The hero Cadmus and his wife the goddess Harmonia turned into a snake. Illustration for Ovid’s Metamorphoses 1619.

The Israeli invasion of Gaza is yet another proof that history knows no end and that the line between friend and foe always needs to be redrawn anew. Following the Israeli incursion in Gaza, not only the founding year of the state of Israel needs to be reexamined but the whole post-World War II antifascist narrative is in need of historical reassessment. The wise proverb “beware of what you wish for” now befits countless Jewish opinion makers and their Gentile left-leaning fellow travelers forced into an embarrassing process of disavowing their Antifa-BLM-multikulti-SJW brainchildren. The war in Gaza has finally announced the predictable albeit long-awaited demise of the Left with the Jews becoming time and again the first victims of their own ideological concoction. All over Europe and America, let alone in the Muslim world, there is a growing, often irrational hatred of Israel and, by proxy, hatred of all Jews. In his archetypical Jewish angst-inspired piece, Alan Dershowitz summarizes that “[n]o self-respecting Jew should give a penny to any organization that has turned against Israel and supported Hamas.” While slamming antifa and leftist pro-Palestinian activists staging anti-Israel demonstrations in the US and EU, Dershowitz forgets to add that in the past his criticism of the Left never featured on his list of judicial ire. And with reason. Over the last century the Left and its multicolored antifa activists have served as a battering ram for the Jews; now, the Left is becoming their mortal enemy.

Panic mode is also setting in across the chancelleries in the EU. This is particularly true for the German post-World War II guilt-ridden penitence-prone governments ceaselessly reiterating, year after year, decade after decade, 24/7 that “Israel’s security is Germany’s raison d’état” (Israels Sicherheit ist deutsche Staatsräson). How can, therefore, the German ruling class endear itself to millions of non-European, mostly Muslim newcomers and at the same time punish them for shouting anti-Jewish or anti-Israel slogans against the foremost military power in the Middle East? Millions of second-generation Muslim migrants, along with domestic leftist militants, after having been pampered for decades by the US/EU System, are now openly taunting the System and its super-ego: the State of Israel. What comes to mind is the allegory of the broom in the poem The Sorcerer’s Apprentice by Wolfgang J. Goethe. The magic broom was originally designed by the Master Blaster to keep away all the evils of the world. Alas, the broom, if overindulged, sparks hubris or chutzpah in its user, putting his own life in grave danger.

Can I never, Broom, appease you? / I will seize you / Hold and whack you/
And your ancient wood / I’ll sever / With a whetted axe I’ll crack you.

When staging protests against Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, leftist sorcerers’ apprentices abide unknowingly by the canons of their early Jewish antifascist sponsors. They like to regurgitate words “racists,” “Nazis,” “fascists” against Israel and Jewish organizations throughout the world, forgetting that those words were first launched by the Frankfurt School, and relaundered after World War II by the ADL, SPLC, the French CRIF and the German AAS into demonizing labels designed for individuals critical of the Jewish role in the US and Europe.

There are thousands of books and titles that examine in detail Jewish socio-political behavior, focusing on proverbial Jewish hubris and how it affects Jewish politicians and academics in their overreach, causing time and again unnecessary disaster for their own physical survival. TOO has extensively covered this never-ending topic, even by retrieving and translating sources that were banned or removed from university libraries following World War II.

The Ancients viewed hubris as an affront to the gods, with the worst crime committed by the hero when he transgresses the natural order. Western literature is replete with figures of gods, mortals and demi-gods whose disobedience of the natural order resulted in their eternal punishment, or their transformation into non-human species, such as plants or wild beasts, as was well described by the Latin poet Ovid in his long poem The Metamorphoses. The chained Prometheus is first on the list of shame after having derided Zeus’ commandments, although there are thousands more real and surreal mythical figures such as Tantalus or Sisyphus who tried to upstage Zeus by literally biting off more than they could chew. Accordingly, they had to pay a very heavy price for their arrogance. One must also add Apollo, the prime European god of physical beauty and cultured manliness, whose uncontrolled sexual appetite for the fleeing nymph Daphne resulted in his becoming a laurel tree.

Verus Israel vs. viral Gentiles

On a secular and political level each politician, either consciously or more often subconsciously, strives to become the master of the universe, especially if Fortuna, the goddess of sheer luck, favors his ambitions for an extended stretch of time. But the goddess Fortuna can backfire and morph into the goddess Nemesis. There is a vast literature on how Jews, with their history of self-appointed choseness, have unavoidably created enemies in practically every corner of the world. Their drive to overreach themselves in their effort to change the world has always yielded opposite and ugly results.

But why blame the Jews for their chutzpah if millions of Christians worldwide strive to “outjew” the Jews by claiming to be the only verus [true] Israel ? A case in point are American Christian Zionists, who claim to be the only true successors to Jews, although Christians in Europe are not lagging much behind with their pro-Jewish adulation. In a more contemporary military context, why criticize the Israeli Defense Force for bombing Gaza while leaving out their Gentile Double in the US who fully endorses and weaponizes Israeli ambitions in the region? One could draw a parallel with the World War II Western Allied firebombing of Germany, an analogy that may come in handy for many conservative crypto-antisemites as well as a multitude of antifa virtue signalers feigning sympathy for the Palestinians. In hindsight, the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza seems to be minor childplay when compared to the inferno German civilians went through during Roosevelt’s and Churchill’s “moral bombing” campaigns from 1940–45. The current Israeli government is merely following the Allied World War II script.

It remains a mystery that so many gentiles have always been fervent supporters of Jewish dialectics, from Moses to Marx. More shocking is the fact that many high-IQ White intellectuals, professors and academics were enamored for a good part of the twentieth century with a Jewish-inspired Freudo-Marxian mystique — only to ditch it relatively recently as a redundant and silly doctrine, replacing it with the equally destructive political theology of liberalism. It is equally incomprehensible that out of hundreds of different cults and sects in first-century pagan Rome, Gentiles accepted the teachings of a small and obscure desert people. Worse still has been the self-destructive nature of Jewish world-improving egalitarian proto-communist doctrines — not just for non-Jews but also for the Jews themselves. The Jews gave birth to Christians, — the “Bolshevism of Antiquity” — only to experience persecutions soon thereafter by the very same Christians. One of the first measures of the first Christian Roman emperor Constantine was to declare Jews a dangerous sect, “secta nefaria,” with imperial and papal successors subsequently enacting a variety of anti-Jewish laws. Two millennia later, Jews played a disproportionate role in the Bolshevik movement — only to become its first victims. Practically all high-level communist officials were of Jewish origin, especially among the upper ranks of the early Soviet terror machine. Dora Kaplan, Grigory Zinoviev, Genrikh Yagoda, Leon Trotsky, Lev Kamenev and thousands other Bolsheviks of Jewish extraction, were executed by their own comrades.

