Saint Paul, Artful Liar: A Reply to James O’MearaDavid Skrbina
Recently, James O’Meara offered a fairly detailed review and critique of my book The Jesus Hoax. On the one hand, I want to thank him; as most writers know, any review is better than none at all! Any review is sure to prompt thoughts and debate on all sides of a given issue. On the other, it is a negative review — at times, unduly so — and hence I want to respond to some of his points and concerns. O’Meara seems very sensitive to certain issues, and there are certain possibilities that he seems unwilling to entertain. That is his right, of course. But this is highly problematic for a nominally neutral reviewer.
For the sake of the reader, we need to distinguish arguments and evidence from speculation and opinion. This is difficult with the Jesus story, to be sure, given that much is unknown, and much that is known is contradictory. Still, I think we can construct relatively plausible scenarios that best fit the known evidence. Anyone — from the most strident believer to the most atheistic skeptic — could in theory be mistaken, and we should always keep that in mind. I certainly could be wrong; but I think I have an idea of the most plausible, likeliest state of affairs, given all the available evidence. And I continue to assert, with Nietzsche and others, that the Jesus story is a scam, a fraud, and yes, a hoax, contrived by Paul and his cabal for the benefit of the Jews.
To begin with, consider who would dismiss this thesis immediately, without further discussion. I can think of two main groups: true-believing Christians, and Jews or Jewish advocates. If I am honest with myself, I think I have no hope of reaching these people. Christians will see this as a profound personal affront, and Jews (or their non-Jewish proxies) will see it as yet further impugning of the Jewish character. So be it. I thus direct my arguments to everyone else — the vast majority of humanity — who are in a position to think openly and skeptically about a miracle-man and his supposed mission of eternal salvation.
O’Meara’s review begins sympathetically enough, placing my book in line with the “increasingly accepted” (is it? evidence?) Christ Myth theory. Indeed, there are lots of variations on the notion of a Jesus myth, and lots of theoretically possible explanations. But most of the myth theories lack evidence or plausibility, and of the many conceivable explanations, only a few are actually reasonable.
A key starting point is whether a historical Jesus — a flesh and blood man — actually lived, or, whether no such man ever existed at all. We can call these the “merely mortal” Jesus theory versus the “purely fictional” Jesus theory. To emphasize: I am open to either theory. My hoax thesis works either way. However, I strongly suspect that a historical Jesus did live, did preach, was a rabble-rouser, and did get himself crucified by the Romans. The reason — my only reason — is that a hoax works much better based on a core of truth than on pure fiction. Hence, in my book and in what follows below, I assume there was a flesh-and-blood Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish rabbi, who lived and preached, and who got executed. But my thesis works either way.
O’Meara then offers a concise but caricatured version of my central argument. In condensed form, his version is as follows:
- Christianity is a lie
- All lies must have liars
- Contemporaneous with Jesus lived a “very bad man,” Paul
- Paul did it
This is a rather comical distortion. First, let’s get the basic argument straight:
- If Jesus was a miracle-man, there would be contemporaneous evidence.
- There is no such evidence.
- Therefore, no miracle-man.
- Years later, Paul and the Gospel writers claimed there was such a miracle-man.
- They lied.
- And, they lied with an intent to benefit their fellow Jews. Hence it was a malicious lie, or a hoax.
I take it that this is much more cogent, and much more plausible, than O’Meara’s caricature.
To elaborate a bit: If Jesus actually performed the claimed miracles, there would be extant evidence, such as documentation, either by Jews, pagans, or Romans — and likely all of these. But there is no such documentation or evidence at all: not during Jesus’ life (say, 0 to 30 AD), not during his ministry, and not for at least 20 years afterward. Paul, writing in the years 50 to 70 AD, speaks of a non-miraculous, stripped-down Jesus theology: he lived, he was crucified, he was risen, therefore we too can have eternal life. This is “evidence,” but biased, of course, and not the kind of third-party corroboration that we would like. The unknown Gospel writers, writing in the years 70 to 100 AD, give, for the first (and only) time in history, details of Jesus’ life and miracles, as if they are writing facts. Since their stories are almost certainly untrue, they too are liars.
Lastly, we know that most Jews, and especially the elite, well-educated Jews, detested Roman rule — ever since the Romans came marching into Palestine in 63 BC and overthrew the ruling Jewish tribes. (Somehow this key fact is always left out of our Mythicists’ books.) We also know, from centuries of well-documented and highly reputable commentary, that the Jews were hated by virtually all who encountered them. And we know from the Old Testament that the Jews, in turn, hated the Gentile masses (“we are chosen,” “we will rule over them,” “God gave this earth to us,” and so on.) Hence the most plausible motive: that Paul and his Jewish friends were looking for something, anything, that might pull the masses away from Rome, from the Roman worldview, and from the noble and successful values embodied in it. A quasi-Jewish “religion” (Jewish God, Jewish Jesus, Jewish Virgin Mary, etc), along with paganized incentives (eternal life in heaven) and superstitious fears (hell), might plausibly serve this purpose. It didn’t take an Einstein to figure this out.
Our reviewer then suggests that maybe Paul had a real vision, a real hallucination, of some sort, and sincerely believed he was talking to the Risen Christ, and thought he did receive a “mission” from him. If so, our man Paul was no liar, just a hallucinating psychopath who foisted his visions onto everyone around him. This, of course, is possible. We need to weigh this option against mine, in which Paul is a clever, learned, rational fellow who is stridently seeking the best for his fellow Jews, and is willing to lie for his cause. Separately, we need to take into account his fellow Gospel-writers; did they, too, have real hallucinations? Unlikely, to say the least. And yet their tales were more fantastical than Paul’s! The hallucination thesis fails miserably.
At a number of points in the review, it is clear that O’Meara prefers such mythicists as Robert Price and Richard Carrier to my own account. And yet, as I argued in my book, both have significant drawbacks — both in their personal backgrounds and in their theories. Price is a former Baptist minister who, for some reason, became “agnostic” regarding a historical Jesus. He has a lot of factual knowledge, and yet seems unable to assert a positive theory about anything. And the fact that he is, full-time, in the “Jesus business” ensures that he will not hold any overly controversial views, especially on the Jews. I have seen Price speak in person twice, and questioned him directly. He won’t commit to any real view; he knows nothing of Nietzsche and the more skeptical theories of the past; and most importantly, he has no motive for Paul (whether man or myth) or the Gospel writers. He can scarcely form a coherent conclusion. Price is good for sound bites, but little more.
Carrier is a younger and more inexperienced scholar. He was never a professor, never held a real academic position, and has published very few scholarly articles. His few books are with minor or obscure publishers. His latest book has the thoroughly unprofessional title of “Jesus from Outer Space.” His attempted use of Bayes’ Theorem is a failure; such theories work only on recurrent future events, not solitary past events. Carrier tenaciously clings to his “celestial Jesus” notion, suggesting that Paul (a real man, for him) and the Gospel writers never actually believed in a flesh-and-blood Jesus. And yet Galatians calls Jesus “born of a woman” (4:4); 1 Thessalonians states that “Jews killed Jesus” (can’t kill a celestial being); and Romans says Jesus “descended from David according to the flesh” (1:3). And all these works say explicitly that Jesus was “raised from the dead” — which can’t happen unless you were alive. The hoaxsters clearly had a live human being in mind. Furthermore, like Price, Carrier is utterly lacking in a motive for all the fairytales. He says simply that the Gospels were written “for a reason, even if we can’t always discern what that is.” He admits they were “forged,” but “not as a result of any organized conspiracy . . . but simply sharing similar motives.” This is not a coherent stance.
But what about O’Meara’s strongest argument: that “Paul” was not a single individual man, but perhaps a collection of individuals, or possibly even mythical himself. With no Paul, there can be no “artful liar” (as I call him), and thus no Jesus hoax — true? Hardly.
First, consider this quotation from Christian scholar and university chemist John Oakes:
As far as I know, there is not a single reputable scholar, including atheists, Jews, Muslims, skeptics or anyone from any background who is a historian or scholar, who doubts that Paul was a real person. Even the real fringe people who (against all scholarly evidence) doubt the reality of Jesus — even they do not have the nerve to claim that Paul was not a real person. . . . Evidence for the reality of Paul comes from the dozens of writers who quoted him within a generation of his death. Every single Christian source agrees that he was a real person. . . . To say that they were deceived that Paul was an apostle and that he was a real person is to verge on irrationality. There is not a single example of an opponent of Christianity in the first two or three centuries who doubted his reality. It would have been like doubting that Seneca or Ovid or Cicero lived. Bart Ehrman, one of the biggest critics of the reliability of the Bible, has debated unscholarly atheists who claim that Paul is not real and struggled to not laugh at his atheist friends for making the foolish and unfounded claim that Paul was not a real person.
Granted, Oakes is a Jesus-believer, but he has authored a dozen books on the subject and thus has at least some standing to make such a claim.
But seriously, what are the alternatives? I think there are only two: 1. “Paul” was really a collection of individual Jews, writing under his name. But this only modifies my hoax thesis. Now there are many anonymous Jewish hoaxsters instead of a single one. The basic theory still holds. 2. “Paul” was a mythical figure made up later in time. But Acts is virtually a biography of Paul, and is standardly dated to the mid-80s. The First Epistle of Clement mentions Paul, and was likely written in the 90s AD. Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans also mentions Paul, and probably dates to ca. 105 AD. So who made up “Paul,” and when? The only plausible culprit is Marcion (85-160 AD), but he could not have constructed a Paul myth at those early dates. Who did it? And why? Until you can answer these questions, you don’t have a viable counter-view.
