

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      “Needs of others before self” translation- needs of ME before THEE. . .Needs of Jews before Yous

      “Needs of others before self” WHY? has any reason ever been offered?

      Are some folks so thick that they cannot understand the difference between rational self-interest and conventional selfishness which does involve harming others? Is it hate/fear of REASON? The awful truth is that religion- all of them- are basically opposed to CLEAR THINKING. . .try to get them to admit THAT. . .religion is tribal UN-consciousness and is opposed to free thought. It is actually certain people not certain doctrines who oppose free thought. FREE THOUGHT IS EGOISM, RELIGION IS THE OPPOSITE, BASICALLY DUE TO LOW IQ and or low courage. USA was founded on Age of Reason- Founders failed to know how much IQ would be needed to have such a society. . .this reminds me of Whittaker Chambers’ review of Atlas Shrugged, he almost went berserk over Rand’s advocacy of “selfishness”- DISTORTING THE PHILOSOPHY like all of the major critics have done. And Mr. Chambers was a former Communist. I would like to know why anyone ever becomes a Communist in the first place. . .

      • thetruthnotdoctrine
        thetruthnotdoctrine says:

        “I would like to know why anyone ever becomes a Communist in the first place. . .”

        That’s easy: 1) Because they’re born Communists as Jews. 2) Because they’re dumb goys that have swallowed Jew propaganda all of their lives and 3) They have never learned this:
        “Capitalism and Bolshevism are the two sides of the same Jewish coin.”

        – Adolf Hitler

        Oh and btw God has no religion.

  9. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    If one tries to convince with a thesis, it’s best to know the difference between infer and imply, and Liberia and Haiti.

  10. Barbara
    Barbara says:

    I cannot bear to attend any church today because they are all about political correctness rather than the teachings of the Bible. Former KGB defector to the United States, Yuri Bezmenov, talked in a youtube video, about the only thing that people are willing to die for, God. He made the point that one and one are two but nobody will die for that truth. That is the reason that the Jew has been about destroying the church and belief in God. They have been very successful because I cannot imagine today’s Christians dying for God or sacrificing anything at all for Christianity. Very different from how things were when I was growing up.

    But I would just like to disagree with the idea that defending our homelands and defending our borders is racist. Every country’s citizens defend their borders. Only the borders of white nations are forced open by the international Jew and the white traitors who help them. So I refuse to address this issue based upon the Jewish invented word “racist”. This is our country and the rest of the west belongs to white people and we have every right to defend it and ourselves just the same as everyone else.

    Rather than always being on the defense I would make an issue of the fact that the Jew claims a right to their own state and also the right to live in everyone else’s countries where they do nothing but cause problems and where they have too much control. We should demand that they live in Israel within the legal borders. We should put them on the defense.

    • The Infant Phenomenon
      The Infant Phenomenon says:

      “I cannot bear to attend any church today because they are all about political correctness rather than the teachings of the Bible.”

      Not only false but ridiculously false.

      What you mean to say is that you are too lazy to find a real church with real Christians.

      It’s not easy, I grant you. We now know–the way so many “churches” reacted to the Covid “lockdowns”–that there are in fact *very few* Christians remaining in “our” country.

      But they *are* out there and you can find them IF YOU WANT TO.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      ” This is our country and the rest of the west belongs to white people and we have every right to defend it and ourselves just the same as everyone else.”

      A very nice sentiment .

      Unfortunately and regardless of any derogatory opinions , The ILLuminati correctly observed that ___

      “right lies in might”

      (( verbatim quote from the year 1905 Marsden translation of
      “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” :
      Protocol I / paragraph 2 / sentence 4

      at this link
      ( the only one I currently have and use )
      to access the full text of

      “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”
      ( aka Protocols of the ILLuminati )

      ) ) .

      Accordingly , USA Whites have not demonstrated any “might” to even begin to assert their presumed “right” to defend what used to be their country until it was hijacked by the NWO globalist ( aka ILLuminati ) in commensuration with the WTC 911 event .

  11. Tucker
    Tucker says:

    I would like to see a debate or counter article to this one by Alex Linder. Linder would be the absolute best and perfect individual to debate the points made by Rockaboatus.

    It is a shame that Dr. William L. Pierce is no longer with us, because he would also be an outstanding voice to bring into this discussion.

  12. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    Your missive on the reinvention of Christianity reminds me of the various machinery types that became obsolete, inefficient, and surpassed by those of better design or materials. They were superior in every respect. More versatile, reliable, efficient, etc. Several of the “Old Hands” adapted so well to these relics that they resisted change or even innovation.

    Religion to me has to have an absolute minimus of shortcomings. I don’t do word arounds or fill-ins for what is missing. I was raised an Eastern Orthodox, the original church, with authenticity certification. It came out of one factory, by one set of designs, and was produced to a uniform standard.

    Protestantism seems like it is constructed of spare parts lying around, a lot of assumptions, questionable materials and lack of real quality control. As a product of New England in the New World, it has as much appeal to me as New England cooking, e.g., the New England Boiled Dinnah. Ugh.

    Well, to each his own. I’ve always been a Buddhist and Asian, though of Greek heritage. The story is a long one, but the veracity and assuredness is absolute. I feel, when I read your article, as if I remembered visiting an early 20th century cotton gin or wheat thrashing machine.

    Summarily, Christianity is like a car with misaligned front wheels. Either steers to the left or right. The left puts you into oncoming traffic, the right in the ditch. I consider in an artificial import created under suspicious circumstances, like GM plant.

    I’ve expended a lot of my time in explanations here adding references and citing sources. I won’t continue. I have never received any feedback that anyone found it of interest or succor.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        Thank you, Jim. Buddha Gautama had no objection to any religion intrinsically, if it provided a general benefit to its adherents and believers. Buddha is always practical. He was a Hindu heretic, finding the religion possessing arbitrary stupidity and artificial constructs and abstractions. Buddhism is not rigidly hierarchal with corporate officers, as most religions are. There is no such thing as “doctrine” in Buddhism.

        You know, the Pacific Islanders made their mead out of pineapple juice in coconut husks buried in the ground, where natural fermentation would take place. This is Christianity. Distilled and refined spirits are analogous to Buddhism, IMHO.

        • TJ
          TJ says:

          “Buddha Gautama had no objection to any religion intrinsically, if it provided a general benefit to its adherents and believers.”