That good can metastasize into evil —but also the other way around — is further shown by the examples of Jews who turned from being ardent Marxists and communist sympathizers into the best theoreticians of anticommunism. Some of the finest books critical of communist totalitarianism and the warped mindset of the “Soviet man” (Homo sovieticus) were written by former Jewish communists or Jewish academics, as well as hidden sympathizers of the Bolshevik revolution (Jacob Talmon, Boris Souvarine, Arthur Koestler, Mikhail Heller, Aleksandr Nekrich, Alain Besançon). It suffices to say that during the last years of the Cold War, the prominent US neoconservative magazine Commentary, run by the American Jew Norman Podhoretz, carried very good pieces on the communist pathology.

Along the primordial lines of Ovidian opportunistic metamorphoses, it is to be expected that in the months to come, many Jewish opinion makers in the US and EU will turn into ardent critics of their leftist-antifa brainchildren. Criticism of non-European, mostly Muslim mass migrations to Europe, along with open public disapproval of the leftist woke palaver on “diversity,” “inclusion,” equity, and multiculturalism will soon become a welcomed item in public discourse, no longer subjected to punitive legal harassment. The aftermath of the Israeli military engagement in Gaza will likely provoke uncontrolled rage among 50 million EU and Balkan Muslims, thus providing a solid pool for a multitude of Islamic terrorist attacks all over European capitals. The end result will come as a golden gift for the Israelis and many EU-based Jews, helping them smooth over and neuter a bad press that Israel and Jews have been getting lately. The anti-Muslim drive will be gladly swallowed by many White nationalists, who will finally be able to openly vent their antiimmigration sentiments by cloaking them under their ersatz pro-Israeli identity. Self-declared conservative politicians  adulated by rightwing and nationalist figures in the US and EU, such as Donald Trump, his Hungarian counterpart Viktor Orban, along with their big-time fans and sidekicks in France, Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour, are already taking the pro-Israeli, anti-Muslim lead.

Jewish Power in the U.S. Is on Full Display

The Gaza war is bringing us an awesome display of Jewish power over the US media and political culture. It’s a display that could effectively wake Americans up to how deeply entrenched Jews are in the American power structure. Even the mainstream media is featuring images of Gazan suffering, bloodied children, and the over 10000 Gazan deaths, mostly women and children. Even clueless White liberals must be starting to wake up about Israel, but of course they will turn a blind eye to the Jewish power in America as enabling all of this, such as that they’re basically funding the Democratic party and its woke agenda; the party that preaches a utopian vision of ethnic harmony as a moral imperative supporting yet another round of the decades-long destruction and ethnic violence against the Palestinians.

The Biden administration seems to be realizing that their blind support for Israeli violence can’t be sold to their voters and are pleading with the Israelis for humanitarian pauses. To no avail. As always, “America’s greatest ally” thumbs its nose at America when it wishes. And why not? Just one example: America has been vainly pleading with Israel to stop the West Bank settlements for over 50 years. To no effect. And right now the settlers are violently attacking the West Bank Palestinians. The money and diplomatic support just keep coming. Today’s New York Times:

There is a long history of U.S. presidents realizing they don’t have as much leverage over Israel as they thought,” said Representative Seth Moulton, a Massachusetts Democrat and former Marine who served four tours in Iraq. And he said the same applies to Ukraine, “where this is first and foremost their fight, even if we have huge stakes in the outcome.

The atmosphere in Jewish circles right now can best be described as “Blood lust.  Kill all the Palestinians, or at least the Gazans. There is no context in the messages emanating from the high ground of American culture—little or no mention of the decades-long occupation, the ethnic cleansing and apartheid, or the open-air prison status of Gaza and the 17-year blockade. And it’s obvious that Jewish media influence is critical for this.

However, as always, the ultimate cause of Jewish power is simply money — most obviously funding a powerful infrastructure of influence, organizations like the ADL. AIPAC, JINSA, left-leaning and war-mongering lobbying groups like WINEP — the sorts of organizations that ambitious (and sociopathic) politicians necessarily pay attention to. Jewish financial clout is thus on full display, e.g., punishing the universities and pro-Hamas protesters for allowing anti-Israel speech (= anti-Semitism if you haven’t noticed). Pro-Hamas students and protesters at Ivy League universities have been doxxed and blacklisted from jobs they had been offered at prestigious law firms.

Billionaire Bill Ackman demanded a blacklist of students who’d been protesting Israel, so he and others would not inadvertently hire them in the future. A mobile placard went around Harvard Square with the names of students who’d backed the Palestinians even as Hamas’ atrocities were unfolding. “We need to make sure these students pay a price and that their neighbors, friends, and employers know that they harbor these beliefs,” explained one CEO. He repeated his accusations in an November 4 tweet directed at Harvard’s affirmative action president Claudine Gay:

“Jewish students are being bullied, physically intimidated, spat on, and in several widely-disseminated videos of one such incident, physically assaulted. Student Slack message boards are replete with antisemitic statements, memes, and images,” Ackman wrote.

Ackman, 57, also noted that students on campus have been calling for “violent insurrection” and “use eliminationist language seeking the destruction of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

Assuming this is true, Jews are definitely on the defensive in universities. But the message is clear. Ambitious students would be well advised to forget their principles and go with the Jewish perspective on the war. And of course, it’s not just Ackman: Alan Dershowitz, Leslie Wexner, Marc Rowan, Richard Wolf, David Magerman, Steven Solomon, Clifford Asness, Leon Cooperman, Steve Eisman — wealthy and powerful people all. Rowan’s activism threatens to blow a billion-dollar hole in the budget of the University of Pennsylvania and the jobs of the university president and head of the Board of Trustees are on the line.

As always, Jews, as an elite, aim their activism at influencing the most powerful, prestigious institutions in society. Jewish influence is always top-down—control the high points of the media, academic, and political pyramid of power, and the rest will conform or at least be manageable. And to further emphasize the point, Ackman’s activism was followed up by 27 prestigious law firms sending letters to the law schools of prestigious universities.

Over the last several weeks, we have been alarmed at reports of anti-Semitic harassment, vandalism and assaults on college campuses, including rallies calling for the death of Jews and the elimination of the State of Israel. Such anti-Semitic activities would not be tolerated at any of our firms. We also would not tolerate outside groups engaging in acts of harassment and threats of violence, as has also been occurring on many of your campuses.

