Christianity as a Jewish evolutionary strategy
Introduction
In recent posts, I have made a series of arguments that the Christianization of the Roman Empire was good for the Jews (here and here) and bad for the Gentiles (here and here), and that it has paved the way for the subversion and subjugation of Western civilization by Jewish Power. Since Christianity is a Jewish invention, it is hard to resist the theory that it was part of a grand Jewish conspiracy (that “aggressive and vindictive conspiracy … against the rest of the world” that is written “plain and clear” in the Hebrew Bible, as H. G. Wells tried to warn us about in The Fate of Homo Sapiens, 1939). However, no matter how hard I look for some clue that Christianity was from the start a Jewish psy-op to alienate the Romans rather than to save them, I do not find it. The vast number of Jews (mostly Hellenized Jews from the Diaspora) who converted to Christianity in the first century runs contrary to that theory. I find no reason for suspecting Paul, the real founder of Gentile Christianity, of being some sort of Israeli asset trying to deceive the gullible Goyim into believing things that he didn’t believe himself. The fact that he wrote “This is the truth” (Romans 9:1) doesn’t mean he’s lying. Yet, we do find in his letters the conviction that with the massive conversion of Gentiles to Christ, “all will be restored to [the Jews]” in the end (Romans 11:12).
So we are left with the firm conclusion that Christianity provided a decisive selective advantage to Israel in its millennia-long war against Rome, but no proof that it was secretly manufactured for that purpose. It is time, therefore, to call on professor Kevin MacDonald to help us solve this riddle. I will here discuss whether Christianity can fit within the general theory that he has developed in A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, With Diaspora Peoples (1994) and his subsequent volumes.
The great advantage of MacDonald’s evolutionary psychology approach is that it bypasses the question of intentionality and therefore allows us to study “group evolutionary strategies” without having to look for evidence of a conspiracy. Evolutionary psychology postulates that the various strategies that kinship-based groups (clans, tribes, nations) develop for survival, reproduction, expansion and dominance in a competitive environment can be, at least in part, subconscious rather than clearly articulated. There is, in any ethnic group, a collective, transgenerational will to power operating below the threshold of individual consciousness. The group’s collective mentality is not purely the product of biology, but involves ideology: through generations, culture becomes a second nature.
These assumptions coincide with the conclusions of sociology (Durkheim, Levi-Strauss, Le Bon), that the average cognitions, emotions and behaviors of individuals are subconsciously determined by some form of group mind. To some extent which depends on the cohesion of the group, when individuals think, feel and want, it is the group that thinks, feels and wants through them. Western individualists are least likely to have a strong connection to the group, highly ethnocentric groups like Jews are the most likely. In the case of a highly sophisticated group such as the Jewish community, this principle works in highly sophisticated ways, but it still applies at some level. The paradigm of evolutionary psychology therefore makes it possible to understand Jewish strategies as involving a fair amount of self-deception, rather than mere deception.
As a national group, the Jews have two distinctive features. One is that they are a worldwide community. In their vast majority, they have lived and strived in the midst of foreign nations for more than two thousand years (since the Hellenistic period). For this, they have elaborated unique strategies that have become part of their ancestral cognitive habits. It is almost like they have developed a dual personality: a core personality for their Jewish environment, and a more flexible one for their Gentile environment. They do not necessarily experience this complexity as inconsistency or hypocrisy.
The other special feature of the Jews is that they are both an ethnic and a religious community, with the unique advantage that their most essential strategy for survival in foreign environments is also the central commandment of their religious scripture: strict endogamy.[1] In From Yahweh to Zion, I have argued that the Jews’ peculiar collective behavior is not genetically determined, but culturally programmed. Their Bible tells the Jews that what is good for the Jews is good in absolute terms, and therefore must be good for the Gentiles too, even when they don’t like it. The mission of the Jews is to obey the Jews’ god by destroying the Gentiles’ gods, meaning whatever is sacred to them, including their ethnic or national identities, because these gods are either evil or fake, contrary to the Jews’ god who is the one and only true God.
Beside the elementary strategy of endogamy, MacDonald distinguishes two major sets of group strategies among Diaspora Jews: strategies by which they adapt to their environment, and strategies by which they modify their environment. The first kind of strategy is akin to the crypsis or mimesis that can be observed in the animal world. The second kind has no equivalent in the animal world and can even be considered a special faculty of the Jews.
I will show that, if we analyze the early diffusion of Christianity as a Jewish “group evolutionary strategy”, it fits both categories: Jews who converted to Christianity were adapting to their dangerously “anti-Semitic” environment, by making themselves less Jewish and more Graeco-Roman (Christianity being, to some degree, an imitation of Graeco-Roman mystery cults), while preserving their core belief in Jewish chosenness and their primal hatred of the pagan gods. And Jews who converted Gentiles to Christianity during the same period altered their environment by making Roman society more Jewish and less pagan, and, above all, more credulous of the Jews’ central role in God’s providence. In a very deep sense, Christianity convinced Romans that “salvation is from the Jews” (John 4:22), an idea that Hellenistic Jews like Philo of Alexandria were already promoting a century earlier, saying that “the Jewish nation is to the whole world what the priest is to the state.”[2]
How Jewish is Christianity ?
Obviously, the theory that Christianity was a Jewish evolutionary strategy can only apply to the Christianity of the first centuries, when Jews were creating and leading Christianity. Jews cannot reasonably be held responsible for the conversion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, let alone the conversion of the barbarians. By the time Christianity became Rome’s official religion, Jews were not in charge of it. We are entitled to suspect a number of influential crypto-Jews in the courts of the Constantinian and Theodosian dynasties, but no case can be brought to light. Without doubt, the Church was then predominantly of Gentile extraction, and Gentile Christianity had taken a life of its own. The Jews only provided the initial impetus.
But it is important to realize that the leadership of Jews on Gentile Christianity was much more intense and enduring than Church historians have led us to believe. Let’s break down the state of our knowledge on that matter.
The first thing to recognize is the importance of the Jewish population in the megacities of the Roman Empire, where Christianity first thrived. In the first century, it is assumed that there were a million Jews in Palestine and about five million in the Diaspora, particularly in big cities such as Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. A part of Rome’s Jewish population descended from the thousands of Jewish captives that Pompey brought after capturing Jerusalem in 63 BC, and their number increased in AD 70, when Vespasian and Titus brought to Rome an additional 97,000 Jewish captives, according to Flavius Josephus (Jewish War VI,9). Many of them would be freed, as was Josephus, who worked tirelessly to promote his nation to Gentiles. There is debate about the reality and extent of Jewish proselytism in the first and second century, but we know from Cassius Dio that a member of the imperial family, Flavius Clemens, was executed by the emperor Domitian for “atheism” and “deviation toward Judaic customs” (Jews were regarded as atheists for their contempt of the gods), while his wife Flavia Domitilla was banished.