And then even if there was no historical Paul, what about the Gospel writers? Were they, too, mythical figures? All of them? Invented when, and by whom? This implies that none of the Gospels can be dated to the 1st century AD — can this be sustained? I don’t think so. If any of the Gospels date to 70-100 AD, and had Jewish authors, then my hoax thesis is still maintained. Only now it is just “the cabal” who fooled the world. When someone can give me proof of the “no Paul” theory, I’ll consider changing my title.
In the end, I’m wondering why O’Meara is hostile to my thesis. Is he sympathetic to the Jews? Maybe. Is he worried about blowback? Perhaps. He clearly doesn’t like my Chapter 4, in which I document the long and critical history of the Jewish people; in fact, it is too long for him. And yet, had it been shorter, I would have been criticized for not supply enough evidence for this key point: that the Jews had a terrible reputation in the ancient world, and that they were known to sink to the lowest measures to achieve their ends. It was well-known that the Jews harbored a “hatred of mankind”; hence the likes of Paul would not hesitate to lie, if they stood to gain from it. I could not make this assertion without providing plenty of evidence — which I did.
O’Meara’s only counter is void of substance. He claims, without evidence, that “The Mediterranean region was chockablock with admirers of Judaism, who either respected its moral teachings . . . or delighted in its stories — as people do to this day.” Including perhaps Mr. O’Meara? Who would make such an assertion, other than a Jewish apologist? In any case, I invite him to provide a list of quotations by prominent intellectuals in history, praising the Jews; I think it will be a long wait.
He furthermore complains about my “scholarship” at various points, implying that my book lacks “academic credibility.” Again, this is a groundless claim. Did he find citation errors? Misquotes? Absence of key sources? No. He simply doesn’t like that I use words like “seems” and “perhaps,” which I do prefer to flat-out assertions of fact. Much about the Jesus story requires interpretation or statements of likelihood; in such cases, “seems” is the right word to use, suitably justified.
In the end, O’Meara appears to hold some unidentified grudge against me or my thesis. Again, this is his right. But any written critique should be fair and objective, and unfortunately, this time at least, our reviewer has fallen short of the mark.
David Skrbina, PhD, is the author or editor of 12 books and over three dozen scholarly academic articles, covering philosophy, religion, history, technology, and the environment. For all his works, see www.davidskrbina.com.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
The Machiavellian Method
Hunter S. Thompson as Psyop
A “Novel” Approach to the Understanding of Evil
The Abolitionists as Virtue-Signalers: Nehemiah Adams & A South-side View of Slavery
An Interview with David Cole Part 2
An Interview with David Cole Part 1
Henry Mayhew’s London Labour & the London Poor
Joseph Atwell solved this problem, read “Caesar’s Messiah.” Christianity is perhaps the first successful social engineering program implemented, it was financed by the Flavian emperors. It took a lot of money, and power to get Christianity off the ground; it’s just too stupid to be believed–that’s is why they want to get their subjects under the age of six. It was not secure until they had acquired several generations.
If St Paul invented Christianity to help the Jews, he did a poor job. Up until very recently, Christians drove Jews from their countries, restricted them to ghettos and forbid them to enter certain professions. It’s Mr Skrbina’s atheists who let them out of the ghettos, gave them the vote and allowed them to hold high office. When Europe was devoutly Christian, we conquered the world, as we drift away from Christianity, jews rise to power and we fall to degeneracy.
I understand the old biblical teaching, “Many are called, but few are chosen.” But even an atheist must admit, Whites were doing much better when we were a moral, Church going people.
Well said, thank you. It’s like a breath of fresh Truth.
Although I must admit it is rather droll watching Mr. O’Meara and Mr. Skrbina annihilate each other on this topic.
I believe it’s your rebuttal now Mr. O’Meara :/
I don’t buy into that lie of “original sin” which is the fraud that Paul (Josephus?) had you all believe in… ie. collective guilt of an entire race of people and their ethno’s!!! For me, I’ll take Woden/Odin’s Heroic route of morality!! PS, the so called man-god son of the tranny he0she deity “YHWH” was “aborted” by his own parent as was Abrahan instructed by this so called “god” to abort his own son !! … ” the word “YHWH”, literally translated, is equivalent to the English compound HE-SHE; that is to say, the so called Ineffable Name of [their] God in Hebrew.” ~https://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/sof/sof26.htm
I want some of whatever you’re smoking.
Indeed, to support a foreign globalist monarchy would be treason to ones own people nation and that nation’s state!! We do not subscribe to this point of view that the Christian has been made to swallow contrary to their own being!! :: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23629443-when-a-jew-rules-the-world
In fact, even in the USA it would be treason if your are levying war against the States or providing supporter for said foreign monarchy!!! See US Constitution :
Article III Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.
I have to wonder, was it <i>because of</i> Christianity that White people at times in history looked after their own interests, or did they do that <i>concurrent with</i> their identification with Christianity?
For me, the problem with Christianity is that its universalist seeds are undeniable and lying there ever like a snake in the grass, along with Christ’s horrible advice to self-destructively put others above ourselves, to, indeed, be indifferent about how things turn out in this world, to always be used against us by groups whose altruism will never compare to our own.
People like the Poles and Hungarians presently, (who arguably use the mythos of Christianity to their racial advantage) do so, I would argue, precisely because they take it, really, as a mythos. That is, they are who they are already, with a strong ethnic identity, and insist that the symbology represent them as they want it to. Their Christianity is, in other words, like Christ’s sabbath: there for them, not them for it.
It will, however, cease serving them well, as it has ceased serving Americans, proportional to the degree that people start truly believing, fundamentally, in the notion of “Thus saith the Lord,” and seek a “personal relationship with Jesus Christ.”
We must remember, either the God of the Bible exists and Jesus Christ is his son and the author of our salvation (Can you tell I was a Christian for many years?), or he is not. If he is not, then the Christian story is simply the outgrowth of a culture’s (or cultures’) imagination(s).
On a personal note, I miss Christianity. I’m not going to lie, I sincerely miss the solace that attended me for years. I wish I could have it back. But I believe that that door is, to me, forever shut.
<i>If</i> the Christian God exists, arguably he knows more than us, and we need to get with his program. But if he does <i>not</i>, we must, as St. Paul admonished (though certainly with a different end in mind), put away “childish things” and be willing to at least consider discarding them for something more in line with who we, Indo-European men with Indo-European souls, fundamentally are.
(Please excuse the html mistake I seem to have made.) 🙂
“they take it, really, as a mythos. That is, they are who they are already, with a strong ethnic identity, and insist that the symbology represent them as they want it to. Their Christianity is, in other words, like Christ’s sabbath: there for them, not them for it.”
Thank you. I appreciate it!
When we were Christian, we had segregation, chaste women, unbelievable scientific advances and the entire world bent the knee to us. This, even as the Christian Faith was “universalist”. It wasn’t Christianity that changed, it was a people drawn to atheism, a loss of morals and the “universalism” of secularism. How is it that the White race expanded and grew as Christians, and falls so far as atheistic? It’s so obvious, it baffles me that people can’t see the direct correlation to our fall.
And if you cannot believe? So what? Many men before you couldn’t believe, but they took their children to Church, obeyed the rules and lived their lives within the overall Christian society that stopped their daughters from becoming whores and their sons becoming effeminate.
If it allows you to act like a Christian if you believe that the Poles and the Hungarians didn’t used to be true Christians, go with it. I’d say their Faith was what sustained them as a people, similar to the Irish who might have disappeared if not for their Catholic Faith. Look at them now, as they desert their parents’ religion, they are being inundated with blacks and may soon no longer exist as genetic Irishmen. I believe we should return to what worked in the past and not try to create some phony Indo-European religion that the overwhelming majority will never accept.
Yet many other nations have adopted Christianity (Christianity has grown in many third world nations, making non-whites the highest percentage of practicing Christians) and haven’t come close to what the European has achieved. It’s time to admit the genetic/racial factor.
Japan despite having a history of being extremely isolationist also managed to build high culture without Christianity. China with their dynasties and so on.
Strong arguments. It’s also useful to consider that the Christian church was a positive in European society – at times – because of the social role it played. Many of its traditions and laws were not derived from the sayings of Christ (or the apostles) but, rather, from pre-existing European customs. From this perspective, the Christian church can be seen – at its best – as a new bottle for old (European) wine.
Like you, I miss Christianity… at least the Christianity that I knew as a southerner in my mostly baptist community. The “fire and brimstone” tent revival sermons. I know they aren’t the average person’s cup of tea, but they certainly got your attention and grabbed ahold of you. They offered cut and dry rules to live by that more or less reflected the “natural law” that I try to uphold to this day.
What are we here for? To marry, to procreate, to be fathers and husbands, to be “nations” of men. To co-exist with our fellow man and follow simple laws of respect. These things all make sense when you have cohesive racial identity and customs. Co-existing simple means living peaceably with other nations, it doesn’t mean to offer up your children’s inheritance to outsiders or to give your daughters away to invaders.