A Reuters article noted:

A Sullivan & Cromwell spokesperson said on Thursday that senior chair Joseph Shenker spearheaded the letter to the law schools known in the legal industry as the “T-14,” as ranked by U.S. News & World Report. Other signatories include some on the nation’s biggest and most profitable law firms, including Cravath, Swaine & Moore; Latham & Watkins; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.

The Jewish editor of eLife, an online journal for the life sciences was fired for retweeting an Onion article that called out indifference to the lives of Palestinian civilians” with the title “‘The Onion’ Stands With Israel Because It Seems Like You Get In Less Trouble For That.” Great title and obviously true. The article talks about the likely costs of any criticism of Israel, including being blacklisted from their jobs. The article way too close to home for the powers that be.

We think of the left as the main perpetrators of cancel culture but the mainstream right, which is all in for Israel, has the same tendencies despite having less power. But here’s  Republican Senator Tom Cotton, in a letter to the evil DHS secretary Majorkas, this week:

I write to urge you to immediately deport any foreign national — including and especially any alien on a student visa — that has expressed support for Hamas and its murderous attacks on Israel. These fifth-columnists have no place in the United States. Swiftly removing and permanently barring from future reentry any foreign student who signed onto or shared approvingly the anti-Semitic letter from the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee on October 7 would be a good place to start.

But Glenn Beck takes first prize as the most subservient, clueless conservative:

Beck, a devout Christian, said on his show that he wants to do more than simply offer words of support for the country.

He is asking for citizenship, he said, so that he might offer “deeds” for the Jewish people, rather than simple words.

“I don’t know why I was born, but there is something about the state of Israel that connects deeply to me,” Beck told his listeners.

He added, “To have the privilege to stand with the Jew is a tremendous honor, spiritually. So, I want to read a letter that I wrote that I am sending to the state of Israel.”

Beck then recited the letter, which said: “To Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the honorable officials at the state of Israel. In this moment, I have chosen to ask you for citizenship in the state of Israel.

Republicans are reliably worse on Israel than the Democrats who likely have a more difficult time reconciling Israel’s behavior with their virtue-signaling about ethnic hatred. Like at the recent Republican Jewish Coalition convention in Las Vegas. Nikki Haley was the star, and has the support of the neocons who deserted Trump in 2016 but managed to dominate foreign policy in the Biden administration. Ramaswamy was the villain, and with the Never-Trumpers in the driver’s seat:

Trump is too much of an isolationist for these people, and he criticized Netanyahu and called Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, “very smart.” …

“I will not criticize Israel’s prime minister in the middle of a tragedy and war,” Haley added as Israel expanded its ground offensive in Gaza, with Netanyahu warning of a long and difficult war after Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7.

Ramaswamy expressed support for Israel’s right to dismiss the “myth” of a two-state solution—at least he acknowledges it’s a myth, but it wasn’t enough. After all, he had the temerity to say in an interview with Tucker Carlson that U.S. interests must come first, even with Israel. Ramaswamy argued the U.S. needs to remember the mistakes of the recent past, like getting into trillions of dollars of debt for two failed wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—wars that were not well-planned and had no clear objective. Unacceptable! War is good!

Ep. 29  After the Hamas attacks, what’s the wise path forward? pic.twitter.com/AwWkcLFUBb

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) October 9, 2023

DeSantis, who held his first cabinet meeting as governor in Florida in Jerusalem, referred to the West Bank as “the most ancient Jewish land going back to biblical times—apparently giving a green light for ethnic cleansing. Sen. Tim Scott of Florida reiterated his calls to deport foreign students participating in “antisemitic” protests on college campuses. Basically, the Republicans are hopeless as they are about pretty much everything.

Incidentally, Nikki Haley is bought and paid for:

When Haley last served in office as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, her family’s finances were a mess. Her parents owed over $1 million and were in danger of losing their Lexington, South Carolina home. A devoted daughter, Haley had loaned them hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past with her husband. But she could not solve all of her parents’ problems, with less than $100,000 sitting in her bank accounts and $185,000 coming in each year in salary.

Since then, Haley’s net worth has ballooned from less than $1 million to an estimated $8 million. How did she make so much money in so little time? By following a tried-and-true playbook for politicians looking to cash in on their fame. Speeches to companies like Barclays and organizations such as the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs provided more money in a day than Haley had previously earned in a year. It’s not clear how many talks she gave from 2019 to 2021, but Haley hauled in $2.3 million from just 11 events in 2022.

Jewish Revenge

In a speech to IDF soldiers, Netanyahu framed the invasion in biblical terms, declaring that “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible”

“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”  (1 Samuel 15:3)

Netanyahu declaring invasion: “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible”

1 Samuel 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” pic.twitter.com/5QF9PkGhjJ

— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) October 28, 2023

And that is exactly what they are doing. The repeated bombing of a refugee camp in Gaza with many casualties, not to mention hospitals, seems to have had an impact on even the US media. In the case of the refugee camp, hundreds of civilians have died for supposedly killing two top Hamas leaders. No one seriously believes that Israel is trying to spare civilians.

Jews have a long memory and a powerful sense of vengeance against those they see as their enemies. The problem is that ultimately Jews see us as deadly enemies. For serious Jews, their history in the West is little more than a long series of disasters—the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans, medieval expulsions and pogroms, nineteenth-century pogroms in Russia, the 1924 U.S. immigration law and quotas at Ivy League universities, and ultimately the holocaust. The transformation of the U.S. into a multiethnic, multicultural cauldron and an impending White minority should make White Americans realize that ultimately Jews will turn on them when they have enough power, as they achieved in the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik Revolution.

Jews and the Moral High Ground

Perhaps the greatest strength that Jews have is that since World War II they have occupied the moral high ground. The Western media has been deluged with messages of Jews as victims of irrational anti-Semitism. This message has been blasted by the mainstream media for decades and it is an integral aspect of academic culture where Jewish power and influence greatly expanded, especially during the 1960s. Of course, we as White Americans have very good reasons to oppose Jewish influence, particularly their influence in promoting the transformational changes resulting from massive non-White immigration which has already weakened the power of White Americans. It’s no accident that the present Secretary of Homeland Security is a Jew who has imported around 4–8 million illegal aliens who will eventually vote, along with their children.