The next fact to consider is that we have very little information about the way Christianity spread in Roman cities from the time of Paul to the middle of second century. In fact, as Bart Ehrman noted in The Triumph of Christianity: “outside of Paul’s work itself, we do not know of any organized Christian missionary work—not just for the first century, but for any century prior to the conversion of most of the empire. … That may be hard to believe, but in fact, if you were to count every Christian missionary about whom even a single story is told, from the period after the New Testament up through the first four centuries, you would not need all the digits on one hand.”[3] This is remarkable in itself.
As Rodney Stark argues in The Rise of Christianity, there are many reasons to believe that Jews, who were highly mobile and interconnected, were the main propagators of the gospels throughout the Empire, even after the second century.[4] Archaeology confirms that Christian churches and artefacts are always found in Jewish quarters. Eric Meyers reports that data from Rome and Venosa show that “Jewish and Christian burials reflect an interdependent and closely related community of Jews and Christians in which clear marks of demarcation were blurred until the third and fourth centuries C.E.”[5]
In the second half of the second century, both Jews and Christians were only beginning to see each other as belonging to different religions, and the first known apologists, though Gentiles, were still engaged in dialog with Jews, as illustrated by Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, Aristo of Pella’s Dialogue of Jason and Papiscus (now lost), or Origen’s later mention of having taken part in a theological debate with Jews before “umpires”.[6]
In support of his view that Christianity was predominantly controlled by Jews until the mid-second century and beyond, Rodney Stark mentions the defeat of the Marcionites, who wanted to discard the Old Testament:
Indeed, the speed with which Marcion built a substantial movement suggests that his solution pleased many. But the crucial point is this: the traditional Christian faction seems to have easily ousted Marcion and successfully condemned Antitheses as heresy. I do not believe that the traditionalists won out because of superior theology. Rather, the whole affair suggests to me that in the middle of the second century the church still was dominated by people with Jewish roots and strong current ties to the Jewish world. Notice that this was after the Bar-Kokhba revolt.[7]
Stark suggests that the final break between Jews and Christians happened under Constantine, and didn’t go without resistance. When in the 390s St. John Chrysostom complains that many Christians “join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts” (First Homily i,5), or even get circumcised (Second Homily ii,4), we should see him as “an early leader in the movement to separate a church and synagogue that were still greatly intertwined.”[8]
Having established that Christianity was a Jewish movement targeting both Jews and Gentiles during the first and second centuries, and was still under strong Jewish influence during the third and fourth centuries, we can examine if it fits MacDonald’s criteria for a Jewish “group evolutionary strategy”.
Christianity good for the Jews
Jews who converted to Christianity in the early centuries were very much comparable to those who converted in later centuries, while remaining attached to the purity of their Jewish blood. MacDonald makes the following remarks, highlighting the premise of evolutionary psychology:
Indeed, one might note that New Christians who maintained group separatism while sincerely accepting Christianity were really engaging in a very interesting evolutionary strategy—a true case of crypsis entirely analogous to crypsis in the natural world. Such people would be even more invisible to the surrounding society than crypto-Jews, because they would attend church regularly, not circumcise themselves, eat pork, etc., and have no psychological qualms about doing so. … Psychological acceptance of Christianity may have been the best possible means of continuing Judaism as a group evolutionary strategy during the period of the Inquisition.[9]
Whether sincere, duplicitous, or something in-between, Jews who converted to Christianity in the Middle Ages reaped immediate social advantages. In the eyes of the Gentiles, they could hope to be seen as equals while under no obligation to marry their offsprings to non-Jews. The same applies to the early days of Pauline Christianity (as opposed to the Jewish Jesus movement that evolved from the Jerusalem church), which portrayed itself as breaking the barriers between Jews and Gentiles. Claiming that “there is neither Jew nor Greek” (Galatians 3:28) was especially useful for Jewish converts.
Pauline Christianity is best understood as an extension of Hellenistic Judaism, which was already engaged in weakening the barriers between Jews and Greeks. Before, during and after the devastating Jewish Wars (66–135 CE), most Hellenistic Jews, especially in Alexandria, took their distance from the messianic fever of Jewish nationalism and tried to make their tradition look as Greek as possible. Flavius Josephus’s obsequious theory that the nationalist Jews failed to understand that their own prophecies were actually pointing to Vespasian as the true Messiah (Jewish War IV), is a good example. Christianity is another. According to Rodney Stark, “many Hellenized Jews of the diaspora found Christianity so appealing precisely because it freed them from an ethnic identity with which they had become uncomfortable.”[10] This is why “a steady and significant flow of Hellenized Jewish converts to Christianity probably continued into the late fourth or early fifth century.”[11] Jews who converted to Christianity were not converting out of Judaism entirely, as long as Christianity was still connected to its Jewish matrix, and they were emphatically not converting to another God, but simply to a new, flexible Jewish identity with a universalist claim.
By spreading Christianity among Gentiles, Jewish Christians were also contributing to the general effort of Hellenistic Judaism to make Gentile society more accepting of the Jews’ uniquely positive contribution to the world. Ultimately, the conversion of the Roman Empire would imply the sacralization of the Jewish nation as the once-chosen people of God. Judaism became the only legal non-Christian religion. By the “witness theory”, the Church declared that the Jewish nation had a divine right to exist until the end of days, and that Church and Empire shared a divine responsibility to protect them. This was a radical improvement compared to the repeated attempts by Roman emperors, from Vespasian to Hadrian, to eradicate Jewish nationality altogether. This witness theory was enshrined in Catholic soteriology by Augustine, and repeatedly reaffirmed to combat anti-Jewish popular sentiments. When informed of persecutions of Jews in Cologne and Mainz during his campaign for the second crusade, saint Bernard of Clairvaux protested: “The Jews are for us the living words of Scripture, for they remind us always of what our Lord suffered. They are dispersed all over the world so that by expiating their crime they may be everywhere the living witnesses of our redemption. … If the Jews are utterly wiped out, what will become of our hope for their promised salvation, their eventual conversion?”[12]
Certainly, the Church also gave Gentiles a new reason to hate the Jews as Christ-killers. And Christianity didn’t make Romans less “anti-Semitic” than they had been as pagans. But from an evolutionary strategic viewpoint, this was not a negative, for Gentile hostility has always been the best incentive for Jewish cohesion. Diaspora Jews need to feel “chosen for universal hatred” (Leo Pinsker, Auto-Emancipation, 1882) as much as they need to feel chosen by God. The ideal situation, from an adaptationist point of view, is a Gentile society that makes Jews feel excluded while minimizing the violence against them. Church policy was actually very supportive of Jewish ethnic interests by forbidding Gentiles to intermarry with non-baptized Jews, while at the same time forbidding Gentiles to force Jews into baptism.