          Ha ha, ho ho, and I might add- THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT AMERICAN PRAGMATISM WOULD CLAIM. See what James and Dewey assert about something being “true” due to making someone feel better. Pragmatism is bottom of the barrel, the worst “philosophy” of all time. Pragmatism is a sublime blend of mysticism and rationalization and primal therapy. If you love today’s culture you’ll love pragmatism.

          • Poupon Marx
            Poupon Marx says:

            I give you an F on your comment, objectively speaking. Your thesis is nonsense and is so reductionistic that you might as well describe love and marriage as a way to save money solamente.

            Your humorous missive seems to come out of a college freshman class subject to a droning professor of a lesser kind.

            I am somewhat startled that you did not recognize the immediate embarrassment that is patent immediately.

  13. Sinope Cynic
    Sinope Cynic says:

    “I write as a Christian in the Reformed Baptist tradition.”

    Didn’t read. As a Traditional Catholic.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      “Didn’t read. As a Traditional Catholic” – Why not? Why limit yourself? I read from other Christian traditions. I may not always agree with them, but sometimes I learn things I never expected by simply expanding my intellectual horizons.

  14. Sandy
    Sandy says:

    The sheep will indeed hear the shepherds voice. Scripture talks of nations while preachers talk of individuals. The race that crossed the Caucasian Mountains to build Europe Europe was quick to accept the new faith which according to Wylies, History of Scotland spread from Galilee to over Hadrian’s Wall in less than thirty years. A fact that today’s mixed multitude would deny. The Great Schism of 1054 split the church and Luther further sliced and diced the faith. The Jesuit Francisco Ribers wrote a 500 page tomb (which I have not read) as part of the Counter-Reformation and from which I am assured that John Nelson Darby fabricated dispensationalism and from which his disciple Scofield made hay.

  15. Captainchaos
    Captainchaos says:

    Most of the comments seem to be in the vein of: “I think Christianity sucks! Why? Because I don’t personally believe it.” Which entirely misses the spirit of an article that is primarily intended to sway believing White Christians from being driven over the cliff of racial annihilation. There are tens of millions of conservative White Christians, particularly in North America, who won’t stop being Christian merely because they are instructed to. We cannot win without them. Indeed, if all or even most of them were brought into racialism’s fold victory would be assured.

    • The Infant Phenomenon
      The Infant Phenomenon says:

      “There are tens of millions of conservative White Christians, particularly in North America … .”

      No, there are not. We saw that in the Covid lockowns. There are *very* few Christians in America.

      But we *are* here. And we have no problem whatsoever being both *consciously* White *and* Christian.

      There is *no* conflict between the two, and there never was. For those who are naturally weak-minded, well …

      You can’t fix stupid. I don’t see what more needs to be said on this subject.

      You can’t fix stupid.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      Thank you for your comments. The intent of the article was to show that Christianity does not require that all racial and ethnic beliefs be jettisoned by its adherents. This is the error of contemporary Christianity with its anti-racial mindset, and that also of racially aware Whites who think the Christian Faith requires that Europe and America be handed over to Muslims and third-world peoples. Both positions are aberrations from what can be gathered from the Scriptures.

      The article shows that the Bible itself assumes racial and cultural differences, and this is not seen as a bad thing for a host of reasons. Contrary to what some here have argued, Christianity is not the enemy they have conjured up in their minds.

      The notion that Christianity is inherently anti-White is of relatively recent origin (Revilo Oliver, William Pierce, and some older thinkers). With few exceptions, White racialists in the past did not have such views. I believe much of it today is an over-reaction to the Jewish Problem. In their zeal against Jewish cultural subversion, they view of everything with even the slightest taint of Jewishness as suspect and worthy of condemnation. There is little nuance in their thinking, and they are quick to throw the baby out with the bath water.

      As a result, strange views of Christianity are spread among these same White racialists, such as that Christianity was invented by St. Paul for the purpose of deceiving the gentiles. Christianity to them is just another grand Jewish deception bent on giving Jews complete worldwide control. They seem to conveniently forget how utterly detestable Christianity and Jesus Himself are to the Jews and their religious leaders since the first century. They have done all in their power to subvert and destroy Christianity, just as they are trying to do to Whites throughout the West.

      Christians in America and Europe rightly saw no conflict between their Faith and that of racial realities. The last thing they would ever imagine is giving over their homelands to hostile foreign migrants. This is because they had not yet been infected by the poison of ‘racial equality’ and ‘wokeness.’

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      blockquoteWe cannot win without them.

      You can hardly win with them. They are martyrs for Israel. Devout Christians have little pause in sacrificing themselves for Christ-over wars against Muslims. “Please kill me, ‘cuz that would thrill me”. For the Glory of Christ, The Redeemer, who will pardon your sins and skins.

      Inside them Pearly Gates, where St. Peter sits in Judgement (gather around, children), you will be judged and live in the land of milk (if you are lactose intolerant?) and honey, or go to Hell, a physical place-such sensory objects of time and space are needed for the marketing department, to make it “accessible” with imagery.

      For you Christians out there, please answer the following: since all who die go up or down (dimensions and geometry demanded by the marketing department), there must therefore a priori be an infinite number of souls. How can that be? Think about it.

      In Buddhism, you are reborn through incarnations to walk again and again until you finally get it.

      • Lucius Vanini
        Lucius Vanini says:

        POUPON MARX–
        At the risk of doing work without effect (I don’t understand a seeming policy here, namely to impede comments at a certain number, like 35 or 65), I’ll say that your critique of Judeo-Christianity pretty well wrecks the creed. I wonder at RockaBoatus’ not attempting to gainsay you.

        But many people including myself have remarked similarities between Buddhism and Christianity, and one of them is that they both view life on this miraculous Earth to be a problem, more trouble than it’s worth.

        At the end of your comment immediately above, you say “….you walk again and again until you finally get it.” People acquainted with Buddhism understand that you allude here to finally achieving such enlightenment as enables one to escape Samsara, the cycle of birth and death. Well, the desirability thereof is only YOUR value-judgment, and it’s typically the judgment of people whose mettle has decayed to the point at which life doesn’t seem worth its pains. Just try to prescribe it to people in ascending, strong societies, who love life, say YES to it despite if not FOR its conflicts and pains. Old Romans, Mycenaean Greeks, Vikings, etc. For them, “this life” is no liability!

        Like Christianity, Buddhism is a decadence religion, a product of a phase of society in which fortitude has declined, a THERAPY attractive to succeeding similar social milieus–and contemptible to any heroic milieu or period.