Everything has been turned on it’s head, which makes me doubt the value of holding onto a religion that seems to bask in its own contradictions. Words meant to unify people as nations have been twisted to force unnatural and alienating materialism as the only acceptable morality and consumption as the only tie to bind with others.
My eyes have been too clearly opened to ever be a religious person again. Religiosity in itself allows for the perversions that we see all around us. The very hall monitors, tattle-tales, busy bodies and nags that populate Twitter would have been the most devout puritans only 100 years ago.
it’s all so tiresome.
As I see it, we have to answer the most basic question first: Does the Christian version of God objectively exist? If our answer is “yes,” then we don’t really have an option–we must accept him and Christianity.
If our answer is “no,” on the other hand, we are at liberty to decide whether Christianity (and which version of it, for that matter) guards and advances us and our well-being.
What you probably mean Mr. Kirkpatrick, is that our christianity is still more plebeian and folkish than bourgeois. Poland was never the land of philosophers and theologists so we tend to not overthink our faith and I say it as a former “tradcath”. Our country had never really undergone the “reformation” which was a mostly political issue among aristocracy. As for the mythos and symbolism, it naturally speaks to our romanticist inclinations and mysticism. We are not the cold, western rationalists who had to strip their faith of all mystery until there was nothing left and then blame it for all their woes. To us, Jesus has been neither a peace-loving hippie or social revolutionary and crusader. He is that fatherly figure in the Sky that helps us in His own mysterious ways (sometimes even in national struggle) and we’re His prodigal sons who go to confession so our spirits can be lifted. His Mother is a great help too, so we pray to Her as well.
Jews were never removed from Europe like they should have been. They were at most shuffled around a bit. Compare this to how pagans were treated. Also, it might be more accurate to say that Christianity forbade Christians from entering certain professions and allowed Jews to dominate arguably the most important industry of all…finance.
But whatever, either Christianity is scripturally compatible with white nationalism or it isn’t. If it isn’t, we are going to have to separate ourselves from Christian whites. If it is, we should just move on from the issue.
Jews were forbidden from certain occupations? What a joke! Jews were the only people who could practice usury! Why on earth would anyone give that up to do manual labor!? Being a moneylender not only generated money from nothing, but it also gave Jews access to the rich and powerful. They had far more free time then the layman, and could spend it doing anything they wanted. If they actually wanted to settle down somewhere and start a business doing whatever job, they could always convert to Christianity publicly, while privately remaining Jews. False conversions have likely been the norm, a kind of mandatory business transaction or piece of paperwork. You don’t really think they believe in hell or whatever, do you? Don’t be such a simple rube!
Sure, Jews were expelled from time to time. Big deal! They’d rather keep their ability to lend money at interest! Being expelled from a country is hardly a punishment for the wandering Jews, who could start their scams all over again wherever they went! The only time Christians actually punished the Jews was when they barred them from entering a country or executed them. And those were the exception, not the rule, because Christians love to convert Jews.
“When Europe was devoutly Christian, we conquered the world, as we drift away from Christianity, jews rise to power and we fall to degeneracy.”
Alexander and his Macedonians were not Christian. Rome was not Christian (when they conquered the world anyway). The Scandanavian Norsemen were not Christian. The Greeks were not Christian. The Germanic tribes and Celts were not Christian.
Europe did not need Christianity to conquer the world, they were already well on their way before the dead Jew arrived.
If anything, Christianity held Europe back. It pacified Europe while the Jews moved in and set up shop. It allowed the Moors to conquer and hold Spain. It paved the way for thousands of European lives to be lost in the Jews “holy land” while England withered away.
It wasn’t until the ruling Europeans came to the correct conclusion, that religion is merely a tool to control the masses, that Europe got back to doing what it does best, conquering. Once kings turned their backs on the Catholics and started setting up their own churches, Europe became a force to be reckoned with yet again.
Whites love and blind devotion to this dead Jew is a bigger threat to our race than any “diversity and inclusion” training.
Europeans became their “old selves” with the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason.
Very similar traits can be seen in the likes of John Smith and Cortez that echo precisely what we read about in Alexander and Caesar: The Age of Exploration allowed us to “use” Christ as an excuse; when the Enlightenment fired up hotter, fostered at least a bit by conquest, it was time to stick to Herodotus and Thucydides and keep Christ on the back burner.
European man is resilient. After a few more years of Cancel Culture and Whiteness Shaming I fully expect many Caesars to arrive and act just as Cortez did down Mexico way. Every time we see the US military get woke over a new batch of verbal twaddle, a new legion of European Firsters is formed thinking: “We can beat these weirdos.”
Why would the media show us these things if they wanted peace?
Europeans excelled in spite of Christianity, not because of it. There are currently 600 million Christians in Africa living in third world conditions. If Christianity was the magic bullet it’s clamed to be, shouldn’t they have been lifted out the mud by now? Are they just not praying hard enough or what?
In a superficial way, you are absolutely right; no doubt that old Christian West was healthier than contemporary communist multikulti woke democray.
But on a deeper level, Christianity itsel was something bad for Europe, something quite similar to threatening modern rivers of Islamic barbarians pouring to the West. I imagine that indigenous Slovenian people looked in awe and disbelief at the militant and borderline idioitic Semitc cult and at (forced) Christianization — which finally resulted in major cultural decline of entire Europe. The sad part is that the German (and the Anglo-Saxon in extension) “nobility” took part in this Christianization, which helped them get political, military and cultural power over territories occupied by culturally more advanced Slovenian people — from Charlemagne, local warlords such as Tasilo III, to the Habsburg gang. In many aspects, Christianization of Europe also reminds of later Communization. The decline of Slovenian culture — which (at least linguistically) was spread across large part of Europe, down to the Indian subcontinent — is compareable to downfall of e. g. Greek culture.
I claim that great achievements of the Christian West, from the Old Age onward, were made despite of, not because of Christianity. E. g. I deeply admire Bach, knowing that he was a devout Christian — but this is not the true source of his greatness. His true greatness stems from something much deeper and distinctily European.
I believe such things are something to be considered (and of course be honestly, thoroughly and methodically researched within various branches of science, from linguistics to history). I think that “blaming the Jew” is counterproductive and contrary to the truth. The truth is that “Germanic” (in a very broad sense of the word) conquistadors, bearers of military culture, destroyed a higher one by Germanization along with Christianization, perhaps beginning with the bastardisation of language.
It is also well known that many European rulers gladly collaborated with Jews, even on expense of their own people against which they were committing an outright treason — from Louis the Pious to Cromwell. I think such things are really worth considering before just blaming the Jew. And it’s not that I’m particularly concerned about the Jews — I’m interested only in truth, objective as possible.
P. S.: My sincere compliments to the author, It’s a fine article.
OK, I have to read this book.
May every author, filmmaker, musician etc. write a response to reviews published here, or at least leave a comment under the review.
Paul was no liar, just a hallucinating psychopath
There’s always been a more ‘mystical’ take on the Damascene conversion. Those who hold that Christ-consciousness is the western equivalent of The Buddha Mind or The Self of eastern faiths, argue that Paul realized his deeper ‘transcendental’ nature at that moment, and it finally clicked what that exasperating rabbi Jesus had been going on about. Hence, “I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me.”
So Paul did not see a ghostly hallucination of a man ‘out there’ on the road, but rather saw into (insight) his true nature.
You have to cut the New Testament writers some slack for embellishing the details as they may themselves have not grasped what The Apostle experienced. The later Gnostic heretics insisted you gotta be one of the pneumatics (the pneumatikoi) to really dig the message.
Every argument the Dissident Right has within itself re: religion, or belief in religion, is time (and thus a resource) that is not being expended taking the metapolitical and political fight to Antifa, Black Lives Matter, the LGBTQ+/Big Gay agenda, the feminist movement, mass immigration, the JQ and every other enemy that poses a mortal, existential threat to White, European-descended civilization. It’s a waste of resources and a distraction from the real issues at hand. Some in the Dissident Right are going to be practicing, believing Christians: get over it. Some will be pagans: get over it. Some will be atheists and agnostics: get over it. If the Left and the forces arrayed against us can get past their differences (at least, seemingly, when and where it counts) and get organized against common enemies, so can we. As long as our enemies have a monopoly on building successful political, intellectual, and metapolitical coalitions and we can’t seem to do the same, they will keep winning. Arguing over religion benefits no one but our enemies.
So very true. I believe, perhaps in my ignorance, that the only justified position to take re religious claims is a reasonably (but not unlimitedly) openminded agnosticism. Centuries from now, there will be Christians (and Muslims, etc) and atheists. There will be deists and pantheists and panpsychists and pagans, etc, too. The ONLY issue that should really concern us is, will there be WHITES? That I’m not so sure about.
That acknowledged, I can state one claim with a high degree of confidence. If the precious cause of white survival is seen to be linked with atheism, routinely engages in gratuitous insult to Christianity, then it will continue to be marginalized, at least in America. This Skrbina book was recently reviewed a The Occidental Observer, and so now some clever bunny decides to review it here at CC. Why?? What is its relevance to white survival? Does anyone think a book like this is going to cause vast numbers of white Christians to say, “Oops, looks like we were wrong about Christ; let’s all become white supremacists!!”?