All in all, the Christianization of the Roman Empire has been very favorable to the development of the Jewish community, from a demographic as well as an economic point of view. The great historian of Late Antiquity Peter Brown writes:
In the legislation of the period, rhetorical humiliation of Judaism as a religion coexisted with extensive corporate privileges for Jewish leaders and for Jewish synagogues. Although Judaism was repeatedly branded as a “mad impiety” (Codex Theodosianus xv.5.5), the leaders of the Jewish community — a succession of patriarchs in Palestine, and other groups of representatives in other provinces — received from all Christian emperors repeated reassurance that Judaism, unlike polytheism and many forms of heretical Christianity, was “not a sect prohibited by the laws” (C. Th. xvi.8.9). Jewish synagogues enjoyed the exemptions associated with “holy places” (C. Th. vii.8.2). The personnel of the synagogues enjoyed the same privileges as did the Christian clergy: for they also were persons “truly devoted to the service of God” (C. Th. xii.1.99).[13]
A case can even be made that the prohibition of usury for Gentiles provided a tremendous selective advantage to Jews, and this is exactly what the Fourth Lateran Council admitted in 1215, in its Constitution 67, “On Jewish usuries”: “The more Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians.”[14]
Christianity bad for the Gentiles
The Roman Empire was an extensive network of cities connected by nearly 200,000 miles of roads, in addition to navigation across the sea medius terra. In The First Urban Christians, Wayne Meeks writes that “the people of the Roman Empire traveled more extensively and more easily than anyone before them did or would again until the nineteenth century,” and reports a merchant’s grave inscription in Phrygia attributing to him seventy-two trips to Rome, a distance of well over a thousand miles. This high mobility created a cosmopolitan urban population of uprooted individuals suffering from “status inconsistency”. It was among them, Meeks believes, that most converts to Pauline Christianity originated. In the Church they found a family of substitution, brothers and sisters to care for each other. “The natural kinship structure into which the person has been born and which previously defined his place and connections with the society is here supplanted by a new set of relationships.”[15]
The back side of this is that Christianity contributed in no small manner to desacralize and destabilize the traditional Roman family. This is a well-discussed issue, on which I have written before. One need only recall Matthew 10:35–37: “For I have come to set son against father, daughter against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law; a person’s enemies will be the members of his own household. No one who prefers father or mother to me is worthy of me. No one who prefers son or daughter to me is worthy of me.” Here you have the essence of what E. Michael Jones calls “the Jewish revolutionary spirit.” Pitting sons against fathers, and wives against husbands, is exactly what the Jewish “culture of critique” has been doing in recent decades, as MacDonald has abundantly documented in The Culture of Critique.
As much as it attracted desocialized individuals to resocialize them by conversion, Christianity aggravated the desocialization that it fed upon. As a salvation religion, Christianity taught that man was not primarily a social being who found fulfillment in the city, as Aristotle had taught, but a spiritual being who longed for the “city of God”, where kinship counts for nothing. Roman religion was family-centered as much as city-centered. There were domestic cults of Vesta (who symbolized the continuity of the family life), of di penates (who expressed the continuity of the household’s means of subsistence), of di Manes (the ancestral dead), and of the genius of the paterfamilias.[16] But Christianity called these cults demonic, and in 391, Emperor Theodosius enacted a law forbidding them even in the privacy of the home.[17]
It may be counter-intuitive to blame Christianity for the increased deemphasis on kinship bonds, since today’s practicing Christians are the defenders of family values in the West. That is because of the paradox that Christianity is both revolutionary and conservative. It was revolutionary at the beginning, and conservative at the end. All established religions are conservative. But Western Christianity’s conservatism is about preserving the nuclear family, the final stage before complete social disintegration.[18] In a very fundamental way, Christian individualism competes with blood kinship. The Christian morality of universal altruism is also inherently hostile to the values of race, kinship, genealogy and procreation. This hostility influenced the Church’s social policy. As Jack Goody has documented[19] and as Kevin MacDonald has himself recognized in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, the influence of the Catholic Church “was directed at altering Western culture away from extended kinship networks and other collectivist institutions,”[20] although MacDonald also emphasizes a primordial tendency toward individualism and its implications for family structure. Thus Christianization has influenced the psychological and sociological vulnerability that later Jewish intellectuals and activists would exploit to weaken the syngeneic cohesion of White nations. If “making the United States into a multicultural society has been a major Jewish goal beginning in the nineteenth century,”[21] then it is logical to recognize the same Jewish goal in the foundation of Gentile Christianity by Paul of Tarsus. Again, this is not to say that Paul and his associates were conspiring against the Romans. Because Diaspora Jews feel safer in a multicultural society with individualistic and universalist values, they sincerely think that such a society is healthier—as long as Jews can keep the upper hand. From that point of view, Christianity was definitely helpful.
Conclusion
MacDonald wrote: “Any discussion of Jews and Judaism has to start and probably end with this incredibly strong bond that Jews have among each other—a bond that is created by their close genetic relationship and by the intensification of the psychological mechanisms underlying group cohesion. This powerful rapport among Jews translates into a heightened ability to cooperate in highly focused groups.”[22] If we ask ourselves what Christianity has done to weaken this incredibly strong bond of Jewry, the obvious answer is: absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it has provided the ideal environment for the sustainment and reinforcement of this bond. And while no educated pagan Roman had ever taken seriously the Jews’ ridiculous claim of being specially loved by the Creator of the Universe, Christians have been compelled to believe the truth of that claim. The Jews had written a book saying that God chose the Jews, and Christians have accepted it as God’s word. By so doing, Christians have not only paid tribute to the Jews; they have comforted them in their delusion. A strong argument can be made that without Christianity, the Jewish nationality would have effectively dissolved in the fourth or fifth century.
In short, Christianity introduced into the operating system (the dominant cognitive paradigm) of Roman society two trojan horses that both gave the Jewish nation a decisive selective advantage: it taught Gentiles that, by virtue of their divine chosenness, the Jewish nation was uniquely qualified to remain distinct, separate, and in many ways privileged; and it has taught Gentiles that, contrary to the Jews, they have no ethnic identity of any spiritual value. On the one hand, it has been assumed that the Jews are one nation and will be saved collectively at some point, and on the other hand, it has been affirmed that nationality is irrelevant for the Gentiles, since their salvation is strictly individual. The Jews can continue to sacralize the purity of their blood, while Gentiles are told every Sunday that only the (Jewish) blood of Christ will save them. Christians has given a handle to the Jews for driving them to their doom.
Seen in this light, Christianity surely looks like a Jewish conspiracy. But it is not a conspiracy in the traditional sense: rather, it is a Jewish group evolutionary strategy.
[1] The commandment of eighth-day circumcision is also a powerful, because traumatic, factor of cohesion and separation.
[2] Scot McKnight, A Light Among the Gentiles: Jewish missionary activity in the Second Temple period, Fortress Press, 1991, pp. 39, 46, quoted in Kevin MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy, with Diaspora Peoples, Praeger, 1994, p. 63.
[3] Bart D. Ehrman, The Triumph of Christianity, Simon & Schuster, 2018, p. 99.
[4] Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History, Princeton UP, 1996.
[5] Graydon F. Snyder, Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine, Mercer UP, 1985, p. 2, and Eric M. Meyers, “Early Judaism and Christianity in the Light of Archaeology,” Biblical Archaeologist 51, pp. 69-79, quoted in Stark, The Rise of Christianity, op. cit., p. 9.
[6] Stark, The Rise of Christianity, op. cit., p. 70.
[7] Stark, The Rise of Christianity, op. cit., p. 64.
[8] Stark, The Rise of Christianity, op. cit., p. 66.
[9] Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Anti-Semitism, Praeger, 1998, p. 277.
[10] Stark, The Rise of Christianity, op. cit., p. 214.
[11] Stark, The Rise of Christianity, op. cit., p. 138.
[12] Leonard B. Glick, Abraham’s Heirs: Jews and Christians in Medieval Europe, Syracuse UP, 1999, p. 122.
[13] Peter Brown, “Christianization and religious conflict”, in Averil Cameron and Peter Garnsey, eds., The Late Empire (The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. XIII), Cambridge UP, 2008, p. 632.
[14] John Gilchrist, The Church and Economic Activity in the Middle Ages, MacMillan, 1969, p. 182, quoted in MacDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone, op. cit, p. 243.
[15] Wayne A. Meeks, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul, Yale UP, 1983, pp. 17, 88.
[16] William Warde Fowler, Roman Ideas of Deity in the Last Century before the Christian Era, MacMillan, 1914.
[17] Bart D. Ehrman, The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World, Oneworld Publications, 2018, p. 252.
[18] David Brooks, “The Nuclear Family was a Mistake,” March 2020, www.theatlantic.com
[19] Jack Goody, The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe, Cambridge UP, 1983. Joseph Henrich builds up on Goody’s work in The WEIRDest People on the World: How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous, Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2020.
[20] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future, rev. ed., KDP, 2023, p. 159.
[21] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger, 1998, p. 259.
[22] Kevin MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilizations, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism, The Occidental Press, 2007, p. 34.
Overlooked in this article is the fact of empty Christian churches in Europe and the US. White people are simply abandoning Christianity and replacing it with either nothing, or lots of funny ideas of “spirituality”.
It appears to me that the only “Christians” that count are the fanatic born aginers like Warrior Pete Hegseth and Trumpstein.
IF you go to a mainstream church you will find almost all folks are greyheads who just use it for social reasons, including mate selection.
TV has replaced the church, and porn. Yup, we are the Great Satan child molesters and Jew nut cases.
the largely a-religious white folks out there are becoming more anti-semitic and ‘eclectic’ in their views of politics, etc.
A renewal of American conservative politics may be stirring in the cynical heads of middle class Americans…particularly if we go into deep crisis…joblessness, inflation, more insane Trumpian war, and mud slides demographically speaking, and extreme competition for scarce resources…especially “government services.”
The only thing that can save us is societal breakdown, race war, civil chaos and lots of hatred. This will only settle out with violence…class and race war.
You are not remotely correct. This greyhead Catholic and his wife attended Easter Vigil mass last evening, and there were persons of all ages, including new young catechumens. I’m American, so can’t speak for Europe.
Treating religion as a spiritual and person thing is buying into your own propaganda. Of course, religion is used for mate selection, what else? It’s the foundation of social structure. And of course, the Americans haven’t abandoned anything of essence – the abolitionist drive to free the Africans in the 1860s is identical to the Anglo drive to protect Slavs in 1939 at the cost of their empire, or free the Africans in the 1960s, or free gays and transvestite in the 2010s. If the trajectory is the same, if the inherent justification and internal logic are the same, then I posit the reliogion to be the same. Same old Christianity! This is what César Tort calls the neo-Christian red giant phase. And I clarify that the Christians always wanted this conclusion, they merely lacked the technological capacity to enact their will on the arguably “pagan” medieval population. Since 1945 they have turned full fanatic.
Although, the Yankees wanted to abolish slavery; they weren’t interested in helping blacks.
Anyway, abolishing slavery was just a pretext for their greater war aim which was attacking white southerners.
How dare those evil southerners want to live in a free trade/tariff free zone?
Actually, the Confederacy romanticisation has no justification in reality. See “Manifest Destiny Show 90: I Wish I Wasn’t In Dixie” for the review of the book “Masterless Men” about the Whites in Antebellum South – it was apparently even worse than these days. It was African supremacy masqueraded as slavery.
The romanticisation of that conflict is mostly a post-war invention created to condone the crimes that the Lincolnite regime committed against the Southern people. I can understand why you and César Tort push the enemy’s narrative; it fits in with your own anti-Christian agenda.
I’d like to point out that the “romanisation” of the American Civil War refers to the post-war Yankee victory narrative which laid the foundations for the Lincolnite Settlement. The blue army’s treatment of freed slaves was in some places quite brutal.
You didn’t factor in Marcion and the reaction to him by the “church fathers.”
It’s great news that, in addition to Tom Sunic’s articles, TOO is starting to publish articles on the “Christian Question” by other authors (the CQ is the other side of the coin to the JQ, as I show on my blog).
Now that I have reread the article more carefully, I would like to make a few observations.
I agree with Laurent Guyenot that Paul’s subversion was not conscious but unconscious: it can be understood under the concept of the Jewish evolutionary strategy (unlike most racialists who start by reading CofC, I believe one should start with the first book of Professor MacDonald’s trilogy to understand Jewry).
But that it was Pauline subversion, it clearly was.
In Plutarch’s book on Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told that Romulus was the son of God, born of a Virgin, and that there were attempts to kill him as a baby. As an adult, the elites finally killed him and the sun went dark, but Romulus’ body disappeared. Then he rises from the dead. Some doubted and, along the way, Romulus appears to a friend to pass on the Good News to his people. It is revealed that, despite his human appearance, Romulus had always been a God and had become incarnate to establish a great kingdom on earth. Romulus then ascends to heaven to reign from there. Before Christianity, the Romans celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. Plutarch recounts that at the annual Ascension ceremony the names of those who were afraid because they had witnessed the feat were recited, something that reminds me of the true ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mk 16:8) before Christians added more verses. Richard Carrier comments that it seems as if Mark is adding a Semitic spin to the original story of Romulus: an Aryan story that seems to be the skeleton on which the evangelist would add the Semitic flesh of his literary fiction. Carrier’s sentence in bold has convinced me that his treatise On the Historicity of Jesus deserves our attention.
The implications of this transvaluation are enormous! It does seem that the Gospel writers, presumably Jews according to David Skrbina, plagiarised the founding myth of Rome to sell us another myth. This new myth not only involved the substitution of an Aryan hero (Romulus) for a Jewish hero (Jesus). It did something infinitely more subversive, what Nietzsche called the transvaluation of values.
That is why the Christians tried to erase any trace of the Romulus festivals when they destroyed almost all the Latin books, from the 4th to the 6th century. Also, it cannot be a coincidence that Mark wrote his gospel in 70 c.e.—chronologically, the first gospel of the New Testament ever written—right after the Romans destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem.
I’m here from your blog, and I ask you to exercise caution when dealing with monsigneur Guyénot as he’s a notorious crackpot who pushes every bizarre conspiracy theory, from the Moon landing hoax to… the Roman Empire being founded in Constantinople, in the 11th century… Hence please, don’t associate yourself with him as you have a strong stance against pseudosciences.
Actually, there were two founders of Rome, Romulus and Remus who were twins who were ordered to be thrown into the river Tiber. Instead, they were abandoned to die, but, were adopted and raised by a she-wolf(possible euphemism for a prostitute). They had a fight and Romulus killed Remus. A she-wolf suckling twin babies is still the symbol for Rome, today.
Although, if you take Guyenot’s thesis to it’s logical conclusion; then, it results in a purity spiral where the entirety of western civilisation is plot against the White race.
@ kerdasi amaq,
I think you should distinguish between “European Civilisation” and “Western Christian Civilisation” (cf. what a Swede says in a seminal essay on the subject here).
[QUOTE] If “making the United States into a multicultural society has been a major Jewish goal beginning in the nineteenth century,”[21] then it is logical to recognize the same Jewish goal in the foundation of Gentile Christianity by Paul of Tarsus. Again, this is not to say that Paul and his associates were conspiring against the Romans. Because Diaspora Jews feel safer in a multicultural society with individualistic and universalist values, they sincerely think that such a society is healthier—as long as Jews can keep the upper hand. From that point of view, Christianity was definitely helpful.[/QUOTE]
First of all, most Hebrews were not “Jews”. “Jews” came about when Moses delivered the laws (Ten Commandments). A faction of those Hebrews that had other values (from the Chrisitan perspective, they were degenerate, destructive and backward values) were destroyed in the Golden Calf incident.
Consequently, official Judaism was largely antisemitic, off and on, from Moses through the Prophets that followed, with Christ and the Crucifixion symbolizing the final nail in what finally had become totally corrupt Israel’s coffin.
http://www.judeofascism.com/2010/09/god-is-anti-semite-anti-jewish-polemics.html
The “Jews” since (and most Hebrews even before, since these Golden Calf Hebrews had methodically and systematically corrupted all who were receptive to their message of subversion and poison ever since the Golden Calf incident) have basically been the “undead” — and behaved as such. Satanists. Holdovers. “Dead enders” from the primitive past.
So these “Jews” and their stooges are actually physical, mental, emotional, spiritual and temperamental heirs to the Evil Ones (sorry to inform you, Guyenot).
Excellent analysis by the highly esteemed and knowledgeable Laurent Guyenot. A very valuable addition to Prof. MacDonald’s unsurpassed TOO.
For well over a millenia, Christendom flourished, and held jews primarily as outsiders, verbatim non citizens.
In fact, there was open hostility to jews, Inquisition, Jüdenbräter of the Crusades, and WW II to name just a few.
Everyone understands ‘109’
Christianity, Hindus, your local library board- jews forté is to engage in cyrpsis, infiltrate and destroy.
It wouldn’t have mattered WHAT came, they do the same
I get the impression that Laurent Guyenot is a lightweight intellectual who just assumes the truth of his own conclusions and relies on circular reasoning to justify them. Let alone, what I call the appeal to anti-semitism.
Why is there so much adulation for this rotten empire? Maybe, there are many wannabee Caesars out there who blame Christianity for depriving them of the opportunity to lord it over the known world?
” strategies by which they adapt to their environment, and strategies by which they modify their environment. The first kind of strategy is akin to the crypsis or mimesis that can be observed in the animal world. The second kind has no equivalent in the animal world and can even be considered a special faculty of the Jews.”
Some animal and plant parasites do modify their host behavior or environment. So there is such an equivalent.
“Christianity as a Jewish evolutionary strategy” — this is how history and truth are forgotten and re-written. From the founding of catholicism there were those who taught and fought against it. From the founding of catholicism under Constantine, the catholic persecuted, tortured, and killed Christians. Finally the “New World” opened up and imprisoned Christians and those who disagreed with catholicism went to and / or were sent to the “New World” so that Catholicism could be rid of them and they could be free from the threat of catholic persecution.
The “New World” which would become the USA was founded upon Christian principals and belief – this is what is being refuted and re-written in favor of catholic and jewish lies (the two who have been writing White history lies for centuries).
Prior to the 1980s Protestants knew that catholicism was not nor would ever be Christian – they worship the “mother of heaven.” Simply study some actual history. Catholics were not overly welcome in the USA until after the War of Northern Aggression – at which time catholics and jews poured into the USA. (That itself should tell you something)
Guyenot like all “modern” writers ignore the truth — likely he is catholic, thus the fraudulent use of the word Christian. As far as catholicism, yes, under Constantine catholicism was put in place and any who disagreed were slaughtered. Also, it is a jewish evolutionary strategy because Constantine was married to a jew, and once again, jew money helped put Constantine into power, no different than todays politics. The jews, under Constantine founded catholicism, fake Christianity, to counter the Christian movement sweeping through the old Roman Empire — that is, throughout Europe.
All you have to do is research, but they are making the information harder to find (censoring / deleting) – which is typical of jews and catholic.
If one reads/studies the Talmud you find that catholicism is very Talmudic or should we say communistic.
People are willfully blind to the truth — there are three religions in the world that wear a hat — judaism, catholicism, islam. All three very Talmudic which is anti-Christian.
Research is difficult for it takes time, and sheeple are lazy. It’s easier to just accept lies and ignore anything which contradicts the “main line jew/catholic backed/controlled” academia. That is why the jew “evolution” is so prevalent and creation is ignored.
Proof – do some research.
It’s like Webb in his comment, “the only “Christians” that count are the fanatic born aginers like Warrior Pete Hegseth and Trumpstein.”
Trumpstein has never been a Christian, nor has he professed it. He simply surrounds himself with fake Christians and they lie for the ‘agenda” – money.
Hogworth is not a Christian either, nor ever has been. He like so many other profess something they have no belief in. They do it thinking it makes them popular in a society that makes fake kristianity popular. Hogworth’s tattoos prove he is as far from Christian as he can be.
Then there are those “fanatic born againers” — the majority of them are not true “born againers.” Their supposed beliefs all go contrary to the bible they profess to believe, just like hogworth. They all profess, but it isn’t in their life.
The 1960s changed everything in the USA. ALL the new fake kristian movements (circa 1900 – pentecost, assemblies of god, holiness, etc) created by catholicism and the illuminati groups to further pervert Christianity, began taking hold and the true Protestants began breaking down – accepting female preachers, acceptance of gays, acceptance of false kristianity as Christian (mormons, catholic, jehovah witness, sda, etc).
The story is long and old. It isn’t just a jewsh evolutionary strategy, but a very old, very real conspiracy – a conspiracy of evil to destroy any and all who truly believe in the Christ.
And, no, I do not profess to be a Christian. But I was educated back when we knew what Christianity was and who was of true Christendom. Also, I know how to research, read and comprehend which is outside the scope of most born after 1980.
.ALL “christian” religions are wrong..protestant and catholic..! Every white Western man should purchase, Marcus Aurelius’, “Meditations”, and return to our Roman pagan religion of our ancient forefathers..!
I am not so arrogant as to think I can refute years of your research in a single comment, Mr Guyenot, but I would like you to consider the following points:
– How genetically close are the Jews of today to the Israelites of the Old Testament? I recall reading somewhere (can’t remember where) that modern Palestinians are closer to ancient Israelites than modern Jews are.