        • Poupon Marx
          Poupon Marx says:

          How sad, Lucius that you so misunderstand the intrinsic and intricate nature of Buddhism. Along with your opinion, you might well say that you are against tragedy, that it is for the weak and is volition. You should very young, wide-eyed, over confident, and frankly simplistic.

          Do yourself a favor. Do some serious study into Buddhism for yourself. You would be a fool not to, and to continue with what I believe you know is absurdly reductionistic.

          Your fantasies are unhealthy, my son.

          • Lucius Vanini
            Lucius Vanini says:

            POUPON MARX–
            Simply answer this: Is Buddhism concerned with enabling people to avoid rebirth, to be free of a cycle of birth and death, or is it not?

            If it is, exactly WHY should anyone who loves life and the world think that avoiding them should be of value? If you can answer that well, then thou art a Tathagata.

    • Leon Haller
      Leon Haller says:

      I believe I was arguing that exact same point a dozen years ago over at Majority Rights, in discussion to which you were a party. I am a Christian, and fully contest from the inside the idea that Christianity and either modern race-denialism or multiculturalism are compatible. I believe that Christianity, properly understood, both mandates race-realism (what good hath ever come from mendacity – the Devil’s Dominion?), and allows one to reject coercive racial integrationism, especially when it is tending towards ethnocultural replacement and actual genocide. Indeed, I actually believe (though this is a doctrinally tougher sell) that Christianity actually mandates white preservationism (ie, anti-miscegenationism and anti-integrationism).

      But even if I were a pure atheist, I would totally support the intellectual and political project of making white nationalism appear compatible with Christianity. There are far more white Christians than either white “wokeists” (whom we will never convert to our views anyway), or white nationalists. It is among white Christians, as oppressed as any other whites, that we have our largest “field of conversionary possibilities”).

  16. Chris
    Chris says:

    Suffice it to say that all anti-racist thought stems entirely from Jewish projection, in as much as Jews are the most racist people that could even be thought of: denying the son of God himself because he dares to enfranchise the goyim.

  17. londonstone
    londonstone says:

    If memory serves, Revilo Oliver termed the New Testament the Annex to the Jew Book. Which was not a random expression of disdain but an accurate description of its true provenance and purport. The first Christians were, after all, Jews. So perhaps one should not be surprised that it might indeed counsel racial exclusivity, at least (sub rosa) for Jews, i.e. those of that ethnos – notwithstanding Paul’s later gloss extending membership of the club to the ‘porch’ honorary Jews – the Gentiles.

    So who cares whether or not the Bible purports to deracialise Gentiles? God is not confusion but the Bible is in its aggregation and inversion of the writings of other ancient peoples. (See Paine, cited below).

    It makes me positively want to vomit listening to the degenerate Whites who would ape the degeneracy in the Bible by claiming to be the “true” Jews. They have no discernment. And if they are the “true” Jews then who are the Amalekites whom Jewry is sworn to blot out for all time? There are even audio clips to be found on the internet in which deranged rabbis fulminate and rant about the destruction of the Amalekites as if this were an idea whose time had come.

    There has been a long and honourable history of Biblical criticism starting possibly with Thomas Paine: “Age of Reason”, see extracts in e.g.

    An inspired modern examination of the true purport of the Bible as the racial playbook of Jewry is Charles Giuliani’s “What is Wrong with the Bible”?
    As for the origins and distortions specifically of the Old Testament there are powerful insights in the Appendices of

    All of which serve merely to confirm that any purported doctrine over racial exclusivity or otherwise is neither here nor there, since the book is itself schizophrenic, replete with errors and contradictions.

    Back to those Amalekites. Feel the hate – and not even an exhaustive sampling:

    {17:13} And Joshua discomfited Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword. {17:14} And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this [for] a memorial in a book, and rehearse [it] in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

    {24:20} And when he looked on Amalek, he took up his parable, and said, Amalek [was] the first of the nations; but his latter end [shall be] that he perish for ever.

    {25:17} Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; {25:18} How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, [even] all [that were] feeble behind thee, when thou [wast] faint and weary; and he feared not God. {25:19} Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee [for] an inheritance to possess it, [that] thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget [it.

    1 Samuel
    {15:2} Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember [that] which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid [wait] for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. {15:3} Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

    • The Infant Phenomenon
      The Infant Phenomenon says:

      “The first Christians were, after all, Jews.”

      Oh, really?

      What’s the cut-off date on “first”?

      Maybe you ought to read the New Testament.

  18. Chris
    Chris says:

    I would also add, that Jews are going to eagerly grab any document the goyim produce, whether its Greek philosophy, The New Testament or the Constitution and apply pilpul until they get it working for Jewish interests.

  19. John Alder
    John Alder says:

    Christians are 99 % atheist because they believe all other religions are false. If they examined their religion as an outsider they would find the bible and christianity wanting. Most christians live their lives just like the rest of us Phiistines .How is the story of the ascension of Jesus into heaven any different than the story of the prophet Mohammed getting on a magic horse and flying to heaven for a chat with allah?

  20. Wayne Lusvardi
    Wayne Lusvardi says:

    Oddly, no mention is made in the above article that Jesus’s ethnicity was not a weJ. He was a Galilean or Phoenician. There were several tribes of Judea but Galilee was not Judean. Karim El Koussa in his book Jesus: The Phoenician amasses the following evidence that Jesus was not a weJ.

    El Koussa’s thesis is that Jesus was a Phoenician or Galilean (old words) or Lebanese (newer term), not from Judea or a participant in religious Judaism. Just as important, El Koussa asserts the New Testament Gospels of Mark and Matthew are propaganda meant to convert Judeans to Christianity by claiming Jesus as Judean; but Luke and John were the original Christian gospels indicating Jesus was not only from Galilee but was ethnically a Galilean gentile (Marcion). El Koussa takes this one step further by calling the Old Testament story of King David, and Jesus’s genealogy from David, as fabrications, as there are no archeological, historical or public record evidence of a King David outside the books of Samuel.

    The following is taken from Chapter 8 – The Hypothetical Jesus the Jew Fails to Prove Himself Once Again – of El Koussa’s book:

    First, the names attributed to Jesus all come from Phoenician and Galilean surnames, not from Judaism. And Jesus’s 72 apostles (yes, 72) all have Phoenician-Galilean names, except two, not names from the tribes of Judah.