Again, we have to ask a question about CC and white nationalism generally: is this a place to develop the intellectual foundations for an enduring movement to prevent white extinction, or it an intellectual club for high IQ white outcasts from academia looking to have interesting discussions on topics not allowed elsewhere in our “free” country? Because if it is the former (and I certainly identify myself with the former outlook), then it really ought to be understood that nothing but nothing is dumber than for white nationalism to get on the wrong side of Christian conservatives, esp in America where CC is HQ’d. Those are our people. Our job is to explain the overlap and congruence between our views and theirs, not to emphasize, nay exaggerate, the differences.
I’m with y’all. I will struggle with Chrisitians who refuse to commit to their race as much as their religion, but I have no grief with any religious perspective that can, at the very least, balance the two concerns. However, I’m really only going to trust someone who has found a way to collapse their faith into their race such that the White race is the vehicle for their Way.
I’m not the best person to be discussing these matters. We need real impeccably credentialed theologians and professional Christian intellectual historians to expose the lies that both secular leftists and misguided and/or intentionally mendacious clergymen tell about Christian moral obligations in the area of race relations.
But I did have a solid Christian upbringing and a lot of schooling (and Bible reading and Church going), which has given me, if not deep academic theological knowledge, at least a very good sense of what Christianity really is all about, and where the faith gets confused with the bromides of liberalism (unlike a lot of younger whites today, who were raised unchurched or virtually so, and thus tend to believe about Christianity what they have heard secondhand, either via the churches, disproportionately left-liberal like every other opinion-molding entity, or Jewish secular media propagandists).
A true Christian will always put religion ahead of race. How could he not? The fundamental concern is with pleasing God so as to enter Heaven after death. A Christian will not do something that is morally wrong just because doing that thing is racially good. Think about a family. Is it right for a father to rob a bank to give money to his children? Not from a Christian perspective. But is it right for a father to place the welfare of his own children ahead of that of other children? Of course; indeed, he would be a poor quality Christian father if he did not. This does not entail a right to harm or otherwise persecute other children, only that there exist hierarchies of moral obligation and care. Take care of your own family first, and only then ought you to help your neighbor.
The real question is whether it is morally wrong for a Christian to advocate white preservation, and then, derivatively, what measures taken to advance white preservation are morally permissible. A little old-fashioned Anglo-American commonsense is in order here. Christianity is a reasonable faith. One is not required to be a saint to attain salvation.
Nowhere, eg, is it part of Christianity (at least before its intellectual infection by liberalism, which at root is very unchristian, whatever Nietzsche and Spengler mistakenly aver to the contrary) to condemn, say, the creation and maintenance of single family-occupied homes. The Bible does not forbid family homes, nor did theological authorities (to my limited knowledge) do so (I never heard anything to this effect in church, nor have I encountered such claims in my readings in European and American history). One can be a Christian – a Christian on the path to eternal salvation – without being expected to violate one’s family privacy and internal cohesion by, say, having to take into the home a vagrant sleeping on the streets outside. The duties of charity and good samaritanship are limited for Christians. Theologians can disagree over the precise extent of those duties – how much should one ‘tithe’? or how much should one donate to the poor or unfortunate? – but I have never heard of anyone serious arguing that such claims are unlimited (and indeed, from the Christian view, the vagrant would have a moral obligation not to abuse a Christian homeowner’s hospitality, should the latter have given the bum a room for the night, by overstaying; moral obligations are always two way affairs – something totally overlooked by today’s Christian/liberal blowhards, who, of course, only ever impose moral demands upon whites and decent folks, whilst continuously making excuses for unchristian freeloading by nonwhites and bums).
Can this example not be extended by analogy to white societies and nations? Where is it written, or in what way is it rationalized, that Christian whites must destroy their own cultural cohesion and alienate themselves from their own heritage, thereby doing great psychological damage to themselves and their children, not to mention put themselves and future generations of whites in grave danger of exploitation, enslavement, and either extermination or at least extinction, in order to accommodate selfish nonwhites who want to impose themselves upon white nations simply because doing so will improve their lives, regardless of the aforementioned costs and threats their doing so imposes upon us? Too many people, sadly very much including ignorant white nationalists, have bought into the idiotic (and totally ahistorical and atheological) notion that Christians must be “doormats” for the rest of the world, that we must never defend ourselves and our morally legitimate interests from external aggression.
Think about the asininity of this allegation. Are Christians morally obligated to allow themselves to be …. robbed? raped? murdered? To get to the relevant point – to allow their homelands to be invaded and stolen? Who ever supposed this in history? Christ, though innocent, allowed himself to be crucified in the supreme act of metaphysical altruism (to fulfill his alleged destiny to wash away the sins of the world), but nowhere did he impose a universal obligation of non-resistance to evil upon his followers.