– The policy of Christian Rome to tolerate Jews but not polytheists, is quite similar to the policy of polytheist Rome to tolerate Jews but not Christians (the periods of persecuting Jews under Titus and Hadrian were the exception, not the rule). In that sense, Augustine was rationalizing a pre-Christian policy.
– While the New Testament does say there is “neither Jew nor Greek” (Gal. 3:28) in salvation, it does not wholly deny the importance of blood-ties; see Matt 15:4, 19:19, Eph. 6:2, Rom. 9:3, 1Tim. 5:8, etc. On the infamous “I have come to set son against father” (Matt. 10:35), commentators (to my knowledge) generally say Jesus was talking about Christians being hated by their family members for their faith.
– And non-Israelite peoples appear to keep their distinct identities in heaven according to the NT (Rev. 7:9), which challenges the idea that “they have no ethnic identity of any spiritual value” (as you say).
“The Jews had written a book saying that God chose the Jews, and Christians have accepted it as God’s word.”
The old testament is bad news, sure enough. As far as I can tell, Jesus accused the rabbis of having faked it “You teach the commandments of men as the commandments of God”.
Marcion and lots of others could see that. But once the Old Testament was forced into the mix, the fix was in. There is a huge difference between the old and new testaments.
But take the New testament on it’s own and it has some very strong anti-Pharisee sentiment. His criticism is that they are liars and devil worshippers. He totally destroys all the dietary rules and humiliates them by the whipping in the temple.
The apostles, apart from Judas, were all from Gallillee, not Judea. If Jesus was Jewish, he was jewish like Gilad Atzmon or Israel Shahak or someone.
The Jewish religion was wrong because it promoted lies, cruelty and hatred. If Jesus was a Jew, he was proposing a radical reform of Judaism which would be worth doing even today.
How does this theory account for the extreme hate some Jews have for Christianity? Shouldn’t someone tell them it is a jewish creation? They might stop spitting on the Christians in Jerusalem.
It is odd that early Christians were “always” found living in jewish areas. But aren’t there well recorded cases of Jews massacring early Christians? If the early Christians were Jews, they were dissident jews whose leader and many followers were killed by the Jewish establishment pressuring the Romans.
Very surprised to hear there were only a handful of Christian missionaries for the first few centuries.
Currently the Church is heavily controlled by Jewish and freemasons and whatnot. Historically, Christianity has helped national and group identity -Poland and Ireland, for example. Protestant Christianity worked very well for the welsh, an amazingly strong nation.
The view of Jesus as a spiritual revolutionary in first-century Israel, which combines an “egoistic” authoritarian combination of (1) apocalyptic prophecy, (2) ethical preaching, and (3) exorcist faith-healing, makes best sense of the material, especially his reference to and gospel usage of the book of Daniel. Jesus had a mother from the house of Levi, and his biological father may well have been a Gentile legionary (see Jane Schaberg on this); a factor in his marginal identity and his “Abba” consciousness (see Andries van Arde on this); cf. Ezekiel 16.3. Personally I think the resurrection stories, essential to the survival and expansion of his movement were based on hallucination experiences associated with meals laced with a substance like psilocybin.
The Jew Heine, who was notorious for his vulgar wordplay, is celebrated today as something of a “German folk hero.” Most likely because the National Socialists detested his writings. In his blasphemous and obscene poem “Disputation,” he pits devout Christians against equally devout Jews in a verbal battle of “arguments.”
Scroll down https://www.gutenberg.org/files/52882/52882-h/52882-h.htm#page_492
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Saragossi
In principle, it is no different from Schiller’s Ring Parable: Which of the Mosaic/Abrahamic/monotheistic religions is the only “true” one? Since each continues to insist that all others are lies, a resolution of the conflict cannot be expected in the coming millennia—rather, an apocalypse due to their threefold delusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_the_Wise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant
The decline of the Roman Empire, and its causes, have been conceptually as well causally controversial, from Edward Gibbon through Andre Piganiol to Peter Heather; and no doubt the pacifist and egalitarian elements in Christianity had adverse effects, then and now. But the role of that religion, and still less its alleged Jewish sponsors, can be exaggerated.
The earliest Christians in Europe were Gentiles not Jews (even if Roman authorities under Claudius could not tell the difference).
Christianity began with the Jesus from cosmopolitan Galilee who was not 100% racially Jewish (John 8.41,48; W. Grundmann) and son of a Roman soldier (Celsus, Haeckel, Hitler, J. Tabor); and with Solon aka Paulus from cosmopolitan Cilicia who was also not 100% racially Jewish (H. S. Chamberlain; H. Maccoby) and a Roman citizen.
Brit who fought against Germany in WWII talks about Saxons.
(Does he mean those who came from what is now Germany?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtQVHZeWTuk
The earliest archaeological evidence of Christianity dates back to the third century (see Ante Pacem by Graydon F. Snyder). The written accounts of the history of Christianity from the first two centuries should be viewed with skepticism because the copies may have been corrupted. No one knows when or where the Gospels were written, nor who wrote them.
However, we do know that the Romans and Greeks were attracted to Eastern religions and created their own cults based on them. The cult of Isis and Mithraism are just two examples of many. Josephus wrote that non-Jews were attracted to services in synagogues. Perhaps Christianity started this way. The practical difficulties of converting to Judaism seem like a plausible explanation for why Christianity arose. Jesus and Paul are hardly historical figures, and no one can prove that Christianity is of Jewish origin.
Emperor Julian emerges as a pivotal figure in the history of Christianity. He abandoned Christianity and sought to rebuild the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and restore ancient Roman values and traditions. Just thirty years after his death in 363, ancient religions were banned. Theodosius I accepted only Christianity and Judaism. This intolerance and religious impoverishment seem radical and difficult to understand today. It is an important topic to consider what the Jews thought of this development and whether they played any role in it.
Was Christianity a “Jewish movement” strongly controlled by Jews even during the third century, and probably designed to harm the Roman Empire? I think this is a highly selective view of the available evidence which must also take account of the “antisemitism” of the new religion, which has occasioned the self-righteous lachrymosity of Jewish historians of the “longest hatred”.
Studies of Jesus are literally innumerable, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous; see e.g. Charlotte Allen, “The Human Christ” (1999) & Wikipedia, “Christ myth theory” (1999) for starters. Originally Jews regarded him as a mamzer magician who was executed for leading Israel astray.
Paul has been subject far fewer but still varied interpretations, including Norman Cantor’s comparison with a media marketeer who gives people what they want like “Jewish movie magnates in Hollywood” who provide “violence and sex”. The NT reports Jewish conspiracies against him, including his letter to Thessalonian converts describing them as the “enemies of mankind”.
For a broader view of the whole question, may I suggest respectfully:
1. Stanley E. Porter & Brook W. R. Pearson, “Christian-Jewish Relations through the Centuries” (2004).
2. Randolph L. Braham, “The Origins of the Holocaust: Christian Anti-Semitism” (1986).
3. Joshua Trachtenberg, “The Devil & the Jews” (1993).
4. James Carroll, “Constantine’s Sword: The Church & the Jews, A History” (2002).
5. Peter Schaefer, “Jesus in the Talmud” (2009).
6. Jonas E. Alexis, “Christianity & Rabbinic Judaism” (2012).
I am reminded of a recent “theory” that the NT was concocted by a leading family of the Roman Empire, and another “theory” that “the Jews” created Islam to destroy Christianity! Less far-fetched, of course, was Benjamin Disraeli’s assertion that Jews created communist revolution to wreak vengeance on Christendom.