    Next, the name Mary, Jesus’s mother, likewise comes from Canaan-Phoenicia. This persists to this day as Israeli’s do not embrace the name Mary, but Christians do.

    There were two Bethlehem’s. Jesus was not born in the Bethlehem of Judea but the Bethlehem of Galilee, which raises the question was the naming of the Judean Bethlehem intentionally meant to appropriate Jesus for Judaism?

    Jesus was not a member of any of the sects of Judaism: Sadduccees, Pharisees, Essenes, Zealots or Scribes. Nor was Jesus a rabbi, although he was a teacher, even though the scriptures casually use the term “rabbi”.

    There are several Gospel scriptural references to mutual ethnic animosity between Jesus and Judaism. Jesus calls them “vipers” and “money changers” and, in turn, the Judeans claim that no religious prophet ever came out of Galilee (which is true if Jesus was not a Judean in the first place). Again, this indicates Jesus was not an adherent of Judaism nor identified as Judean.

    El Koussa also amasses evidence from outside the Bible, from Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and others that Galileans were not Judeans. And even the prophet Isaiah mentions when he visited Jerusalem that Galilee was not Judean.

    El Koussa gives special recognition to first century Christian bible compiler Marcion as someone who tried to assemble the first purely Christian New Testament, comprised of portions of the Gospel of Luke and the Letters of Paul. El Koussa contends that the Gospel of Matthew is an attempt to convert Jews to Christianity. But I would take this one step further by saying, along with the Letters of Ignatius, that “Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity”. The book of Matthew is a Judaic attempt to co-opt Jesus as an ethnic Judean, which El Koussa’s book clearly documents was not the truth.

    Moreover, the Talmud specifically forbids sweJ from marrying Galileans.

    By the 300’s AD, the Roman Emperor Julian wrote a book titled Against the Galileans (not against the Judeans or sweJ.

    • The Infant Phenomenon
      The Infant Phenomenon says:

      Yes, all of this is almost certainly true, and I say “almost” only because I have never looked into it as much as you have.

      But, yes, I’ve known about this for, well, let’s just say many years. Can’t remember when or where I first encountered it. But it was many years ago.

      Thanks for the book recommendation. I’ll order it now.

      Here’s one for you or for anybody interested in this general topic:

      First publ 1970. Reissued 1995. Reads like today’s headlines.

  21. Lucius Vanini
    Lucius Vanini says:

    I can’t resist asking the article’s author the following questions:

    1) Does he recommend White Nationalism to the congregation of his church? I notice that, among non-Christian White Nationalists, Christians constantly stump for Jesus and Saul; but I don’t get a sense that they try to favorably dispose non-WN Christian congregations toward White “racialism” (or, the term I prefer, “racism”–because that’s what discrimination based on race is, notwithstanding that it may consist merely in preferring Whites to all others).

    If the author isn’t trying to publish a White-Advocacy article on an ecclesiastical website, or making comments sympathizing with WN perspectives under Christian articles, it’ll confirm my belief that he thinks Christians have a better idea of what’s important than White Advocates do. Equally it underscores another reason why Christians who say they’re WNs are a problem for the Cause–namely that their creed is more important to them than are peculiarly White interests.

    2) How can he assure his co-religionists–or even himself–that rejecting intimate association with sincere black Christians is righteous? Are not such blacks his brothers in Christ? How can he prefer infidel Whites to his brothers in Christ? Since race is what most counts with me, White Christians like him are allowed into the Ethnostate I dream of, whereas blacks who share my religious views are excluded. Can he share my biases and thus be a thoroughgoing White Partisan?

    Remember, his creed doesn’t say that preferring Whites is important, but places supreme importance on accepting Christ as Redeemer. If Whites don’t accept Jesus as their savior–and perhaps a majority of WN Whites never will–how can a true Christian prefer them to blacks who do?

    3) Talking of a coming holy kingdom wherein where all conflicts have been ended, is he aware that the Christian expectation thereof is a reason why Whites don’t espouse White Advocacy? I get around, not only in cyberspace but geographically; and wherever I go, I talk to Conservative Whites about White partisanship; and time after time I hear them say, “All these troubles are signs of the last days, and it’s good they’re happening, because it means Jesus is coming soon and only he can make things right.” Though RockaBoatus might differ with them about the timetable, a whole lot of them think that if anything the Second Coming is past due; and I don’t see how he knows better than they. Christians have believed that the end of “this world” is nigh ever since they heard “There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming into his Kingdom” (so says the literary character Jesus in the books of Matthew, Luke and Mark)–and that’s going on two millennia ago….

    Of course, the whole narrative is a ware of snake-oil salesmen, mere mythology. But the upshot in any case is that when people think troubles herald an end to all trouble, they’ll accept them; and when they expect a supernatural personage to make everything right, they’ll rest content with “having faith.”

    4) If because of exploding population Africa suffers famines, will he support White efforts to relieve those famines? With the highest birthrates in the world, black-African numbers burgeon and often lead to food shortages; but they also overflow toward and into Europe.Would RockaBoatus be for letting black children starve to death instead of enabling them to live and help continue the proliferation? I know exactly where I’d stand. As a racist, to whom nothing is more valuable than White well-being, I’d let ALL sub-Sahara starve if that could benefit Europe. But as a Christian, can RockaBoatus reject the option of “charity”? Can he be for letting children starve?

    5) Will he favor the abolition of abortion, which in the USA has kept black numbers down because blacks use it as birth control, aborting five times as often as Whites do? At 40+ million, American blacks commit hundreds of thousands of violent crimes against Whites per year–at least 1480 PER DAY–and an alleged 86% of them vote Leftist, helping elect Marxists and black mayors who ruin cities and DAs who abet crime. And but for abortion the black pop could easily be 80+ mill. So will our Christian writer favor devoting so much time, money and work to doubling this trouble by reversing Roe V. Wade, when the cheapest and least risky option possible–doing nothing–will enable Whites’ natural enemies to continue culling their own numbers?

    • thetruthnotdoctrine
      thetruthnotdoctrine says:

      “(or, the term I prefer, “racism”–because that’s what discrimination based on race is, notwithstanding that it may consist merely in preferring Whites to all others).”

      “”RACIST” A made up word by the Jew Leon Trotsky (real name Lev Bronstein) in 1927 and used to browbeat all dissenters of the Jewish Bolshevik Marxist/Communist ideology, and still used today to keep white people walking on egg shells regarding other races. Only whites are racists according to these traitor sons of bitches, like John Mann, UK Labour MP.”

