Counter-Currents
770 words
Did Jesus Christ die on the cross at Golgotha to atone the sins of humanity, offering redemption to all who believed in him? Or was he a heretic Jew who attempted to reform Judaism so as to strengthen the Jewish in-group, which obviously was weak due to infighting and bitter acrimony among traders on the market squares of the Levant?
When Christ gave a sermon he was giving psychological advice to other Jews to help them become more efficient, with the hope that they would learn to love one another as brethren of the same Jewish God. His apostles were all Jews who helped collect money from Jesus’ adoring fans. He promised Jews at the bottom of the social ladder a place in heaven, which, as beggars and lepers, they had been denied.
When Jesus advised: “turn the other cheek,” he was asking Jews to forgive one another, going against the maxim: “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” When he preached: “love thy neighbour,” he meant “love thy Jewish neighbour.” When he exclaimed: “God is love,” he meant “God loves the Jews.”
His rock-star touring infuriated the Sanhedrin, the old rabbis, the money lenders and the malicious traders, who loved hating one another. So they arranged for him to be pinned to the cross. The Roman legionnaire guarding him was a mere piece of furniture, a soulless gentile. Jesus, drunk on wine, babbled to the thief next to him, a fellow Jew, that he too would have a place in heaven. Jesus appealed to the lowest elements, offering murders, rapists, sodomites and tyrants a place in Jewish hocus-pocus land.
In essence, Jesus was the precursor to Karl Marx, only his proletariat was the Jewish poor. Hence:
Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a richman shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Matthew 19:23-24
If Jesus was the first Marx, then the Apostles Peter and Paul were the first Lenin and Trotsky, spreading the new cult among gullible gentiles in Greece and Rome. The religion spread like wildfire, as it promised the impossible to slaves, harlots and catamites: redemption, and a first-class reservation to a better afterlife.
Fortunately, Christianity evolved as an in-group religion and helped strengthen and reinforce the faith of communities, nations and the white race in general. For the German: “love thy neighbour,” meant “love thy German neighbour.” “God is love,” meant “God loves the Germans.” And so it was throughout Europe, until the mid 19th century, when a Godless form of Christianity emerged, Marxism. It appealed only to the worst elements, genetic losers, and Jews, who saw an aperture in which they could sneak through and reach the top of society.
In 1917, Marxism replaced Christianity, for 73 years, as the only religion in Russia, with tyrannical Jews at the top, promising the goyim earthy paradise, but in truth masterminding hell on earth: executing the genetically superior, organic elites, the Russian nobility; sending millions to Gulags; terrorizing and starving to death the peasants of the Ukraine.
In the first half of the 20th century, Christians were united against communism; the Church supported in-group nationalistic thinking. During the Spanish Civil War, in the late 1930s, thousands of priests and nuns were tortured and murdered by the communists; altar boys were sodomized on a daily basis. The Church was a defender of the people.
After the collapse of an in-group minded Europe in the decades following World War II, Christianity and a new form of communism merged, cultural Marxism, with in-group theology being replaced by osmosis with south-American liberation theology. Popes John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI were the last defenders of in-group Christianity, and were sternly opposed to liberation theology.
The Papal inauguration of Francis, a proponent of liberation theology, marked the beginning of the age of the devil, as he would later invite African and Middle Eastern “refugees” to come to Europe where he would wash and kiss their swarthy feet. He would preach to terrified white Europeans that they should welcome these Muslims in the name of Christ. He would point his finger at Donald Trump about building a wall.
The devil’s abode is every refugee camp, every place where innocent whites are gunned down, every housing project built for parasites. His many realms are the empty lots of Detroit, the derelict houses of Baltimore, the railway station in Cologne.
11 comments
But Jesus was really a White Judahite and jews are really Caananites, descended from Eve’s liaison with the serpent! Yahweh is the God of the White man only and Christ’s message is White racial supremacy. Don’t you read your Bible?
Kidding.
But seriously. I’m pretty sure Jesus is a literary figure invented by Josephus (unless he too is a literary figure invented by someone else) or some other Flavian. His mission parallels Titus’ campaign in Josephus’ Wars of the Jews, starting with a naval battle (“fishing for men” in the Sea of Galillee), through a Mary whose son becomes a “human Passover Lamb” during the siege of Jerusalem, to the finale of one called Simon who is crucified, and one called James who is spared. Joe Atwill has it all figured out, though Bruno Bauer got the outline first.