If we accept all the evidence presented, the problem is to distinguish between it proving Jewish instigation versus infiltration of Christianity. There is enormous evidence of infiltration, but it is hard to make the Whipping in the Temple into a pro-Jewish story.
It makes sense for the Jews to invent an anti-Jewish group. They can use this group to make the Jewish population afraid and to submit more readily to the rabbis. Islam fits this concept of a golem religion better than Christianity, and this is theory believed by some very respectable people.
But if fear is the motive for inventing the Jesus story, why didn’t they get Jesus to kill a bunch of Jews instead of just whipping them? Mohammed killed plenty. It is also highly suspicious that amongst the numerous unkind things the Talmud says about Jesus, it never says a word about the Whipping in the Temple. This tends to show that it was a touchy subject when they were writing the Talmud, as it still is today.
FWIW, an example of modern Christian nationalism, from Ireland’s National Party. Twelve percent of Irish voters followed this party’s advice to “spoil” their votes in the recent Presidential election, many with very strong ethno-nationalist messages.
Last year, a spontaneous pro-Jesus mob of a couple of hundred blocked a Muslim march through Dublin. Big guys with beards wear solid steel crucifixes around their necks and flash it at foreign looking men. The foreigners don’t like it.
On the Emerald Isle right now, Jesus is bigger than the Beatles and meaner than King Charles the Third.
Even if Jesus was Jewish or he never existed, or never whipped them in the Temple, the Jews are still angry about the whole thing. The Israelis bombed Beirut eight times on Easter Sunday and Bibi invoked Jesus last week.
MTG namechecked JC while calling Trump a madman, blaming the Israelis and urging any Christians in the Cabinet to call in Dr Feelgood to certify Trump as crazy. Come on, Mr Vice President, make that call!
START:
On this Good Friday, we stand beneath the Cross, the ultimate symbol of faith, sacrifice, and victory over evil.
We remember the Son of God Who overturned the tables of the moneychangers, confronted the occupiers bringing destitution and decay, and went willingly to Calvary to defeat Satan and his legions.
So too must we rise.
We will not kneel before foreign rule or native collaborators who would reduce us once more to serfs upon our own ancestral soil.
For our struggle is not against flesh, but against every dark force that divides and occupies our nation. The same divine power that conquered death and shattered the gates of hell will shatter the occupiers of our land and restore Ireland, sovereign, and free from shore to shore.
This Good Friday, we take up the Cross with unbreakable faith and march defiantly toward our own resurrection, For God and For Ireland!
Go sábhála Dia Éire
Heh, a former chancellor and Führer of Germany garnered a number of votes in that election.
W. B. Yeats combined Irish patriotism with eugenics which was then regarded to a qualified extent as compatible with Catholicism.
who cares about all this scholasticism? Nobody but the God fanatics. Ordinary people have had it with Religion and good riddance. How about some discussion of Evolution from which we came and to which we are consigned for better or worse. Right now with the Mud-Slide of demographic catastrophe engulfing the White world, the Religion fools are fiddling with their Bibles while you know what.
With the world because of Trumpstein’s crusade for The Jews, getting ready to economically crack up…reminds me of a line from VS Naipaul, the novelist, in a short story has a starving Indian: “show me who to kill.” That is where we are now, us White folks entering dramatic inflation, unemploymnt, class and race struggle. Show me who to kill, right.
Trumpstein is bringing it on. He is crazy, demented, ugly, absurd, grotesque and very dangerous. Religion, Inc. is just so much insane verbiage. Evolution does not care, it just keeps on. Man thinks, god or evolution just grins.
Oh, I forgot to mention the C word, Crusade. Trumpstein and Hegseth, both brilliant theorists of world history and culture, are talking like lunatic Bible Belt preachers. Hegseth just likened the crevice, or whatever that the shot-down pilot hid himself in, to the Christ crypt from which He emerged alive, etc. Halajewyah ! Give God a hand!
We have a cult of personality around the Prez of the Universe, of course rapidly decaying with the corpulent soon to morph into a corpse Trumpstein shrieking genocidal rants about the Persians, Fox Jews salivating over barbecued same, and Israeli werewolves yapping at The Prez to keep on keeping on smiting the Amaleks.
It is all fanatic crusaders and money changers jangling their gold like tambourines as they dance around the funeral pyre calling out to Yahweh to burn baby burn. Christ returned to Yahweh, the original Jew devil.
all religion is narcissistic, bloody, and rooted in death cults.
Z
Laurent Guyenot and César Tort are anti-Christian theologians attempting to enforce their doctrine on White nationalists, that Christianity alone is responsible for the apparent crises affecting the West.
What C.T. is really doing is attempting to recruit White Nationalists into serving as his own private army to wage a jihad against his bête noire “Christianity”. That’s all.
Only sycophants and yes-men are welcome at his blog.
Christians like Matt Parrott used to comment on my website (interestingly, I’ve only banned three people from my blog, two of them atheists). Regarding my “theology,” as you call it, are you familiar with Tom Holland’s Dominion, which shows how Christianity has metamorphosed axiologically into atheistic hyper-Christianity?
Also recommended
• Nature’s Eternal Religion by Ben Klassen
https://odysee.com/@JustAudiobooks:0/Nature-s-Eternal-Religion-by-Ben-Klassen-Book-I-(Complete):7
https://odysee.com/@JustAudiobooks:0/Nature's-Eternal-Religion-by-Ben-Klassen-Book-II-(Complete):8
I can’t share Fr. James Mawdsley’s (and E Michael Jones’) hope that all jews will eventually convert to Christianity, nevertheless he articulates a very strong and truthful message, especially about the infiltration and subversion of the Roman Catholic Church, and especially about World War II,
• HN10 1/3 Standing for Christ on Good Friday – Scripture and Tradition — Fr JM (James Mawdsley)
https://odysee.com/@tarsus:c/144-HN10-1-2-Standing-for-Christ-on-Good-Friday-COMPRESSED:3
• HN10 2/3 What you can do about the JQ. – Scripture and Tradition — Fr JM (James Mawdsley)
https://odysee.com/@tarsus:c/149-HN10-2-3-What-to-do-about-the-JQ-GENERAL-COMPRESSED:7
• HN10 3/3: How the Jewish Question Can Be Answered by Church and State. (The End of the HN.) – Scripture and Tradition — Fr JM (James Mawdsley)
https://odysee.com/@tarsus:c/HN10-3-3-What-to-do-CHURCH-STATE-COMPRESSED:4
(also on Rumble channel ‘Scripture and Tradition — Fr JM’}
What do M. Pierre de Craon and Fr John+ think about these matters?