What about war? Christians have for centuries sought to formulate principles of “just war”, but very few of them ever condemned war altogether. They recognized that war (getting down to basics here: intentionally killing enemies) could be legitimate if defensive in nature. One should not embark upon imperialism, but one could enlist to resist it. Surely, then, if millennia of Christian thinkers did not condemn either personal self-defense against evil/criminal aggression, or collective defense against foreign invasion/enslavement, they would hardly have condemned laws forbidding non-military imperialism (ie, demographic warfare, aka “immigration invasions”). Thus, if some Christian leader is blathering about the moral necessity of accepting foreign settler-colonizers under the guise of admitting “refugees”, we should inquire into his motives. Certainly, one should not leap to the conclusion, that, just because a Christian says something liberal, that therefore he must be speaking ex cathedra. Perhaps he’s merely an ignorant or malicious buffoon, substituting his personal opinion for church doctrine (this possibility never seems to occur to anti-Christian white nationalists).
Ethnomasochism is a hallmark of the mental illness called “liberalism”, which has always been in essence a new religion arising, but also apart, from Christianity, and indeed, comprising an attempt to supplant it. Ethnomasochism is neither Scripturally demanded, nor does it follow rationally (as Catholics understand the “natural law”). Indeed, it is the Christian ethnomasochists who are either confused or evil. That so many occupy prominent places within the various ecclesial hierarchies (whether institutionally or in terms of public influence) is another sign of the degeneracy of the times – not of the faith.
Going for the “wide umbrella” approach, a la “alt-lite”, will get you nowhere i.e. exactly where it got said “alt-lite”.. Such is any building of alliances based solely on resentful negative-to, opposition-to.. Christians, even if they aren’t self-conscious about it, act from an ontology ant towards a telos that is antithetical to us..
But those discussions do have a place; they just shouldn’t take up inordinate time (which can, admittedly, easily happen). Religion is a metapolitical issue just like others discussed here (the crux of CC), and come to bear, perhaps more than any other, on the depth of our permissible commitment to race realism. If you ask yourself “WWJD?” and know how to read the Bible, you probably don’t come up with the answer, “Choose my race over others. Fight our enemies, defensively or ever preemptively.”
I have no qualms, in theory, with Orthodoxy as was practiced by Codreanu, or Roman Catholicism as practiced by the Poles and Hungarians–on the contrary. But the Polish/Hungarian type of race-conscious, protectionist Christianity, for example, is out of step with the Pope’s, for goodness’ sake! And I would argue that the reason they believe as they do is because, paradoxically, they don’t take their faith seriously while, at the same time, taking its appropriated mythological symbolism very seriously.
It is a mythology for them, that they’ve made conform to who they are. As soon as they start taking sermon-on-the-mount admonishments and Pauline “neither Jew nor Greek” proclamations at face value (as preached by Rome, Modern Evangelicalism, et al), and start asking themselves, in earnest, “WWJD?” they will have greased the tracks for their soon-to-follow cultural decline, as has happened in the United States and Western Europe, and elsewhere.
It’s because of that that the issue is, at least, worth discussing some. After that, if someone remains a “committed Christian” and a race realist, the best that we can hope for is that universalist Jesus doesn’t eventually convince him not be.
And a silver lining, I suppose… at least he’s not a Vargtard.
What’s a “Vargtard”?
An obsequious blind follower of Varg Vikernes.
Religions are imposed from above by the power elite, and the elect in order to maintain control of the masses.
In this context it is interesting to note that Edward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ended up on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum of the Catholic Church in part for the notorious Chapter XV “The Progress of the Christian Religion ….” especially in his “Our perplexity in defining the miraculous period.” He raises a most embarrassing question — why did none of the great pagan observers of natural phenomenon make any mention of the miraculous three hour “darkness of the passion”during the cruxificion?
“But how shall we excuse the supine inattention of the Pagan and philosophic world, to those evidences which were presented by the hand of Omnipotence, not to their reason, but to their senses?”
If Jesus is just a text, fair enough. It’s a story where a working class guy speaks up and a Jewish priest gets a weak Gentile philosopher type, front man to kill him after riling up a mob. That describes today to a tee, be it social media or work or the press or wars. Who ever wrote Mark knew how things worked.
Everything good with Christianity for the West was “pagan”, everything bad with Christianity for the West was Christianity. You know it, I know it, deep within we all know it.
Seems to me that ‘Jews or Jewish advocates’ would be among the people most likely people to ACCEPT your theory about the Jesus story being a fraud perpetuated by Paul and others — they’ve been saying the same shit for 2000 years.
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.
Edit your comment