      — Brother Charles

      “Equally it underscores another reason why Christians who say they’re WNs are a problem for the Cause–namely that their creed is more important to them than are peculiarly White interests.”

      Hardly likely when Adam and Eve were white; Seth was white; Noah was white; Shem was white; Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel were white; Judah and Joseph and their ten brothers were white; King David was white and Yashua Messiah (Jesus Christ) was white, and none of them were Jews!

      Jews are Hamitic Canaanites from Bathshuah the daughter of Hirah the Adullamite Canaanite. Details here: The Origins of the Royal Judahites and Canaanite Jews explained:

      Jews are more closely related to blacks, than whites, for blacks are also Hamitic Canaanites.

      • The Infant Phenomenon
        The Infant Phenomenon says:

        “”RACIST” A made up word by the Jew Leon Trotsky (real name Lev Bronstein) in 1927… .”

        The Oxford English Dictionary documents that the first recorded utterance of the word “racism” was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902.

        The OED is authoritative. Brother Charles is not.

        Walter Skeat’s Etymological Dictionary is authoritative for English etymology. It is updated periodically but was first published in the 1880s. He does not know the word,

        You are right: It is a BS word that has no real definition. But its first documented use in English was in 1902.

        • thetruthnotdoctrine
          thetruthnotdoctrine says:

          ‘Racism’ and ‘Racist’ are two different words, perhaps you hadn’t noticed that, so did the word ‘Racist’ morph out of ‘Racism’ or was ‘Racism’ the only word in use in 1902?

          Plus, did Pratt weaponise it politically to browbeat and persecute people with, as did Trotsky? The real reason for my using the above quote.

    • The Infant Phenomenon
      The Infant Phenomenon says:

      ” … and wherever I go, I talk to Conservative Whites about White partisanship; and time after time I hear them say, “All these troubles are signs of the last days, and it’s good they’re happening, because it means Jesus is coming soon and only he can make things right.”

      You have answered your own question. The people to whom you refer are, exactly as you said, “conservative whites.” But they are not Christians. And no, I don’t need to know any more about them than you have written here, OK? They are *not* Christians.

      “There are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming into his Kingdom” (so says the literary character Jesus in the books of Matthew, Luke and Mark)–and that’s going on two millennia ago….

      That is explained in Luke 24–the Road to Emmaus events. You have been poorly instructed or not instructed at all. But that is your problem; not mine.

      “But as a Christian, can RockaBoatus reject the option of “charity”? Can he be for letting children starve?”

      Yes. I can’t speak for rockaboatus, but the *obvious* answer to this question is “yes.”

      What you are struggling to express is a general disgust with the fools today who CALL themselves “Christian” but who OBSERVABLY are not. That is their problem; not yours.

      What happens on the other side of the world is of no concern to the true Christian. That is GOD’s concern, not yours or mine. If you lived next door to starving people, then yes, that would be your problem, but only in certain ways and only to a certain degree, which the Scriptures spell out in abundant clarity. Charity is not promiscuous. Nor do the Scriptures even hint at such a silly notion. It is impious to try to usurp the divine prerogative. Africa is not the concern of any human being outside of Africa. Africa *is* God’s concern, not yours or mine. The Scriptures are *clear* about this.

      All of these questions have been answered with point-blank clarity. A book published in 1970 and reissued in the 1990s reads like today’s headlines. The author explained the questions you are asking. He explained where “our” country was going, and he was right: We are there. And worse is yet to come.

      But that is because self-described but FALSE “Christians” are both lazy *and* stupid. And we saw in the Covid hysteria that they are also faithless cowards.

      The Politics of Guilt and Pity:

      Read it or resign yourself to your present confusion.

      Must I say it again? You can’t fix stupid.

      • Lucius Vanini
        Lucius Vanini says:

        Your problem is certainly not confusion. Your problem is surety. You’re sure that absurdities are true.

        Your claiming to know who are the true Christians doesn’t wash. The pope, Angela Merkel, the Christian ngo’s facilitating the Third-World invasion of America and Europe can retort to you that, no, THEY are the real Christians; and I, not so unacquainted with your superstition as you might think (being of West-European heritage unfortunately besmirched by your Jew-concocted toxin), see that their politics are more harmonious with the Sermon on the Mount than yours seem to be.

        The Conservative Whites I encounter are blighted enough by Judeo-Christian dogma to be politically hamstrung by myths like the Second Coming (as mythical as the first coming, certainly) and to do something so devoid of self-interest as work to overturn Roe V. Wade. To which creed can you impute their folly? Taoism?

        Oh and so it’s geographical distance that would deter you from feeding starving Africans? You mean to say that if you were in the old Rhodesia or South Africa you’d feed the starving sub-Saharans in a neighboring black country so they’d pose an immediate demographic threat to you?! Well, you’d be in Africa, right? And ‘twould be your duty to be charitable and help sustain the proliferation of the enemy, ’cause you’d be in Africa, right?

        Fact is, though, your whole premise is laughable. We are on Earth, a finite planet, where things happening in one part affect people in other parts, as the African population bomb is affecting Europe. And part of that threat is the result of Christian altruism as practiced by Europeans and Euroamericans, who’ve fed Africans when letting Nature take its course would’ve mitigated the threat.

        This part answers your absurd contention above, expressed to my earlier comment–that contention being that Christianity isn’t Judeo-Christian, that Judaism and Christianity are wholly separate. Lol sorry, pal, there’s no way out of that one. If Christians depend, say, on LEVITICUS 18:22, for their explicit prohibition of homosexuality, their creed is to some extent an extension of the earlier messianist creed, inasmuch as a tenet in the pre-NT Judaic scriptures is part is connected to, passed on, the newer messianism.

        Jews may have passed the enterprise on to the goyim they suckered, but their fingerprints are all over it and shall always be. The goyim who swallowed the new Judaic messianism have been shilling for dead Jews of the era of the Great Revolt, when there was no love for Europeans among “the Chosen.”

      • RockaBoatus
        RockaBoatus says:

        “Yes. I can’t speak for rockaboatus, but the *obvious* answer to this question is “yes” – Thank you. Like yourself, my answer would also be “yes.” I have said so on several pro-White sites over the years, including on a blog I once administered. There are a host of reasons for this, but that would require a whole lot more typing.

        Concerning LV, I have already answered his challenges on the abortion question in another article on TOO. Whether he agrees with my explanation or not, he seems content to be going round and round over the same issue with me. It’s all so tiresome.

        • Lucius Vanini
          Lucius Vanini says:

          Yes, you find an inconvenient subject so tiresome! I notice you don’t reproduce your answer. I asked the question here as well to get your view on THIS page.

          Because millions of White Americans are under the influence of a creed obviously intended to impair Whites’ sense of self-interest–your creed–they want to expend so much money, time and effort to overturn Roe V. Wade and thus protect the proliferation of natural enemies who are half the number they’d be but for abortion–when all that’s needed to retain that measure of protection is to let sleeping dogs lie! If they’re successful, and blacks attack Whites 2960 times per day instead of 1480 (DoJ figure), afford many millions more votes for Marxists and black mayors, and cost Whites twice as much in welfare taxes, people like YOU will be responsible.

          As for your not favoring the feeding of starving Africans, well, unfortunately, you shill for a creed which says “Give to those who ask” (Sermon on the Mount) and “No one should seek their own good, but the good of others” (I Corinthians). You mustn’t be surprised that some people can be completely consistent with the credo. Judeo-Christian “charity” will continue to induce millions to feed and thus rescue Africans, and they’ll be true Christians, not you!

          You are doing a pretty good job to win the prestigious Francisco Pizarro Award for nominally Christian followers of Odin LOL, but one of the hazards of preserving Christianity is that there will be people actually willing to practice its altruism and subordination of self. What you want to restore is NOMINAL Christianity, the kind long “observed” in Europe–what I call Crusader and Conquistador Christianity, which is about as Christian ethically as Odin worship. Well, actual Christian tenets gradually did seep into European psyches and secular ethics, such that today we have White atheists and agnostics far more given to Christian altruism and pacifism than Medieval and Renaissance-era churchgoers ever were.

          I’ll get to your rejoinder above a bit later (I’m experiencing some computer problems now), re your feelings toward Jews. I can reproduce your words from under the TOO article concerned. But I will say this–that you’ve repeated your untrue assertion that Jews don’t identify as White. According to the Pew Research study, 94% of Jewish Americans do so identify. You said you read my writings on the matter; but, if you did, you evidently missed that.

          MEA MAXIMA CULPA for the grievous sin of being tiresome by returning to subjects, on which you imagine you’ve satisfactorily commented. I’ll fast and get flagellated.

          P.S. Your weird notion that Judaism and Christianity are “diametrically opposed to each other ” is laughable! If they were, people like you could never quote so much from–appeal to–the pre-Christian Judaic scriptures, the Old Testament.

          • RockaBoatus
            RockaBoatus says:

            “As for your not favoring the feeding of starving Africans, well, unfortunately, you shill for a creed which says “Give to those who ask” (Sermon on the Mount) and “No one should seek their own good, but the good of others” (I Corinthians)” – You prove the very thing that I was arguing in my comments, but you don’t even see it.

            “I can reproduce your words from under the TOO article concerned. But I will say this–that you’ve repeated your untrue assertion that Jews don’t identify as White. According to the Pew Research study, 94% of Jewish Americans do so identify” – I have said repeatedly that Jews play both sides of the coin: They claim to be White when it’s convenient for them, and then they claim to be Jewish when that serves their purpose. Jews in our day are particularly inclined to deny they are White because of all the anti-White rhetoric in our society.

            Statistically 94% of Jews may indeed claim to be White, but I suspect that the vast majority of these same Jews would deny they are White if pressed. Whether White or not, they are threat to White racial identity and the future of our people.

            Again, reading through your verbose and somewhat convoluted comments is like listening to someone who attended an 8-hour crash course on the Bible and Christian doctrine who has just information to persuade those who don’t know anything about the subjects. Those who are better informed on the subject just laugh.

        • TJ
          TJ says:

          Instead of looking at arguments I would look at rationalizations, especially those larded with pork. Look for the greedy who have been bought

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      Part of your problem is that you speak to “white conservatives” who may not necessarily be genuine Christians nor with a mature knowledge of the Bible. You seem to take their general ignorance and project it onto me as if that’s representative of what I believe. Reading through your comments reminds me of the old adage, “a little knowledge is dangerous.” You have repeatedly quoted the words of Jesus in other comments to prove some particular point in which you have no awareness of what Jesus was actually trying to say, including the forms of expression He employed. I have tried to explain such basic things to you, but it bounces off like small stones off the Rock of Gibraltar.

      The reasoning behind your objections are also confusing at times, they are somewhat scattered, rambling, and sprinkled with just enough to convince those who, like yourself, don’t really understand Christianity.

      Also, I have already addressed your comments about abortion on another thread. I have no desire to go over the same thing again with you. Since you repeating the same question all over, it’s apparent that you didn’t find my answer persuasive. That’s fine with me.

      As for feeding starving Sub-Saharan peoples, I would not support this even as a Christian. I have written about this in the past and I have solid reasons for not doing so, but I have no interest in rehashing it now. Some of it is reflected in a book by Linda Pollman that I read a number of years back: ‘The Crisis Caravan: What’s Wrong with Humanitarian Aid?’

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        …”” “a little knowledge is dangerous.” “”

        As the french say ___

        ” c’est la vie ”

  22. Robert Block
    Robert Block says:

    This is an earnest, thoughtful article. I think the approach is fundamentally wrong. We don’t try on world views like Brooks Brothers suits. If evidence & logic convince you a thing is true, believe it, in other words, believe I it is believable. It would be nice to believe in eternal life and a reunion with out loved ones in the best Holiday Inn imaginable – rather better than imaginable, actually – but fewer and fewer people can bring themselves to believe this and the narrative of redemption is not internally coherent, especially in light of evolutionary biology. If we could truly choose to believe or not, my guess is that ensouling the diverse would impel us to accommodate them rather more, the odd ancient dissenter notwithstanding. But whites should weigh evidence above all and in this case the evidence falls short.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      “I think the approach is fundamentally wrong. We don’t try on world views like Brooks Brothers suits” – With all due respect, whoever said we should? How in the world did you arrive at that based on my article?

      “If evidence & logic convince you a thing is true, believe it, in other words, believe I it is believable. It would be nice to believe in eternal life and a reunion with out loved ones in the best Holiday Inn imaginable – rather better than imaginable, actually – but fewer and fewer people can bring themselves to believe this and the narrative of redemption is not internally coherent, especially in light of evolutionary biology” – Contrary to what you seem to think, there is very strong intellectual evidence for the truth of Christianity. Some of the greatest intellectuals have been believers in Christ. Christianity is not anti-intellectual, though sadly many Christians are.