It is an interesting exercise but not helpful to hypothesize Christianity as a “Jewish” evolutionary strategy. Only the very core of Christianity is Jewish and that core is anti-Temple, anti-priest, and anti-written law, and believe it or not, anti-Roman church. It is a cognitive discipline that returns a man, any man, from the Fall by teaching a man to learn as much as he can for as long as he lives until his learned behaviors become intuitive by writing what he learns on the fleshy tablets of his heart i.g. when he embodies the finest behaviors.
That discipline is obscured by a Roman metaphysical envelope written for the masses which has failed to retain and teach its core truth to men of wisdom and courage who are not of the masses.
The only book in the Torah you have to read to counter a Jewish Diaspora is Genesis because it contains the strategy for creating a successful Diaspora. The Jews can’t help but follow these steps when they colonize a host nation like the ancient Egypt of Joseph or the modern nation state of the United States. They have developed different tactics over long spans of time which they record in their rabbinical commentaries but they never deviate from the strategy in Genesis.
And here in Exodus 1:7-10, the pharaoh reveals it:
“Now the Israelites were fruitful and prolific; they increased in numbers and became very powerful, so that the country was overrun by them. Then a new pharaoh ascended the throne of Egypt, one who knew nothing of Joseph. He said to his people, “These Israelites have become too MANY and too STRONG for us…”
MANY = Abrahamic pronatalism
STRONG = Jacobian selection for intelligence
You have to do both.
If you colonize a host nation and only have many babies, your babies enter the host’s population at the level of the masses with no power and no means to obtain it.
If you colonize a host nation and combine pronatalism with selection for intelligence, your babies mature to enter the population’s educated classes, compete with them directly, and eventually overwhelm and displace them as did Joseph’s family in the Egypt of Genesis.
Jewish conspiracies, the failure of your churches, the infiltration of the social hierarchies of all your institutions by foreigners all occur because not enough of you have babies and not enough of you marry well i.e., to intelligent women.
So, you can fight back by severely curtailing their immigration, and the immigration of warrior religions, principally Islam, and you can increase your population and your intelligence, so you can seize and hold your niches.
Pope Leo, the first American pope, proclaimed Islam a religion of peace exposing himself as an idiot.
I went to church and volunteered most of my adult life and found most of the priest/pastors were homosexuals. They had an easy life in the church and were treated like royalty particularly by the old ladies who were regularly inviting them to dinners and giving them gifts as they frolicked in the rectory. So, obviously, celibacy must go and priests/pastors should be married to end the scandal.
A note: Kevin MacDonald has pointed out the mirroring strategy of dealing with a Jewish colonization:
“It is an important proposition of this and the following two chapters that [these] gentile groups come to resemble Judaism in certain critical ways, that they become in effect mirror images of Judaism. Under circumstances in which a genetically and culturally segregated ethnic group engages in successful resource competition, the only available means of competition for outgroup members would be to abandon individualistic strategies and become members of a cohesive strategizing group. …Such a mirror-image gentile group strategy is therefore a reactive process, since the heightened sense of group identity among gentiles develops in reaction to the group strategy of another group.”
Kevin MacDonald, Separation and its Discontents, page 90
A combatant can also reverse the mirror. As their colonies have many babies they can employ tactics that compel your host population to abandon pronatalism. The example that comes to mind is LGBT ideology created post WWII and disseminated throughout the West because it is non-reproductive behavior and when it is legitimized it causes our birth rates to plummet as their birth rates skyrocket.
Once there are enough of you, having babies and exercising rigid cognitive discipline in significant numbers, you can organize, quietly and with determination, take back your “churches,” and fashion them to enhance the possibility of your communal survival.
Why should an idiot rule the church while gangs of homosexuals administer it?
That has only happened because you walked away from it.
Churches are empty of men.
The strategy is in Genesis, a single book, easy reading…
@ Rediron, see John Glad’s “Jewish Eugenics” (2011).
Terry, you wrote:
@ Rediron, see John Glad’s “Jewish Eugenics” (2011).
Why?
The Book of Genesis from a Darwinian Perspective was published in TOQ in 2007.
[snip]
The paper identifies the allegory of the elder serving the younger (chapters 25-29) as the legendary source of Jewish intelligence.
“In Chapter 1 of The Origin of Species, titled ‘Variation under Domestication’ under the heading ‘Principles of Selection Anciently Followed and Their Effects,’ Darwin makes the following remark: ‘From passages in Genesis, it is clear that the colour of domestic animals was at that early period attended to.'”
[end snip]
Always a good idea to read outside your own box.
Jews have been conscious of bloodline issues from the Torah to Tay-Sachs.
Further to the main topic of this thread, Jews were regarded as superseded and/or condemned by mainstream Christians from the NT, letter of Barnabas (130 CE), Justin Martyr (160), Tertullian (200), Augustine of Hippo, John Chrysostom, Theodosius II, Aquinas….Luther, Leo XII.
Attempts by Jews to overturn the deicide narrative along with lifting the ban on freemasons are outlined by Leon de Poncins in two well-known books.
‘Some’ say that “all were ‘jews’ 2000years ago”..well, no they were not. Some say Mose was a ‘jew’..no he was not, but a levit. Some say Abraham was a sc jew..hm, no he was not, he came from Mesopotamia today Irak. So who present those ridicolous sentiments..the talmudists of course. The ‘jews’ 2000years ago., their name was iudaits, not jews. Iuda was one of 12 sons of Jakov. Levi was another and his grandgrandgrandson was Mose..that’s why Mose was a levit, not a iudait. Benjamin one, Gad one, Nathanel etc + one daughter.
Christianity was born in stringent opposition to the phariseeic sc “oral tradition” (not against sons of Jakov, even if the pharisees wants us to believe that) later codified as talmud 500ad.
Todays sc sionist’christians’ are scofield’christians’ and not real Christians, as the Palestinian were 2000 years ago.
What happend when the pharisees were thrown out by Titus 70ad, was a tremendous catastrophy for those parasites, so they had to codify “oral tradition” so their new captured popolus (kasarians)(or later ashkenazims) would be owned for the next 1000years. Kasaria was blowned to smitherings 1050ad..Today there is a Kasaria2.0, and they act as..1.0
John Glad’s “Jewish Eugenics” (2011) is a relevant eye-opener.
See also the lecture by the former Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks deploring the catastrophic decline of the white European birth-rate, “Theos”, November 4, 2009, available online.
There are voices but in Judaism and in the anti-judaic community (especially on Twitter/X) that believe Paul was a deliberate subverter. These have never made sense to me as the content of Pauls writing bears little malice.
The question for me is why did the Roman’s accept Christianity. Was it forced or was it willing. Perhaps both?
Was it the attraction of being chosen and forgiven or was it the brutal destruction of all non Jewish artifacts and cults?
And if it wasn’t based on willingness, but rather force, as many now believe, how did the ruling class come to be judeophilic, and why?
Stephan,
You have to read Eduardo Velasco’s essay on Rome & Judea to understand this psychohistorical phenomenon.
Everything changed once Constantine set about creating his imperial Cult. There were material and social advantages to joining this cult and one didn’t have to abandon one’s pagan beliefs to LARP as a Christian.