Jesus was the Roman Caesar Titus, god was the Roman Caesar Vespasian, and the holy ghost was the Roman Caesar Domitian. Joseph Atwell has struck a mortal blow to Christianity, read Mr. Atwell’s books in this order: “Caesar’s Messiah;” “Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah.” Mr. Atwell’s thesis is backed up with evidence presented in a cogent, and lucid manner.
Revilo Oliver believed that Chirst never existed, and that he was conjured up by Paul. It matters not, though. This essay is about how in-group Christianity became universal Christianity, as best illustrated when Pope Francis kissed the swarthy feet of “refugees.”
What enrages me is that not one leading figure in any of the Churches, of whatever variety, has the honesty or gumption to speak out in defense of White people and our historical nations.
They really are all a bunch of scumbags.
If Christians were actually followers of Christ, they’d all be Orthodox Jews.
I’m rather tired of the Abrahamic mind poison that invaded our lands and continues to plague our peoples.
Fortunately, many are waking up to honoring ancestral ways vs. Worshipping the brown man’s god. Perhaps doing so will lead to stronger communities and a greater sense of identity, belonging…Frith.
The problem with this kind of sweeping anti-Christianity is that in order to agree with it, you have to agree that for fifteen hundred years, European men were stupid enough to be duped by an alien faith that has nothing to do with them. By comparison, then, blacks are far smarter, having rejected Christianity in only a few hundred years, and then only after being forced into it as slaves in the first place. (I’m referring to the defection of many American blacks to groups like the Nation of Islam, or to indigenous African religions.)
I do not believe European man was this stupid. The reality is that what is today called “Christianity” and which is rightly criticized for all the damage it has done, bears little resemblance to the Christianity which, as Hillaire Belloc argued, united Europe into one people.
Read Dante, for starters. For him, the “old testament” was The Aeneid, not the Jewish scriptures. His Christianity was derived from Greco-Roman (i.e. Indo-European) philosophy and metaphysics, not from some small-minded worship of a magic-Jew-on-a-stick. Most of the early Church Fathers were Platonists and derived their understanding of divinity from that philosophical tradition, not from the Jews. Christianity was one of the primary vehicles for European dominance of most of the world, something for which the Left is always quick to criticize it.
When someone like Whoopi Goldberg says “Timothy McVeigh was a Christian!” you can hear the hostility towards Christianity and whites – because it’s often one and the same hostility. (And by the way, McVeigh was actually an atheist, as he explicitly stated in death row interviews.) Like it or not, when foreigners think of white people, in Europe and America, they think “Christian,” the same way they think of Arabs as Muslim, Indians as Hindus, and Chinese as Buddhists.
I think a lot of people who embrace this blanket anti-Christian sentiment – which necessarily is also an anti-European sentiment, historically speaking – probably come from a Protestant background, which de-emphasizes much of the Indo-European element of Christianity, and places far more importance on “the scriptures,” most of which are Jewish. Nowadays, Catholicism basically does the same.
I’m not arguing that anyone should become Christian. I don’t know if that’s even possible anymore. But I think a blanket denouncement of such a large part of European history and European identity for the last fifteen hundred years – and a tradition which, like it or not, was the faith of our fathers and their fathers before them – is not edifying.
Yes I agree, there is a big difference between the Old Testament which is tribal and practical and the New Testament which is ethereal and wishful thinking.
Christianity, when it emphasized the tribal Old Testament, used to work. Then it was about being fair, but nowadays, with the emphasis on the words of the New Testament and those words being taken literally, it is about nothing. No consequences for your actions because we forgive all all the time.
The American pioneers quoted the Old Testament, not the New.
Christianity in its new form has become a female centered religion.
You see all these Muslims worshiping at Mosques and they are all men. No women.
The Muslim religion is a male centered religion, the exact opposite of Christianity which is a woman’s religion. Rodney Stark made the point in the Rise of Christianity(1997) that Christianity gained adherents by paying particular respect to women(and their ideal world) and taking care of the weak.What do some people call Jesus? The bearded woman.
It’s probably only due to the success and concomitant incursions of Islam into Europe that Christianity at least paid lip service to masculinity. Bill Whittle has called the Koran a ‘manual for conquest.’ And the Muslims did a damn good job of conquering the Mediterranean rim, in a 100 years Christianity was gone..