But non-White immigration is presented as a moral imperative in the media and you’re an evil Nazi if you oppose it. The fact is that Jewish efforts to alter the ethnic balance of the U.S. reflect Jewish hatred for the traditional West because of anti-Jewish movements in the past reaching back to the Roman Empire, and in particular many Jewish activists explicitly seek to prevent the sort of mass movement that occurred in Germany in the 1930s. There are many such statements by Jewish activists, some quoted in the chapter on immigration in The Culture of Critique, but the most recent one I have found is from Boston Globe writer S. I. Rosenbaum writing in a very mainstream outlet, The Boston Globe, who claimed in 2019 that the main lesson of the Holocaust is “that white supremacy could turn on us at any moment,” and that the strategy of appealing to the White majority “has never worked for us. It didn’t protect us in Spain, or England, or France, or Germany. There’s no reason to think it will work now.” So you can see this hatred against the West on full display. The central question of Jewish political engagement in Western societies, she insisted, is “how we survive as a minority population,” where the one great advantage American Jewry enjoys is that “unlike other places where ethno-nationalism has flourished, the U.S. is fast approaching a plurality of minorities.” Presiding over a coalition of non-White groups to actively oppose White interests is the new Jewish ethno-political imperative: “If Jews are going to survive in the future, we will have to stand with people of color for our mutual benefit.”

It’s the same in the U.K.: Tobias Langdon quotes Barbara Roche, immigration minister in the disastrous Tony Blair government:

“Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who’s here? Who isn’t. A kaleidoscope of skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of Americano coffee. “I love the diversity of London,” she tells me. “I just feel comfortable.” (Hideously Diverse Britain: The immigration ‘conspiracy’, The Guardian, 2nd March 2011)

Roche wasn’t acting on her own when she became immigration minister and opened Britain’s borders to Somalis and other low-IQ, high-criminality Third-Worlders. She was collaborating with other Jews to make Britain a more “comfortable” place for Jews. And since she left office, she has continued to campaign for open borders and for more anti-White bureaucracy:

Tony Blair should promote the benefits of legal immigration to Britain, and “not back off” from plans to create a super equalities commission, Barbara Roche, the former equalities minister, has urged. … The child of a Polish-Russian Ashkenazi father and a Sephardic Spanish-Portuguese mother, Ms Roche has reason for her feelings on immigration. “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics. I understand the otherness of ethnic groups. The Americans are ahead of us on things like multiple identity. I’m Jewish but I’m also a Londoner; I’m English but also British.” (Roche urges Labour to promote the benefits of legal migration, The Independent, 24th June 2003)

In fact, Barbara Roche is neither English nor British. How could she be, when “being Jewish informs [her] totally”? For her and for other powerful Jews in the West, a term like “British” or “French” or “American” is merely geographic. That’s why she was so eager to flood Britain with low-IQ Third-Worlders, re-shaping its demographics in a way that, while inflicting huge harm and expense on native British Whites, allowed her to “feel comfortable” while sipping “her cup of Americano coffee” at Euston station

In their 2023 book Anglophobia Harry Richardson and Frank Salter note that Jewish organizations have taken a leadership role in promoting multiculturalism and immigration in Australia, for example by making alliances with more poorly organized, less motivated ethnic groups. This leadership phenomenon also occurs in the US, where Jewish organizations have made alliances with a wide variety of non-White ethnic activist organizations.

But this mass migration into Western societies presents some problems for Jews, particularly immigration from Muslim countries. Since the Gaza invasion there have been huge protests in Western countries against Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, with a highly visible representation of Muslims. I have always thought that Jewish activists, like Steven Steinlight, have known that such immigration would have some downsides for Jews, but that the Jewish establishment feel it is manageable, and so far, they certainly have been correct. In general Muslims throughout the West have voted for the left along with the Jews. However, because of Biden’s support for pretty much anything Israel does, such as making the outrageous claim that “We’re certain Israel is doing its best to avoid civilian casualties” and opposing a ceasefire, this may change. And Jews may want to rethink their support for Muslim immigration if things continue in this direction.

But at present Jews retain their victim status in the media. Holding the moral high ground is especially important in Western individualist societies. Unlike the rest of the world where kinship relations and extended family are paramount, the social glue of Western societies is reputation in a moral community, a major theme of my 2019 book, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. We want to be seen as morally upright, good people and we evaluate people based on their competence and personality traits, not kinship connections. This concern with a good image is especially characteristic of far too many White women for whom status in the mainstream political culture is a sure way to avoid the many dangers of getting outside this moral framework—social ostracism, loss of job, and even physical attacks from antifa, etc. It’s no surprise that White women are far more likely to vote for the left’s Diversity Equity and Inclusion agenda, buy into CRT and White guilt messages, to welcome refugees from failed states like Haiti, adopt non-White children and all the rest.

In traditional Western culture, the moral framework was provided by Christian religious authorities who were often, even typically, not friendly to Jews. Anti-Semitism was very common in the US in the 1920s and 1930s (e.g., Henry Ford, who financed the Dearborn Independent which stressed the Jewish role in murderous Bolshevism and their efforts to eradicate Christianity from the public square, and the Catholic priest Father Charles Coughlin who had a very popular nationally syndicated radio show tuned in by 30 million listeners at a time when the U.S. population was 130 million — a Super Bowl-level audience — and very explicitly attacked Jewish bankers). But both Ford and Coughlin were silenced by Jewish activism, and anti-Jewish attitudes declined rapidly after World War II in concert with the rise of Jews to the commanding heights of American society, including particularly their deep influence in academia and in the media (a very conscious effort of an offshoot of the Frankfurt School intellectuals) at a time when the media and academic culture establish the boundaries of Western moral communities.

I want to underline this: the traditional religious and patriotic themes of the American moral community were replaced by media-generated themes that have been produced by Jewish elites in the media and academic world and that reflect the attitudes of the wider Jewish community. These themes are now all in on the DEI agenda, CRT, and LGBTQ+. Psychological research shows that media messages are able to inhibit ethnocentrism among Whites, and there’s no doubt that the evils of White ethnocentrism are front and center in the media. Add to that the general tendency to want to conform to the wider culture in order to get ahead (all the rewards are on the side of conforming to the media narratives) and to avoid the ostracism, job losses and other problems that happen to people who dissent from these narratives.

But the horror of Israeli behavior in this war combined with the incessant clamoring by Jews that opposition to or even criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism is bound to produce cognitive dissonance among many American liberals (and perhaps even some conservatives) as they become aware of the decades-long brutality of the Israelis toward the Palestinians. The increasingly hopeless moral position of Israel at a time when the West is deluged with messages about the evils of ethnic hatred is a huge problem. Apart from Christian conservatives who think that the Second Coming depends on Israel winning, it’s likely to be a major problem for American Jews.

This is being played out on my faculty email lists as the ethnic studies professors and other liberals are calling attention to Israeli behavior while the Jewish activists are forced to leave the story at the level of the October 7 attack on Israelis and completely remove the context—the decades-long oppression of the Palestinians, especially in Gaza as an open-air prison along with its blockade of everything except the bare necessities of life, is completely avoided.

They no longer have the moral high ground, and frankly that gives me considerable pleasure. Back a few years ago when I was saying a lot of the same things about Israel, I got no support at all for similar statements about Israel (as well as calling attention to Jewish attitudes toward immigration into Israel versus Jewish attitudes on immigration to Western countries). Even now there is a movement to relocate Gazans out of Gaza into other countries (an Israeli think tank suggested moving them to Egypt or to Western countries) and there can be little doubt that that will include Western countries, although Jews may think twice about allowing in millions of Palestinians who have good reason to hate Jews. The NYTimes:

Israeli leaders and diplomats have privately proposed the idea to several foreign governments, framing it as a humanitarian initiative [always effective with Western governments—the moral high ground, etc.] that would allow civilians to temporarily escape the perils of Gaza for refugee camps in the Sinai Desert, just across the border in neighboring Egypt.

The suggestion was dismissed by most of Israel’s interlocutors — who include the United States and Britain — because of the risk that such a mass displacement could become permanent [which is obviously the intention]. These countries fear that such a development might destabilize Egypt and lock significant numbers of Palestinians out of their homeland, according to the diplomats, who spoke anonymously in order to discuss a sensitive matter more freely.

The idea has also been firmly rejected by Palestinians, who fear that Israel is using the war — which began on Oct. 7 after terrorists from Gaza raided Israel and killed roughly 1,400 people — to permanently displace the more than two million people living in Gaza. [Who would possibly think that?]

Many writers have argued that Israel must have known about the Hamas attack given their sophisticated intelligence capabilities, informants, drones, etc. If so, we must assume that Israel had an end game in allowing it to happen, despite the deaths to Israelis. What they are now asking for is complete ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians that they started in 1948. They may get it, as Western countries eventually cave in to their demands.

But the Jews won’t give up their morally pure victim status easily. They still basically run our media, and most academic Jews are still shilling for Israel. Ambitious politicians still cling to the pro-Israel narrative for dear life, no matter what the level of hypocrisy, and the media continues to promote the holocaust victimology narrative that justifies any behavior by Israel. One of our biggest problems is that Western politicians are basically sociopaths interested only in power, money, and having a great career. Context-free discussions of the war still dominate the mainstream media.

The world is changing in the direction of a decline of American power and the rise of the BRICS nations economically and militarily. The moral pariah status of Israel in these countries is a huge problem for American foreign policy. Israel has never been a good ally, but this war is going to be an albatross around the neck of the West because of its indefensible history of support for Israel.

But it’s easy to see that many Americans, especially liberals, many non-White ethnics, and young people in general are bailing on this narrative. People on our side don’t have the belief that Jews are paragons of virtue and never harm others. We remember the role of Jews in the Soviet mass murders and their traditional ethics in which non-Jews have no moral value and in which exploiting non-Jews is just fine as long as it doesn’t hurt Jewish interests in general. We worry about a future dominated by non-Whites in which vengeful Jews retain or expand their power. It’s about time this becomes the mainstream view.

Anyone reading White Nationalist literature is bound to come across articles hostile to Christianity. The foremost claim appears to be that Christianity itself was invented by Jews (whether by Saint Paul or some unknown rabbinical cabal) for the purpose of deceiving gentiles. Christianity was devised by Jews, then, as a way of conditioning gentiles to be sympathetic to Jews and Jewish causes and take down the Roman Empire with its radically different ethics. It was a means of influencing them from the beginning to oppose Rome, its power, and its paganism.

By portraying Christianity’s greatest hero as a humble Jewish carpenter turned Messiah, along with his Jewish apostles and, particularly, by “rabbi” Paul as its foremost theologian who shaped what Christians were to believe, gentiles would unknowingly turn out to be great proponents of all things Jewish.

Thomas Dalton expresses well this viewpoint:

The likeliest conclusion to this mess is that the Jew Paul and the anonymous Jewish gospel writers made it all up: that there was no miracle-working Son of God, no virgin birth, and no resurrection. They did so, not for fame or money, but because they believed that promulgating a pro-Jewish, anti-Roman theology would aid the Jewish cause. (Pro-Jewish, because the Christians are to worship the Jewish God, the Jewish rabbi Jesus, and the Jewish ‘virgin’ Mary; anti-Roman, because “the worldly powers” of Rome are a manifestation of Satan and must be defeated.) And in the end, it did. Judeo-Christianity flourished, ideologically defeated Rome, and then took up residence in Rome itself. (‘Jesus the Jew,’ The Occidental Observer, 5/22/2023).

This position has, essentially, been promoted over the years by such respected White racialists as the late Oliver P. Revilo and William L. Pierce. Each of these men have made great contributions to understanding the Jewish Question, and the need for Whites to pursue their own racial and cultural interests over that of the interests of outside groups. Interestingly, the greater number of White racialists in prior generations have not been nearly as antagonistic to Christianity as Oliver, Pierce, Dalton, and other pro-White advocates (e.g., George Lincoln Rockwell).

It seems to me, however, that when addressing Christianity and the problems of Jewish cultural subversion, these esteemed writers have over-reached in their criticisms. Their zeal to vanquish Christianity has not always been grounded on a true knowledge of Christian theology and history. They have often appealed to outdated liberal higher-critical arguments against Christianity’s origins (e.g., the theory of pagan derivation, including notions that the gospels were composed decades or even hundreds of years after the death of Christ) with almost no awareness of how conservative biblical scholars have rebutted such polemics. Almost all of it is an overreaction to the lunacy and slobbering obsession that far too many Christians today have of Jews and Israel. Much of it is also the result of their animosity toward Jews who have been at the forefront in orchestrating and funding Jewish organizations that promote Third-World immigration into the West. Anything connected to the Jewish people, Israel, or the Torah is viewed as fundamentally hostile to White racialism. There are no exceptions to this, and there are no “good Jews” either although some might make rare exceptions for Jews such as Gerard Menuhin, Benjamin H. Freedman, Norman Finkelstein, Gilad Atzmon, Ron Unz, and a few others.

Since Christianity has obvious Jewish origins — including its founder, Jesus, who was a descendant of David and of Abraham (Matthew 1:1) and who also was an observant Jew, as well as Saint Paul who claimed that he was “circumcised on the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews, as to the Law, a Pharisee” (Philippians 3:5) — it’s reasoned that no White person should be associated with Christianity because it was merely invented to fool non-Jews and to weaken every bit of European racial identity.

But is any of this true? Was Christianity ‘invented’ by Paul or by some secret faction of Jews for the express purpose of deceiving the Goyim? And when gentiles come to faith in the person of Jesus as depicted in the New Testament, is that just ‘part of the plan’? How does any of this help Jews when so much of Christianity is diametrically opposed to Talmudic Judaism?

The apostle Paul

There are a host of reasons why we should seriously question this theory. It seems to me that this entire notion appeals to those who have such a deeply entrenched animosity toward Jews that they are unable to see straight when it comes to these matters. They are so opposed to Jewish cultural subversion (rightly so) that they haven’t bothered to think carefully through their own theory that Christianity was ‘invented’ by Jews to deceive gentiles and, thereby, grant the Jewish people supremacy over the world. It may sound persuasive to some at first hearing, but without a thorough investigation of the matter, one cannot be certain of its truth.

It should be noted that the purpose of this article is not to defend Christianity as the ‘true religion’ per se. My intention, instead, is to challenge this idea of Christianity as a Jewish psyop, to show that some of the most glaring and fundamental problems with it are either never or rarely addressed by those promoting it. They have failed to think carefully through the implications of their own theory. And it isn’t long before the assiduous student runs into an array of problems when he or she tries to maintain that Christianity is just a Jewish invented trap to deceive gentiles.

Let’s consider a few of these problems.

1.Whatever one may think of Christianity, there can be no reasonable denial that Christianity from its inception has been fundamentally opposed to Talmudic or Pharisaical Judaism. Jesus openly condemned the religious leaders of his day in no uncertain terms: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” . . . “Blind guides” . . . “You fools and blind men!” . . . “Full of robbery and self-indulgence” . . . “White-washed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but on the inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness” . . . “Full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” . . . “Sons of those who murdered the prophets” . . . “Serpents and brood of vipers” (Matthew 23:1-33). And that’s just from one chapter in the New Testament!

The entire rabbinical system, then, is condemned by Jesus not merely because it deviated from the express teachings and spirit of the Torah, but because the rabbis placed so many additional laws on the Jewish people that religious observance became a burdensome yoke (see Acts 15:10). Rather than freeing their own people, the rabbis only enslaved them.

Yet, we must ask ourselves: How could such hostile denunciations by Jesus in any way endear gentiles to Jews, especially toward their religious leaders? If the person of Jesus was invented by a secret cabal of Jews, what benefit would it serve them to portray him as one continually condemning rabbinical hypocrisy? Why would they portray Jesus as someone always getting the best of them? How does an ‘invented’ Jesus who time after time refutes the rabbis and publicly maligns their integrity and spirituality serve to benefit ‘the plan’? Wouldn’t this be obviously detrimental to their purpose? Does any of this comport with what we know about Jews — namely, their hubris and self-applauding nature? One would think that if Jews were to ‘invent’ a religion to both attract and deceive the gentiles, they would at least portray themselves in the best possible light, as victors in every theological dispute, right? Yet this is never what we find.

2. The New Testament contains numerous passages that portray the Jewish people in a less than flattering light. For instance, in Matthew 27 when Pilate is reluctant to have Jesus killed, the Jews began to cry out all the more: “Crucify him!” They even asked for Barabbas, a robber and a thief, to be released rather than Jesus. The Jews were so determined to have Jesus crucified that they cried out, “His blood shall be on us and our children!” Well, it seems like they got their wish.

In another passage, Paul describes unbelieving Jews and their leaders as those “who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men” (1 Thessalonians 2:15). Why would pro-Jewish schemers think that such broad denunciations would create a sympathetic view of them among non-Jews? A fair reading of the New Testament, if anything, leads one to an exalted view of Jesus and his disciples and a very low opinion of Jews in general. Seriously, why would any Jew let alone a caucus of Jews allow this sort of thing into a religious document they intend to deceive gentiles with? The nature of the Jew, generally, is to portray himself in the most exalted fashion, superior in intelligence, and able always to outwit the dull-minded Goyim who are no different than the beasts of the field.

In Revelation 3:9, the apostle John records the prophetic words of Jesus: “Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews and are not, but lie — I will make them come and bow down at your feet and make them know that I have loved you.” Oops, looks like the secret committee of Goyim-deceiving Jews forgot to take that passage out of the New Testament! How does a text like this fit into the great Jewish ‘scheme’ to dupe all gentiles?  The proponents of this fanciful theory never really tell us.

3. Some have argued that even many Jews recognize the beneficial service of Christianity in spreading knowledge of Yahweh and of the Jewish people throughout the entire world. In this narrow sense, they argue that the spread of Christianity has benefitted Jews. There’s an element of truth in this, but it’s not the whole truth. Never forget that Jews often falsely claim ownership and as having ‘invented’ this or that as a means of promoting their supremacy over non-Jews. As a result, much of the world is deceived into believing that Jews possess skills, intelligence, and an intellectual prowess far above gentiles.

Thus, knowledge of the Jewish people and that of the Hebrew God may have indirectly been spread throughout the world because of Christianity, but that knowledge is still connected to one that is not particularly favorable to them. Somehow, boastful Jews neglect to mention this important bit of truth.

One doesn’t come away from reading the New Testament with notions of how wonderful Jews are. Instead, it portrays them as deceived and foolish enough to crucify their own long-awaited Messiah. They are depicted as legalistic distorters of the Mosaic law, blinded by their own false traditions, defiant against the New Covenant that Jeremiah had predicted centuries earlier (see Jeremiah 31), and as persecutors of the early Christians — something they have continued for centuries in doing. If there’s any doubt about it, you can watch a host of videos on YouTube which documents just how vile Jews are in their treatment of Christians in the so-called ‘Holy Land.’

Because of such unfavorable passages, Jews describe the New Testament as “anti-Semitic.” But, again, we’ve got to ask ourselves why Jews would ‘create’ or ‘invent’ a Christianity that’s so “anti-Semitic”? How would this benefit them? We’re never really told. We’re just assured by the ‘Christianity-is-a-Jewish-deception’ crowd that it’s all ‘part of the plan.’

Interestingly, if Jews are to condemn the New Testament because of its blatant “anti-Semitism,” then they should surely condemn the Old Testament just as equally. Have you read how Yahweh describes his own people — a people so obstinate that he declares to Moses that his anger will burn against them and utterly destroy them (Exodus 32:9)? Have you read how Moses describes the Israelites — a rebellious and stubborn people (Deuteronomy 31:27)? Have you read the many descriptive and overtly offensive words the prophets used to denounce the Israelites? It’s not pretty. Yet if these same expressions were employed in the New Testament (and some of them are), the Jews in typical knee-jerk reaction would describe it as “anti-Semitic.” If so, maybe they should just concede that the entire Bible is replete with “anti-Semitism”?

Jews are much too self-absorbed to realize that if they make everything they don’t like “anti-Semitic,” then they’ll certainly end up condemning their own Hebrew Bible. It’s almost impossible to discern such a simple truth when one is convinced that their people are history’s ‘eternal victims’ and that “anti-Semitism’ is solely the result of ‘jealousy’ and ‘hate.’

4. Gentile Christians in the New Testament are described as a people on par with Jewish believers. Together, both Jews and Greeks (gentiles) are described as one in Christ. Thus, rather than exalting Jews as superior over gentiles, the New Testament repeatedly places both groups on equal footing (see Galatians 3:28-29). The Jewish privileges of circumcision, one’s Jewish ancestry, and possession of the Mosaic Law means relatively nothing in the writings of Peter, Paul, the author of Hebrews, and in the Book of Acts. These are nothing for Jews to boast about as is common among Jews. Why would Jews bent on deceiving gentiles allow such concepts to be believed if they are seeking to control them?

The New Testament, in fact, employs the same exalted expressions once used of the ancient Israelites to gentile Christians! Writing to gentile believers, Saint Peter describes them as a “chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession (1 Peter 2:9). Earlier in the epistle, Peter tells these same gentile Christians that they too are privileged to do what only the ancient Levitical priests were allowed to do in the temple — namely, “offer up spiritual sacrifices” because they are a “holy priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5).

Why would a cabal of Jews intent on creating a Christianity to deceive dumb Goyim portray them as just as equally privileged and special as themselves? How does this comport with a grand ‘plan’ to bring about worldwide Jewish supremacy?

In Galatians 6:16, Paul refers to gentile Christians as “the Israel of God.” In his epistle to the Romans, he also defines for his readers who is a true Jew: “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter, and his praise is not from men, but from God” (Romans 2:28-29). In his letter to the Philippians, he warns gentile Christians to “beware of the false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision” (3:2-3).

The point in referencing all these passages together is to show how absurd the notion that ethno-centered and self-serving Jews would somehow ‘invent’ a religion that would place the despised gentiles on equal standing with themselves.

Again, is this how Jews are known to think and behave? Have you ever known Jews to give preferential status and position to non-Jews over themselves? The very notion is preposterous! It defies everything we know about the Jewish people.

5. Historically, and particularly in modern times, Jews have worked feverishly to undermine and ultimately destroy Christianity. Even when they can’t fully nullify the Christian faith, they try to dilute its central message of redemption. By means of numerous federal court decisions, Jews have sought to vanquish every bit of religious influence that Christianity might afford in the public square (e.g., school prayer, Christian symbols on federal or state properties, pro-life efforts). Yet, why would they do this if Christianity comports with their grand ‘plan’ to deceive and ultimately control the gentiles? Wouldn’t they want Christianity’s influence to spread if it was in fact designed to snare the Goyim? How come Jewish activist organizations such as the ADL and the SPLC seem to be unaware of this great conspiracy to dupe White people by means of Christianity? Even the notion of America as a ‘Christian nation’ has large numbers of Jews up in arms. But why? Wouldn’t this align with ‘the plan’? How would opposition to all things Christian serve to benefit ‘the plan’ of clever Jews who allegedly ‘invented’ Christianity to deceive gentiles?
6. While it’s true that individual Christians and European Christian nations over the centuries have given the Jewish people a certain amount of sympathy and refuge from their enemies, some important considerations need to be kept in mind before succumbing to the ‘Christianity is a Jewish deception’ viewpoint.

The first is that while Jews at times were given refuge by Christian nations, these same nations also ejected them when Jews had taken advantage of the natives. When Christians had had enough of their monetary scheming, usury, vice industries, their unwillingness to assimilate, and their parasitical ways, Jews got the collective boot. It has happened to them over a hundred times in fact.

The second thing to note is that European Christians did not allow their ‘anti-Semitic’ feelings about the Jews to be squashed because the Founder of their religion was Jewish. They had no such guilt because they understood the duplicitous nature of Jews. It has only become a recent phenomenon among modern-day Christians to feel guilty about everything connected to the ‘Holocaust,’ slavery, and race because we have been constantly bombarded by Jewish propaganda for the past 60 years telling us how evil we are for just being White.

7. Advocates of the theory that Christianity is merely a ‘Jewish scheme to entrap gullible gentiles’ have failed to grasp just how deeply opposed Christian theology is to Jewish legalism, to the Mosaic Law itself. The New Testament writers, for instance, view the Law as belonging to an old era that has passed away with the coming of Christ (Romans 7:4-6; 1 Corinthians 9:20-21; Galatians 3:24-26; 5:1). The starting point of Christian obedience, then, is what Jesus said and not what Moses declared on Mount Sinai (Matthew 17:1-8; John 1:17; Hebrews 3:1-6). The Law itself was “only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things” (Hebrews 10:1). The New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant and is even described as a “better covenant” that has been enacted on “better promises” (Hebrews 7:22; 8:6-13). The entire Levitical system with its animal sacrifices, its priests, its temple, and even the ancient land promises have been done away with in Christ (Hebrews 7:12; 9:1-24; 11:8-16). Christians seek a “better country, that is, a heavenly one” (Hebrews 11:16), and not a dry and dusty plot of land in Palestine.

Considering this, does it really make sense to think that conniving Jews would write such condemnatory things about their own religious system, its laws, and the very covenant between them and Yahweh in some bizarre attempt to make gentiles sympathetic to their plight against the Roman empire? If anything, it would seem to have the opposite effect since it would provoke non-Jews to realize that Jewish religious beliefs have been jettisoned by even their own God! It would tend to paint observant Jews who still cling to their religious traditions as doing so in vain. How is such blatant anti-Judaism going to win over ‘gentile dogs’ when the Christianity Jews supposedly ‘invented’ condemns all their religious creeds and ancient institutions? How could any of this be viewed as “pro-Jewish”? The entire theory is a bit too clever for its own good.