      I would urge you to read some of the criticism that Christian scientists and philosophers have raised against evolutionary biology. You may not agree with them, but if you dare to delve into the subject matter with any seriousness, you might begin to think differently. The problem so often is that critics of the Bible never bother to read the serious published works that counters their arguments.

      • Leon Haller
        Leon Haller says:

        There is no necessary contradiction between Christianity and Darwinism, except for Biblical literalism. See Ruse, CAN A DARWINIAN BE A CHRISTIAN?

        • RockaBoatus
          RockaBoatus says:

          “There is no necessary contradiction between Christianity and Darwinism” – When rightly understood, they are diametrically opposed to each other. I don’t deny micro-evolution in which a species adapts to changes in its environment (for this to occur it must already be biologically/genetically present in the DNA), but macro-evolution is quite another matter.

          • Leon Haller
            Leon Haller says:

            You should read the Ruse book. There is no contradiction. A Christian can be a Darwinian – and that had better be the case, as creationism (except in the limited sense of some kind of divine being setting creation in motion initially, but otherwise leaving it alone thereafter) utterly fails at every scientific level.

    • TJ
      TJ says:

      “If evidence & logic convince you a thing is true, believe it”

      Belief pertains to faith not reason

  23. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Thank you for this piece Rock. This is an interesting and important subject indeed.
    However, I do feel that you are putting too much blame on today’s Christians for some of our immigration, and racial problems.

    I live in NYC and have lived in the cities of the northeast for most of my life. From my own empirical evidence, and I know that other’s will most likely disagree, all of the races can, and do live in relative harmony with each other. Now are blacks going to be building and flying space shuttles into outer space and then landing them back on earth…? No. But weren’t blacks doing okay up until the mid 60s in the U.S.? Who turned them against us? Who shipped their manufacturing jobs, overseas? The Jews and their shabez goy of course.

    “They then create a mindset for themselves and implement social policies that intentionally place blinders over their eyes. Everything they see and hear is filtered through a false worldview that instantly jettisons any inconvenient truths about race.”

    Is that the Christians doing that? Who’s creating the mindset? I’m sure you’ve read Kevin’s ‘Culture of Critique.’ There is a whole chapter in it about the immigration policies going back to the 19th century. The Wasps did everything they could to curtail immigration from non-white Europe but it was with the passing of the very pernicious 1965 immigration law, Hart/Cellar, I believe it’s called, that blew the door open to chain migration from non-white third world countries. This immigration law was heavily promoted and lobbied for passage by Jewish politicians and groups.

    I’ve mentioned it here before, but in his book; “The Devil and Karl Marx,” mainstream historian Paul Kengor spends a few chapters detailing the Soviet Jewish Bolsheviks infiltration of America’s Christian Churches beginning in the 1920s, with the full cooperation of the CPUSA. Kengor, even includes transcripts of the Senate House Committees hearings on this at the time. It’s truly fascinating. We still see the enormous damage of the infusion of political correctness by the Bolsheviks and CPUSA in America’s Christian churches to this day.

    Rock, I don’t know if you’ve ever been to a Trump rally but I’ve been to more than a few. I can tell you that they are at least 98% Christian and Christian beliefs are voiced loud and clear. There’s large prayer groups, Pastor’s, and Priest speakers, people carrying large signs with scripture written on them. The black attendees are all it seems, very passionate in their Christian beliefs. You would be hard pressed to find anybody at a Trump rally who is not very sensitive to our immigration problem in terms of wanting it stopped. “We need to lock this country up and throw away the key, not a soul, not one soul comes in for at least five years, at least!” This was told to me by a truck driver and his wife from Wisconsin who were attending one rally. And wasn’t the border wall a mainstay of Trump’s campaign? He even mentioned it when he announced that he would be running for President in ’16.

    I agree with your last paragraph. But we’re talking about years and years of indoctrination starting with the holohoax narrative and then there’s the very sick college system and the fact that the average American watches over two hours of Jewish TV everyday. The average American is toast. They live in a different reality than us TOO folks. How we reach them is the question. They’re very slowly waking up, some of them. What happened in Virginia and the ousting of the dems there during the past election was hopeful. The disaster of the the Biden administration is also a fine opportunity for us to spread our message of truth.

    • RockaBoatus
      RockaBoatus says:

      Thanks Bobby, I enjoyed reading your comments. There is much that you and I would agree on. I don’t really have a criticism of your comments and the spirit in which you conveyed it, but just a few words of clarification.

      I am not in the least placing the entire blame of our racial and immigration issues on the backs of Christians. If it sounded that way, I assure you that this was not my intention throughout the article. I was more or less addressing both racially naive Christians and racially aware White dissidents who think that Christianity and the New Testament are supportive of mass immigration to the West, and that believers have some sort of obligation to adhere to a ‘racial equality’ and multicultural set of beliefs.

      As I pointed out in my article, Christians have been just as infected with Jewish lies and misinformation on matters of race, White identity, and Nationalism as badly as non-Christians. They too have succumbed to the spirit of the age, and there is a call for believers to repent of these destructive beliefs.

      Yes, some of those White Trump supporters may indeed be calling for less immigration or, more likely, only for legal immigration. Yet whether immigration is legal or illegal, the final outcome will still be the same for Whites – namely, our racial and cultural displacement by non-Whites.

      I tend to think that the vast majority of those White Trump supporters would be offended by the JQ, White racial solidarity, and any notion of a White ethnostate. Though they may be ‘conservative’ in their views of taxes, limited government, and law-and-order matters, they are essentially no different than liberals on racial differences and whether the civil rights movement was a good or bad thing for America. Many of these Trumpers would likely speak glowingly of MLK because they, like most Americans, have been duped by all the propaganda surrounding the man.

      Try talking to the Trump crowd and see how far you’ll get in convincing them that the U.S. should not be supporting Israel. Watch their reaction when you share the truth about Jews, and how so many of them work tirelessly to displace Whites from their own lands. Watch how they will react when you share with them how Jews disproportionately control our banking systems, media, news print, social media outlets, our nation’s foreign policies, the pharmaceutical industry. academia, and the list goes on. You will likely be seen as a virulent anti-Semite, ‘hater,’ and told how badly you need Jesus in your life.