Nowadays no more lip service to men from the pulpit.Things have changed and Christianity does not even nod its head to masculinity. Now Christians socially compete to womanize themselves and ‘give’ to the ‘other’(the one with the beheading knife.)
That Christian simpering smile is a sign of the Circumcellions(a Donatist sect) who went around in the 300s getting themselves slaughtered by the Romans(so, sinless, they would head straight to Heaven). Rather than carry steel blades they carried wooden clubs they called ‘Israelites’ while they taunted the Roman soldiers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcellions
I think it was St. Augustine who had to re-write the doctrine of the church regarding suicide to stop the Circumcellions from being popular. What Christianity needs now is a new Augustine to re-write the suicidal emphasis it now treasures and advocates.
Personally, I find the old testament to be spiritually repulsive and reprehensible. I think Indo-European peoples have a very different instinct for morality than that which is contained in that book. That’s why our Classical tradition has always balanced study of the Bible with study of the Greek and Roman classics. I think our morality has always been more Aristotelian than old testament.
The issue of a religion being masculine or feminine is complicated. On the one hand, comparing Christianity and Islam today, from a sociological perspective, there is no doubt that Islam is the more virile form. But within Islamic mysticism, as in Christian mysticism, the soul is feminine in relation to God. (I suspect there were those within European mysticism who took exception to this, but I don’t know.) There is also the question of balance. Islam is all male, as you write, which partly explains why they’re so fond of buggery and pederasty. (The reports I have heard of the Afghans’ fondness for gang raping young boys dressed up as women is beyond disgusting.) Contemporary Christianity is way too feminine, yes, but the opposite extreme has its own problems.
As for women themselves, both the Spartans and ancient Germans were known for holding women in higher regard than their neighbors. It wasn’t about feminism, but rather chivalry. I find this admirable, though we should also keep in mind that Aristotle thought this was ultimately a cause of Sparta’s decline.
Overall, unfortunately, I agree with you that contemporary churches deserve no respect at all for the way they appease and abet what is happening to Europe.
“The problem with this kind of sweeping anti-Christianity is that in order to agree with it, you have to agree that for fifteen hundred years, European men were stupid enough to be duped by an alien faith that has nothing to do with them.”
I would like to point out that most European men were poorly educated, and terrorized back then by the christian churches. Christianity has always served an elite minority in our culture, first it served the white Anglo Saxon elite, and then after WWI the control has shifted to serving our jewish elites. How many millions of our women were burned at the stake for being witches by the Catholic Church; we will never know. How many millions of our men were tortured to death, and locked away in dungeons by the Catholic Church; we will never know. We are seeing an increase in criticism of the Christian religion, because they can no longer murder and torture us. In order to enforce a level of acceptance of Christianity, the church had to have autonomy in pursuing punitive actions, and they did–with relish. Oh how the Christian clerics yearn for those halcyon days when they could burn, and torture white men and women. Joseph Atwell discusses this psychopathy in some of his interviews on YouTube. I would also like to relate a comment by Eric Thompson that the Catholic Church has always had an instrument of surveillance through “confession.” Now weren’t they clever.
I would also suggest that the northern Europeans were converted to Christianity through terror and not desire. Charlemagne followed the lead of the Muslims at the time, and engaged in mass terror to convert the people of the North.
n my opinion, the Christianity of today is completely different from the Christianity of the 1600s-1700s- 1800s. The old style European Christians quoted the Old Testament at length, they could be self assured badasses and they were tribal without apologizing for it. They went all over the world, killing Amalekites without so much as a fare thee well. All the while using the Old Testament as justification.
Let us also not forget the old style Christianity was capable of beheading 4500 Saxons, in 782 at Verden, in the Holy name of the Prince of Peace. “Don’t believe in Jesus?” “Chop off his head.” Back then Christianity as practiced by Charlemagne the butcher, was a different religion indeed, but nowadays the Marcion heresy has won. Marcion did not believe in the Old Testament. The Old Tribal Testament is no more, it is only legitimate for one Tribe and one Tribe only(rhymes with ‘who’)who shall remain nameless like their God. The Old Testament with its commonsense solutions to life is gone, it no longer may be used by modern Europeans. We are left with the emphasis on the New Testament as the only way to be a true Christian. So the dewy, damp and limp pages of the New Testament are the religious code by which modern Europeans are living and it causes us no end of problems.