8. Some anti-Christian White racialists have argued that the widespread popularity of ‘Christian Zionism’ in the U.S. serves as ‘proof’ of how Jews have deceived the gentile masses through the ‘trick’ of Christianity. These same ‘Christian Zionists,’ admittedly, support every conceivable Jewish cause. They also fund millions annually to Israeli-organized charities and Jewish political organizations.

Yet what’s not often pointed out is how comparably recent the ‘Christian Zionist’ movement in America is. Yes, there are influential Christian pastors like John Hagee who do almost nothing other than urge Christians to ‘stand with Israel.’ There’s also no doubt that the 1909 Schofield Bible has had an overtly pro-Israel emphasis for the past the century and has done much to spread the insidious beliefs of Dispensationalism. It was funded and promoted by a Jew, Felix Untermeyer.

C.H. Schofield

But this has not been the historic position of most Protestant churches nor of the Catholic Church. Reformed Protestant Christians, in fact, have been at the forefront in publishing books critical of ‘Christian Zionism’ and Dispensational theology. Centuries prior to the publication of the Schofield Bible, then, Christians were not so pro-Jewish as some imagine. The Protestant reformer, Martin Luther, had no crisis of conscience when he authored his scathing work, The Jews and Their Lies (1543). Apparently, the grand scheme among cunning Jews of concocting a “pro-Jewish” Christianity hasn’t worked out as well as they thought for most of church history.

9. Finally, we must address the question of whether Saint Paul the “rabbi” invented Christianity. This is a common objection raised by liberal theologians, including those who are anti-Christian White racialists. Space won’t permit a detailed examination of this issue, but a couple of notable points may help the reader to recognize that this theory of the origin of Christianity hardly does justice to the evidence when it’s weighed fairly.

Paul, no doubt, played a leading role in formulating much of Christian theology, but that’s not quite the same as having ‘founded’ the Christian faith. While some may argue that Paul’s letters were constituted to serve as “anti-Roman” diatribes, this seems less than convincing when one considers that he instructed the early Christians in Romans 13 to “Submit to the governing authorities, “to not resist them because they have been established by God,” to “pray for them,” “to pay their taxes,” and to “give honor to whom honor is due” (vv.1-7). Saint Peter, likewise, commands his readers to “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers” (vv.13-14). If that’s not clear enough, he further urges them to “honor the king” (v.17).

We are compelled to ask: Why would a group of “pro-Jewish” writers say such things especially when their primary purpose is to deceive gentiles so that they become just as “anti-Roman” as themselves? How is any of this promulgating an anti-Roman theology?

In fairness, I can’t ‘prove’ my position, at least not to everyone’s satisfaction. The best I could do is provide reasons, including some internal evidence within the New Testament writings itself, why the notion of Paul being the founder of Christianity is not plausible. For instance, Paul was concerned about preserving a body of traditions that he had received from the apostles (2 Thessalonians 2:15). He, in turn, urges Christians to hold firm to such traditions. Appealing to a core set of beliefs and traditions already in circulation and well-known among the larger Christian communities makes little sense if Paul is some maverick or inventor of new teachings previously unheard of.

Paul was careful to distinguish between his own words or opinions and that of Jesus (1 Corinthians 7:12). It indicates his unwillingness to attribute to Jesus words that were merely his own. This sort of thing doesn’t comport with someone eager to fashion a Jesus or create new doctrines out of thin air.

There is also no compelling evidence that the Gospel writers got their ideas from Paul as if he were the unchallenged source for what they were supposed to say and write. In fact, the interesting thing is how none of the theological controversies addressed in Paul’s epistles are found in the Gospels. One would think that if they were making it all up, they would find a way to insert a saying of Jesus that would clear up any matters of theological dispute. But this never occurs even once.

The reason that Paul did not always appeal to sayings or events in the Gospels (though at times he does) is because his letters were ad hoc in nature, meaning they were intended to address immediate issues and controversies present in the churches he had planted. These were matters of concern to the Christians he was writing to. Thus, the Gospels present the foundation of who Christians have believed in while the later epistles of Paul and Peter serve as instructional and practical for the Christian life — namely, how it is to be lived out now that they have come to faith in Jesus.

Finally, although one may claim that Paul was a deceiver and allege that he “made it all up,” this is not the kind of character we find depicted in his epistles. Instead, we find a person who seems devoted to truth, willing to suffer abuse and rejection for the sake of the Gospel, willing to live in poverty rather than gain riches at the expense of others, willing to be ridiculed rather than destroy his personal testimony, and all the while strongly urging individual Christians and church leaders to live circumspectly, holy, and honorably in all that they do (see Acts 20:33-35).

Even Peter speaks affectionately of Paul and refers to “the wisdom given to him” by God (2 Peter 3:15-16). None of this is suggestive of a duplicitous nature on his part or of manipulating people and events to concoct a religion to overthrow Rome.

Conclusion

The entire notion that Christianity was merely invented by Jews to deceive gentiles and, thereby, make them anti-Roman and pro-Jewish falls short at every point. It cannot account for the many explicit anti-Pharisaical statements found in the New Testament. It cannot logically account for why these pro-Jewish writers would place the despised gentiles on the same footing as themselves. Everything about it runs counter to what we know historically and experientially about Jewish people in terms of their ethno-centrism, hubris, and self-glorifying natures.

A fair reading of the Book of Acts, including that of Paul and Peter’s letters, portrays the early Christians as not particularly anti-Roman. This doesn’t mean they didn’t view Rome as morally corrupt and polytheistic, but only that this was not their primary concern. In fact, there are far more passages condemning false religious traditions among the rabbis, including warnings against false Jewish teachers, than that of vilifying the Roman empire (see Philippians 3:1-9).

The theory of a deceptive, manipulative theology created and promoted by Jews fails because its proponents never or rarely bother to follow through with the logical outcome or implications of it. Why, for instance, would a series of documents (New Testament) written by “pro-Jewish” authors repeatedly paint the Jewish people in the worst possible light, attacking not only their ancient Abrahamic pedigrees which they trusted in, but exposing the entire rabbinical system of that period as a sham? In what way would this urge gentiles to be “pro-Jewish”? Why would these same authors urge followers of Jesus to submit to the Roman government and other pagan rulers if their efforts were motivated by an “anti-Roman theology”?

None of it makes a bit of sense because the theory is reactionary and emotional in nature. It’s cultivated and spread by those who know little to nothing about Christianity, its history and theology. It sounds persuasive only to those who lack the acumen to dig deeper and ask serious some serious questions about it.

Christian Zionist, Pastor John Hagee