      Lastly, you may have indeed experienced some racial harmony between the Whites and other races where you once lived. This does happen at times, but much of it depends on how many Blacks and other minority groups live in the area. It seems that once it gets past a certain tipping point, the honeymoon is over.

      Either way, that isn’t the situation now, and it’s only getting worse. But you are correct in pointing out that so much of what is currently occurring in the U.S. affords us the opportunity to speak to our people about the importance of White racial solidarity, including the destructive nature of Jewish subversion.

      • Bobby
        Bobby says:

        Hi Rock. Thank you for replying to, my comment. You certainly got a lot of them, which is always a good thing either way.

        I hear you loud and clear. I did say ‘too much,’ blame on Christians. I know you weren’t putting ‘all’ of the blame on them.

        You would be surprised how people react in regards Jewish control of our country at the rally’s and in other places. It’s how one delivers the message I think Rock. I always start off with; ‘you know, I love my Jewish friends but…’ gentle, gentle, gentle, that’s the name of the game when it comes to doing that, and facts. Gotta be able to back up what you’re trying to convey with facts. And lot’s of people know, they’re just afraid. And of course if it’s strangers, they don’t know who you are. Trump supporters are much more open to listening and you will find that even if they don’t respond, they will nod in approval, they will think about it. It might also surprise you to know that many inner city blacks know about the Jews, why? because they swindle them in real estate deals, I kid you not. Hispanics too. They know. I have heard blacks and Hispanics here in NY mention the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the media, how the Jews control sports, they know that Jews control the NBA because they watch and play basketball.

        Even if you go on facebook now, and I rarely do anymore, and you bring up the JQ, it has recently been my experience that things have changed. Instead of being called every name in the book, a woman responded with wondering if it was the ‘Khazars,’ causing all of the problems…, very interesting. Or, you get silence. Like I said, you have to have the facts. And now is the perfect time for us. So many Americans are wondering how things got so bad, so fast after Trump left. All we need to do is reply with; ‘well, it’s not Biden, we can all see he has cognitive issues, it’s his administration… then you name them, Garland (Garfinkle, Jewish) Ron Klane (Jewish) Janet Yelling (Jewish) Psaki on her mother’s side and the list goes on. The people in Louden, County PA of course know who the bad guys are. Then the media owners and anchors… and see where it goes, they can’t argue with us because we have the facts.

        Gab is interesting if you want to check it out. The JQ is out in the open there for anyone to discuss. Andrew Torba does a great job over there.

        Keep writing on this subject Rock. It’s well worth it and very, very important. It’s no accident that we have over 80 million Christians in this country and Russia has over 100 million and how obvious it is that the Jews are intent on taking over both countries. They pretty much have the US. They are obviously salivating over Russia, again.

        • RockaBoatus
          RockaBoatus says:

          All good points Bobby. I appreciate your efforts among Trump supporters to help awaken them to the JQ and race issues. Your approach of being gentle and wise with them is to be commended, and it’s the approach I would also take.

          You’re also correct that a good many Blacks know about the Jews. Although some of the ‘Blacks are the true Jews!’ stuff is ridiculous, I’m glad they know at least something about Jewish economic and cultural subversion.

          By the way, I’m on GAB under the name ‘RockaBoatus.’ I also commented for years on American Renaissance before they banned me for drawing too much attention on the JQ. Recently, they allowed me back, and so I make comments now and then when I can.

      • Pilot
        Pilot says:

        Yeah, they believe God has a plan and that they can’t get in the way of the chosen, no matter what they do. They literally worship every single one of them as if they were each Jesus.

  24. Poupon Marx
    Poupon Marx says:

    “The Wasps did everything they could to curtail immigration from non-white Europe”

    Prima facie false. Making money and living extravagantly took precedence. Labor for plantations, labor for the factories, including child labor. The big profits that built big churches kept the clergy quite and the Pope A Dope quiet.

    Big business always had advantage over the polity in directing government, the JUSA. It is total now.

  25. Gary
    Gary says:

    But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. Jeremiah 31:33

    Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. 2 Corinthians 3:2

    Unfortunately, some real fanatics out there? Whatever happened to our gifted common sense?…”And now Patricia. – “The Six Senses”. – The subject was “The Five Senses”. I chose for my subject six senses. Go on, Patricia. The six senses: To see, to hear, to taste, to smell, to feel… to be. The most important is the last. The sixth sense is to be able to enjoy the five senses properly. To be. That’s what really matters. It’s up to us what we make of it. We see others, hear others, know others with our five senses. But how do we know ourselves? Through common sense. Common sense is an internal sense whose function is to differentiate between the senses’ reports or to reduce these reports to the unity of a common perception. Two great words: To be. Other words grow out of them. I am, you are, he is, we are, they are. That takes in everybody. As Shakespeare said, “To thine own self be true “And it shall follow, as the night the day, “Thou canst not then be false to any man.” – Bells of St Mary’s Starring: Bing Crosby, Ingrid Bergman, and Henry Travers

    • Gary
      Gary says:

      Common sense?…Does Ukraine still threaten the agriculture of Russia…April 5, 2014 Germans Taught Russian Prisoners of War the Idea of Ukraine By this time, the Germans had already taken large numbers of prisoners of war following the 1914 defeats of the Russian army. They identified about 50,000 of these POWs who based on their birthplaces and dialect might be convinced to become Ukrainians, separated out the officers and sergeants, and put the remaining proto-Ukrainians in special reeducation camps. These proto-Ukrainians were exempted from work, given better treatment, and put into classrooms, where they were given intensive courses in Ukrainian national identity, farming techniques, and the need for socialist revolution. (All of this was provided courtesy of the same Imperial German general staff which hoped to use communism and socialism to overthrow the Tsar and create chaos, hopefully knocking Russia out of the war.) – Metaphysical Doubts Concerning the Existence of Modern Ukraine, a 1918 Creation of the German General Staff
      Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D…Is this war moving around a lot of farmers? Including back to farmland Canada?…2022-03-03 Saskatchewan to prioritize Ukrainians in provincial immigration programs. – Saskatoon StarPhoenix…Remember those farmers who once poured into Canada?…The Dominion Lands Act was a federal law that received royal assent on 14 April 1872. Sifton was adamant that immigrants and settlers be from farming backgrounds. He described the ideal settler as the “stalwart peasant in a sheep-skin coat, born on the soil, whose forefathers have been farmers for ten generations, with a stout wife and a half dozen children.” (See also Immigration Policy.) – Dominion Lands Act The Canadian Encyclopedia

Comments are closed.