In 782 Charlemagne beheaded 4,500 Saxons at Verden. That was a lot of valuable Saxon men, back in those days. About 180,000 men in today’s numbers.
Charlemagne also practiced ethnic cleansing at the same time, bringing every third Saxon family south to de-paganize and show them the Way, The Truth, and The Light(under pain of death).
Rodney Stark, who has written a boatload of books on the idea that ‘Christianity is good’ (relatively speaking) has another recent book out titled ‘How the West Won.’2014
It is revisionist history, saying for example the Muslim religion is bankrupt, all their ostensive scientific advancements were due to the dhimmi cultures they had conquered.
Also the idea that people don’t convert for the peaceful doctrine, they convert because their leaders and their friends did. People did not care about doctrine. “Conversion is primarily an act of conformity” p.114
He also talks about Verden. In this view (just a suggestion in the book) Christianity
was imposed in the most brutal fashion on the people of the North, it was a religion they did not want, it was not the doctrine that attracted them, it was the simple idea of living another day that forced them to pay lip service to the bearded woman, Jesus. It was a forcible conversion of fear for the people of the North, not a conversion of belief. On p. 97 Stark discusses the idea that the Vikings, a hundred years later, targeted British Monasteries and Monks, not necessarily because they were defenseless but “because they were angry about efforts to Christianize the North. Especially provocative would have been the atrocities committed by Charlemagne, who, for example, had about 4,500 unarmed Saxon captives forcibly baptized and then executed. The Vikings seem to have known that Charlemagne had issued an edict imposing the death sentence on all who tried to resist Christianization.”
Stark cites a 2009 book by Robert Ferguson for this idea about the Vikings seeking religious revenge, ‘The Vikings, a History,’ p 54.
We laugh at George Bush’s description of Islam as a religion of peace, should we also be skeptical about Christianity being described as a ‘religion of peace?’
“Did Jesus Christ die on the cross at Golgotha to atone the sins of humanity, offering redemption to all who believed in him? Or was he a heretic Jew who attempted to reform Judaism so as to strengthen the Jewish in-group, which obviously was weak due to infighting and bitter acrimony among traders on the market squares of the Levant?”
These two are not mutually exclusive. The difference between reforming an old religion and founding a new can be blurry and one of degree. And asking whether He was motivated by wanting to strengthen the “in-group” is anachronistic because there is no reason to fit his motives into modern thought categories.
“When he preached: “love thy neighbour,” he meant “love thy Jewish neighbour.” … For the German: “love thy neighbour,” meant “love thy German neighbour.” ”
This is transparently false in both cases, because the hero of the story is a Samaritan and not the priest or the Levite.
Further, why do you believe sodomites and catamites would flock to a Faith which disapproves of their behavior?
(Joe Six Pack) Stark has written some great works, I agree. But Nordics, or anyone else, rejecting Christianity as because of the means by which most of their remote ancestors were converted only makes sense if you see the choice of religion as a means of posthumous revenge against those over-eager missionaries and Christian rulers, which might make some perverse sense if one rejects the idea of truth in a Nietzschean fashion, or everything is a competition to prove you’re Whiter-than-thou. But to me it seems very silly; after all, if the violence had never occurred, northern Europe might still have converted, albeit more gradually and at a later time.
Regarding the Donatists, keep in mind that viewing Christianity through a purely sociological lens is not taking it on its own terms. The Church opposed the Donatists, and many of the other groups with behaviors frowned on by critics of Christianity as emblematic of our Faith are actually from heretical sects.
(Aurelio) “I’m not arguing that anyone should become Christian. I don’t know if that’s even possible anymore.”
Take care not to mistake sociological patterns with individual choices. Keeping in mind that there are perennially new converts to the Faith, as well as young people who embrace their Christian upbringing and make it their own on reaching adulthood, both in Europe and across the world, this is a rather nonsensical question.
(Peter Quint) “Oh how the Christian clerics yearn for those halcyon days when they could burn, and torture white men and women.”
Maybe you could refer me to a few of these clerics, because I have never met any! I am in favor of reinstating the Inquisition, though speaking as a layman. It does appear, though, that the Holy Inquisition was the only successful way to get people to stop telling lies about us. All the apologetics and correct history in the world falls powerless when the foe can just copypasta Black Legends invented by 17th-18th century Protestant propagandists, and periodically reinforced by popular literature and films. But then again, nothing was ever so powerless as Truth.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment