Better Call Saul: Christian Romanism as the First Psy-Op, Part 2James J. O'Meara
Part 2 of 2 (Part 1 here)
While basing itself on consensus scholarship, the hypothesis of Creating Christ has some interesting local effects on mainstream scholarship. For one thing, the dating of the “later” so-called “pastoral” epistles: the elaborate bureaucratic system of deacons, bishops, orders of consecrated virgins, and so on seems to indicate a later stage of the cult; but if Christianity was a top-top movement imposed by the Romans, the Romanesque bureaucracy could have been nearly original, as with the Mafia.
And then there is the infamous Testimonium Flavianum, the passage in the Antiquities by the Jewish general turned Flavian court historian Flavius Josephus, which seems to not only be the first mention of Jesus in pagan history — indeed, even predating the evidence of Christian tombs — but to be an acknowledgement that “He was the Christ.”
First mentioned by the Christian apologist Eusebius in the fourth century, the main objection to its authenticity has been the near impossibility that a highly-placed Roman authority would express sympathy for Christianity so early on. However,
[a] Flavian provenance for the Gospels and a Roman hand behind most of the rest of the New Testament answers this objection, easily and with no conflict or contradiction.
If the Gospels were part of the Flavian imperial cult’s propaganda effort to establish their claims as authentic Jewish messiahs after the conquest of Judea, and their mission was to reform Judaism into something manageable by the Roman state, we should actually expect only a Flavian apologist to make any reference to Jesus Christ at so early a date — especially any positive one.
The authors do accept the view that the original passage has been “significantly augmented at a later date,” but since Eusebius quotes it without fear of contradiction, this suggests that “by this time Josephus’s work had been officially ‘corrected,’ with the authoritative approval of the emperor himself.”
Given the almost fractal development of “on the one, on the other hand” academic scholarship regarding this, spending a whole chapter — 40 pages — on it seems a bit too “inside baseball,” but it does give them the chance to attack Richard Carrier, which is always a good thing.
More interesting, though more tenuous, is their suggestion that Josephus himself may have been the long sought-after author of the Gospels:
Josephus’s works reveal an author who possessed not only the education in history, philosophy, languages and Judaism that was necessary to have written the Gospels, but also the same outlook as the Gospel writers, politically and theologically. He used the same methodology to craft his autobiography that was used to construct Christ’s biography. He even admired and was close friends with figures who appear in the New Testament itself. . . . Perhaps most importantly, he bore the same contempt for that generation of Jews that we find expressed in the Gospels.
But on the other hand, perhaps this makes “Josephus” himself as fictional as the other Biblical characters. Who knows?
In the works of Josephus, we are surely at the confluence of the same ideological rivers that produced the Gospels. And while it may never be possible to determine the authorship of the Gospels with certainty, in the circle of semi-observant “Jews” surrounding the Flavian court we have certainly found a number of leading candidates. They were at the same place at the same time and shared the same background, education, agenda, and even the same iconography with the earliest Christians. And they had the resources necessary to launch an empire-wide mission.
With a title like Creating Christ, this book might seem like another in the Christ Myth genre. The authors, however, are agnostic on the subject; their theory works either way. The Flavians aimed to co-opt the existing movement of “Jewish Christians” led by James, John, and Peter, and then aid in the assimilation of the turbulent Jews in general (“cooling out the marks,” the carny would say). Whether these “original Christians” were sincere or con men is irrelevant; and it’s doubtful they would have survived much longer, as their Second Coming had still not happened. This is a distinction without much difference, however, since — like the popular cope of distinguishing “the Jesus of history” from “the Christ of faith” — we know next to nothing about Rabbi Jesus, and the Flavian Christ contains all the materials that people think of as “Christianity”:
There may have lived a man named Jesus, but there remains today no historical evidence that he did. And there need not have existed such a man in order to explain everything that has been passed down to us about him. There is no part of him that is not prophesied by others or prophetic of others, and no aspect of him that is not symbolic, political, syncretized or borrowed from other men or gods.
It is important to note, as the authors do from time to time, that Creating Christ is based on the evidence, scriptural and historical, taken at face value and with judicious application of Occam’s Razor. This is no wacky Internet “conspiracy theory.” The real “conspiracy” has been the official story, which has only been propped up for almost two thousand years by religious and academic “true believers” who employed every trick of twisty Talmudic/Jesuitical reasoning to explain away or divert your eyes from the plain facts.
Despite this “ripped from the headlines” opening:
Religious fanatics from the Middle East are waging an assault on Western civilization and have just struck a demoralizing blow to the very capital of foreign “decadence.” [The Great Fire in Rome.] Leery of war with an entire people, the West acknowledges only advocates of peace to be “true” followers of the terrorists’ religion. Indeed, Western leaders proclaim that their attackers’ own dogma commands peace. The year: 66 CE. The civilization under attack: the Roman Empire. And the terrorists: an ancient fanatical sect of Judaism.
. . . the authors spend little or no time on the contemporary political implications of all this, which is a good thing: Their attention is properly focused on marshalling their historical evidence. Yet those implications should seem obvious to Counter-Currents readers: What the Flavians did to the Jews, and Constantine did to the Romans, is what their tool, Christianity, is doing to us, either directly or through its secular scion, Leftism. Christianity is a pagan/Jewish chimera, and the history of the West shows periods of resurgent paganism, followed by “back to basics” returns of Christianity to stamp it down.
By absolving the Romans of any blame for Christ’s death and laying it squarely on the Jews and their leaders (Pilate, of course, literally washes his hands of the matter, while the crowd demands that the blood be on their heads and their children’s), the authors tut-tut about how this accounts for anti-Semitism — as if actual Jewish behavior couldn’t be the cause.
As noted, author Valliant seems to be a libertarian of the Randian sort, so it’s no surprise that the Flavians are taken to task not for their proto-globalism, but for providing a supposed justification for every tyranny and monarchy ever since; but since his own ideas on the proper role, if any, of the state are no doubt impractical and implausible, the reader will be forgiven for taking them with a large grain of Roman salis.
People who get their ideas about the Romans from Nietzsche, or Hollywood, like to present the Romans as pitiless warriors and stern, based rulers — either role models for True Manliness™ who were subverted by the “slave revolt” and “transvaluation of values” of Christianity, or, from the Christian point of view, drooling sadists and sociopaths whom we are well rid of. History, however, tells a very different tale:
Some Christians may believe that compassion, including Christian altruism and charity, were articulated for the first time by Jesus Christ against a backdrop of Roman brutality. However, this is clearly not the case. For evidence of this, we may look to Pliny the Elder, who was an intimate friend of both Vespasian and Titus. . . . According to Pliny:
“For mortal to help mortal, that is God, and this is the way to everlasting glory. This is the road that Roman leaders have taken, and it is the road that the greatest ruler of all time is treading . . . as he brings relief to an exhausted world. This was the ancient way of rewarding those who deserved it, to regard them as gods.”
Pliny the Elder thus credits the Flavians with a fair expression of Christian love in the context of “charity,” the idea that true glory and Godliness comes from helping others. God is love, he argues. Pliny is also directly associating such compassion with both the Roman Empire itself and the Emperor Vespasian personally . . . associating their compassion with their divinity.
Perhaps Pliny is too much a “personal friend” and major suck-up. Let’s turn to our other authority on the period, the historian Suetonius and his account of the next Flavian, Titus:
Born on December 30, in “a small dingy, slum bedroom,” according to Suetonius, “None of his predecessors, it seems, had “ever displayed such generosity.” Titus was “naturally kind hearted,” having as a personal rule “never to dismiss any petitioner without leaving him some hope that his request would be favorably considered.” When a day passed without his helping someone he is quoted as complaining, “My friends, I have wasted a day.”
“Titus’s short reign was characterized by a series of disasters,” including the eruption of Vesuvius and the worst outbreak of disease “that had ever been known.” Suetonius describes Titus’ handling of these crises as like “the deep love of a father for his children,” and his death — after just two years, two months, and 20 days — caused the populace to go into mourning “as though they had suffered a personal loss.”
Moreover, “previous Roman leaders were also extolled for their benevolence, especially Julius Caesar and his successor Augustus.” Caesar, like Jesus, “loved his enemies,” “blessed those who cursed him,” and “did good” to those who had “done him evil.”
Turning to our hard, physical evidence, it comes as no surprise that, “far from being Christian antagonists, the gods who were venerated by Roman emperors on their coins symbolize what we would today recognize as Christian virtues.” For example, the coins struck in 44 BC, the year Julius was assassinated and deified, celebrate his forgiveness and “clementia.” Justice, peace, and happiness are the subjects of Flavian coinage:
While the coincidence of moral concepts regularly depicted by Romans, especially Flavians, with key Christian ideas and values is stunning, their commonality might be ascribed to the fact that Roman propagandists and the first Christian apologists were operating in the same cultural context. After all, the earliest Gospels were written during Flavian rule.
Indeed, Flavius Josephus, court historian and possible author of the Gospels, “shares with the Baptist, and with Jesus, the belief that loving God and loving one’s neighbor comprise the essence of morality”:
On the other hand, we should not expect any specific sectarian sentiments, especially monotheistic ones, to be expressed on Roman coins since they were cast with an aim of appealing to the widest possible cross-section of a sprawling and diverse empire.
Far from the cultural clash between Imperial Rome and Christianity that has been promulgated in popular tradition, the truth is that they extolled largely identical virtues.
As so often, Schopenhauer proves a wiser guide than Nietzsche, and if the latter was unable to overcome his aversion to Wagner so as to learn true pagan virtue from a hearing of Parsifal,  he might at least have recalled Mozart’s last opera, La Clemenza di Tito.
More generally, Christian Nationalists and Based Pagans will need to deal with, or explain away, how it was the Jews who were fighting for an ethnostate while the Romans were GloboHomo 1.0:
Cosmopolitan, multinational and multiethnic, Rome was, at first, a religiously diverse leviathan that endured through its military skills, no doubt, but also through its political genius.
At this time religion and politics were one, and the Romans’ policy of religious tolerance proved to be a political advantage that helped their empire endure for centuries. The strict monotheism of Judaism, however, would present Roman policy with its greatest challenge.
In the work under review, the authors attempt to square this circle by emphasizing the Jewish rebels’ fanaticism and general nastiness to the point of risking charges of “anti-Semitism” from Amazon reviewers, and tempering their woke approval of Roman cosmopolitanism by drawing on their crypto-libertarianism to tut-tut about Flavianized Christianity providing justification for centuries of domination through kings ruling by “divine right.”
The biggest disappointment here is the authors’ failure to address an obvious question: How did Christianity eventually become the official religion of the Empire itself? As an outgrowth of the Empire-worship cult, and designed to instill Roman-love, I suppose it was as good as anything else for a unifying, empire-wide religion; but having been designed to allure rebellious Jews, the eventual orthodox form (as opposed to earlier versions, such as Marcion’s anti-Jewish Gnosticism) had taken on a substantial amount of Jewish baggage, including not just the Jewish Tanakh but also the books that only existed in the Greek translation (the Septuagint). These Jewish elements would rise to the surface from time to time in the form of the Reformation, apocalyptic cults, Puritanism, Zionism, Freudianism, the Frankfurt School, Neoconservatism, and so on. In this way the turbulent Jews would continue to annoy and subvert the post-Roman Western world:
Ideas and idolatry do matter in that they have the power to reprogram a civilization. It’s like the re-coding of the Roman Empire from Pagan to Christian led to profound changes: It went from mercilessly hunting down Christians to smashing Pagan Temples and forcing everyone to worship Jesus. Change the code, and the ship turns around and goes in the other direction. . . . Letting Jews re-code the West was a grave mistake, indeed a crime.
This book should trouble the sleep of those Christian Nationalists who oppose globalism with some sort of “return to the faith,” or those pagan enthusiasms who look to Rome — the archetypal transethnic global empire — as a model.
* * *
Like all journals of dissident ideas, Counter-Currents depends on the support of readers like you. Help us compete with the censors of the Left and the violent accelerationists of the Right with a donation today. (The easiest way to help is with an e-check donation. All you need is your checkbook.)
For other ways to donate, click here.
 TOM: You were around the old timers — and meeting up on how the family should be organized. How they based them on the old Roman legions and called them regimes — the capos and the soldiers. And it worked.
PENTANGELI: Yeah, it worked. Those were the great old days, you know. And we was like the Roman Empire. The Corleone Family was like the Roman Empire. — The Godfather, Part II (1974)
 Carrier is a kind of mashup of Richard Spencer and the Two Matts.
 Josephus borrows details from the Old Testament story of Joseph — a Hebrew who uses his skill at dream interpretation to win the favor of a foreign ruler — to flesh out his “autobiography,” just as Matthew does for the New Testament story of Joseph; he also reports having ecstatic visions and surviving shipwrecks while sailing to Rome, all reminiscent of Paul.
 It was Mark Twain who claimed that “German scholars” had determined that the works of Homer were not written by Homer, but by another Greek . . . with the same name.
 JOR-EL: This is no fantasy. No careless product of a wild imagination. We are not dealing here with idle supposition . . . No, gentlemen. The indictment I have brought you this day, the specific charges listed therein against these individuals, their acts of treason and ultimate aim of sedition — these are matters of undeniable fact! Superman (1979)
 For our purposes Roman Catholicism, the original pagan/Jewish hybrid, can play either role, just as officially secular Leftism can be implicitly Christian; thus the Renaissance is followed by the neo-Judaism of the Reformation, then comes the swing to the Counter-Reformation. In our own time, Leftism, originally secular, has become Christianized: deference to science versus faith has become faith in a priesthood of “experts” and so on. Globo-Leftism appeals to all the remaining elements of Christian-formed consciousness: Like the original Christian converts/slaves, you will own nothing, and be happy. (Acts 4:32-35: “Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. . . . There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.”) The headquarters of the world empire has been shifted northward, from Rome to Geneva (itself a center of neo-Judaic reaction under Calvin).
 “We are anti-Semites because Jewry living among us in the nineteenth century and in Germany represent views, customs, and claims that date back to the times after the division of the races close to the time of the Flood and, because they do, seem as strange to us as flint knives and nephrite arrowheads. . . . Circumcision and the dietary laws of the Jews are atavisms. The monotheism of the Jews stands on the same level as the report of a petty officer commanded to the commissariat who announces the existence of only one copy of any object: one God, two tables, three fathers, four mothers, and the 2307 Passover foods to be found in nature. The belief in the chosenness or, as it is now called, the ‘world-historical mission’ of Israel then crowns the absurdity: a people who through the centuries have not produced anything for history — name one if it really does exist — are able to shout in the face of the Indo-Germans — who have indeed developed everything on which we live — that they are the favourite people of God.” Paul de Lagarde on Jews and Indo-Europeans; extract from Chapte 13: “Juden und Indogermanen” (“Jews and Indo-Europeans”) of the Mittheilungen (Communications), II (1887); translated by Alexander Jacob, here.
 You can spend two hours viewing his presentation on Creating Christ to the Ayn Rand Centre UK — really? News to me — here.
 For more useful ideas than “Kings are bad, okay?”, consider: “[A] good idea that is often mistaken for democracy is a so-called ‘mixed’ regime that has a democratic element. . . . Virtually every European society today has a mixed constitution with monarchical, aristocratic, and democratic elements, as did ancient Rome and Sparta (which was technically not monarchical, since it had two kings at the same time).
“In his Politics, Aristotle argues that a mixed regime is more likely to secure the common good than an unmixed one. In an unmixed regime, the one, the few, or the many are liable to pursue their factional interests at the expense of the commonweal, simply because the other elements of society are not empowered to resist them. In a mixed regime, all three groups are sufficiently empowered to resist the attempts of the others to serve their interests at the expense of the common good. Yes, Aristotle was the first theorist of ‘checks and balances.’
“In an unmixed regime, we have to depend on the virtue of the rulers, since their selfishness can lead society to ruin. In a mixed regime, we do not have to depend entirely on the virtue of the rulers, since the one, the few, and the many all take part in rule, and even when their virtue fails them, they will still oppose the selfishness of the other factions out of selfish motives of their own.” Greg Johnson, “Notes on Populism, Elitism, and Democracy.”
 One of their most important credentials as peacemakers was the Flavians’ victory over the Jews, and one of the most common issues of coins under both Vespasian and Titus is the “Judea Capta” series, usually symbolized by a palm tree and a mourning woman or enslaved “Jewess.”
 See my review of Alexander Jacob, Richard Wagner on Tragedy, Christianity, and the State: Three Essays, second edition (Colac, Victoria, Australia: Manticore, 2020).
 “We come closer to the truth ONLY IF we call most Jews what they really are: ultra-right Jewish supremacists in ‘leftist’ or ‘progressive’ clothing. Jews are for ‘equity’? ROTFL. That must be why Merrick Garland, who calls white Trump voters ‘terrorists’, is all about equal justice for Israeli Jews and Palestinians — NOT! No, Jewish attitude toward whites is akin to their attitude toward Palestinians. Both are seen as subject peoples, and if they resist, they are labeled as ‘terrorists’. Would true leftists do such a thing? Leftism has a lot of faults, but its one saving grace is universal values and equal justice. There is NOTHING in current Jewish Power that is for equal dignity and respect for all of humanity. The likes of Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are ultra-rightist Jews who hide behind ‘progressive’ facades. And Jews use BLM just like British Empire used foreign troops to subjugate people in the colonies.” Jung-Freud, “’Jewish Leftist’ Is a Misnomer — Jewish Power Is Ultra-Rightist, Supremacist, and Imperialist — How Jewish Power Re-Coded the West from Pro-White to Anti-White and the Dire Consequences.”
 Constantine himself only appears late in the book as the guy who replaced the anchor with his preferred symbol, the cross. Some have speculated that the whole story of his “conversion” is a pious fraud, and that Constantine had been raised a Christian in secret by his mother, making the Christian “triumph” essentially a coup.
 Although some want to praise or condemn him as “anti-Semitic,” Marcion simply thought that Judaism was fine for the Jews, but Christianity was a different religion with a different god; it was his idea to create a “New Testament” (basically Luke and the seven authentic Pauline epistles) so as to abandon, not include, the Jewish scriptures.
 Jung-Freud, op. cit. However, the authors do a good job refuting the persistent myth of Roman “persecution.” See also Candida M. Moss, The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom (HarperOne, 2013).
Prioritizing Prestige Over Accomplishment: Britain from 1950 to 1956
Biden and Bibi
The Honorable Cause: A Review
George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years
A 5D Plan in 3D: Hitchcock’s Dial M For Murder
Not Pretending to Be Anything: Charles Bukowski
Visions of a New Right: Jonathan Bowden’s Right
Messianic claimants were not uncommon in Roman-occupied Judaea: Theudas, preceding Jesus of Nazareth, is mentioned in both Acts of the Apostles and The Jewish War. The most illustrious of all, Bar Kochba, was anointed Messiah by Rabbi Akiva himself in the third of the tragic wars of the Jews against Rome. He went down into ruin like all the rest. Therefore the point at issue is why one of the claimants, the Jesus of the Christians, became the ‘founder’ of a new religion — and one that has been largely abhorrent to the Jewish people. Here I think it is correct to seek an answer in Saul of Tarsus. Great religions are not founded by committees or conspiracies: it is a risky business involving vision, vigour and a following wind. The teachings and living example of the Apostle Paul showed Gentiles a way to fuse the ethical basis of Judaism, shorn of its legalistic ‘Oral Torah’, with the Hellenistic ideal of seeking redemption from the bondage of the material cosmos. Paul avoided the Scylla of hand-me-down Judaism or ‘Noahidism’ with its subsidiary place for non-Jews, while steering clear of the Charybdis of luxuriant Gnostic fantasies blaming the Jews and their God for all the ills of the world. Latching on to the conveniently dead-but-resurrected charismatic Galilean exorcist and prophet Jesus as his cynosure, Paul attracted disciples and built up congregations in the Eastern Roman empire while the original followers of Jesus were still quibbling over circumcision and dietary laws. We see his method illustrated perfectly in his brief address to the stoics and epicureans at Areopagus: he uses Socratic irony to break down his audience before holding out his new theology of redemption through Christ. Whatever one makes of that, it’s quite a stretch to imagine an erudite prose stylist like Josephus concocting the Gospels or any of the Pauline literature in rough and ready Koine Greek. This ‘Flavian hypothesis’ may well be a case of an ingenious theory let down by prosaic details.
The theory presented by this book is nothing new. A book by Joseph Atwill titled Caeser’s Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus advances the same thesis, and it was published 17 years ago. Robert Price demolishes it in his review, as does Richard Carrier here. Christianity has always been a psych-op, that is true, but it was developed and advanced by Jews.
Why link to an old Price review of another book? Why not link to his review of this book:
“Very powerful, well argued, a good grasp of all the evidence.”
Carrier, like Skrbina, is an intellectual thug who’s out of his element.
“The article is a slanderous tantrum consisting of little more than child-like insults, analytic blunders and outright inaccuracies.”
Like all fringe theories this ‘Flavian Hypothesis’ marshals its evidence, which is mostly circumstantial, well and seems plausible on its own merits. But problems appear when we stand it against the default ‘Pauline Hypothesis’ that Christianity was created by Paul/Saul of Tarsus grafting elements of Hellenistic philosophy on to the Judean messiah cultus of the heretical and unsuccessful and claimant, Jesus of Nazareth. For example Paul was already active in the reign of Nero and may have been executed before the commencement of the Jewish War — why should we suppose him an agent of the Flavians? Or, when the Flavians already had a successful imperial cult, which deified emperors, why then would they perpetuate a religion which abhorred the same practice? Then there is the apocalyptic character of early Christianity(*): it’s clear that the Gospel writers and Paul himself expect the imminent return of Jesus, installing his heavenly kingdom and marking the end of secular rulers. Why should the imperial dynasty wish to nurture this belief? The Flavian family and court may have contained some overt or crypto-Christians, they may have refrained from persecuting the strange new religion: but one feels they lack the motive and enthusiasm to have invented it.
(*) A lasting embarrassment to the Christians down to the present day.
I think you will find it more profitable to read the book rather than just critique it in comments. Or at least listen to Price’s video review, which covers your points.
“Paul was already active in the reign of Nero and may have been executed before the commencement of the Jewish War — why should we suppose him an agent of the Flavians?”
Because Paul boasts about his contacts high up in the Imperial court, including associates of the Flavians; even among the Praetorian Guard (who kill emperors). Read the accounts of his imprisonments in Acts, especially how Festus freaks out when Paul pulls rank on him; it’s like the landlord in Godfather II, or Verbal Kint in The Usual Suspects: “This guy is protected from high up, by the Prince of Darkness himself.” In movement terms, he glows. Why execute him? He outlived his usefulness, and needed to be shut up. Ask Gavin MacInnes.
“it’s clear that the Gospel writers and Paul himself expect the imminent return of Jesus, installing his heavenly kingdom and marking the end of secular rulers. Why should the imperial dynasty wish to nurture this belief?”
This “criticism” is, in fact, the hypothesis itself. Since Jesus obviously did not return, why would the Gospels attribute a failed prediction to him? By contrast, the Romans had every reason to use Titus’ conquest of Judea to co-opt the Christian movement. In fact, several prominent rabbis has already acknowledged Titus as the expected all-conquering political Messiah. Some desperate Evangelicals today, called “preterists,” make the same claim: Jesus was right, the temple was destroyed.
Because I didn’t know he had reviewed this book yet.
Professor Edward Dutton has used the term “spiteful mutants” to describe the individuals on the Left who have a high mutational load. They are hostile organisms invading our body politic, and the reason we’ve failed to develop antibodies in response to the threat is because our immune system is compromised. By what, you ask? A mental pathogen. It was Nietzsche who realised 130 years ago that eugenics finds its greatest nemesis in the pacifism of Christ and his transcendent teachings. It has been said that Christianity is the poor man’s religion – the spiteful mutant’s religion.
While belief in Christianity has waned considerably during the last century, largely due to Darwin, Christ’s teachings survive in the egalitarian value system. In this secular incarnation of Christian ethics, the supposed virtues of pity and compassion for the weak are still upheld. This pity is what preserves those wretched mutations which should, by all rights, perish. This in turn perverts the natural process of elimination which forms the bedrock of evolution, and the liberal progressives that facilitate this malfunction are the traitors in our midst who betray all our futures in exchange for the moral high of signalling their own self-righteousness. We all suffer because the Left elevates the most worthless people at the expense of our best and brightest.
Christianity’s maladaptive system of ethics endured the death of God and found fertile ground in the creed of secular humanism which had formed to assuage the wounds inflicted by the world’s most devastating war. Christ on the cross became a proxy for non-whites, non-heterosexuals and women, in whom has been cultivated a status of perpetual victimhood. These groups are repeatedly told that they’re oppressed and marginalised, and the copious evidence to the contrary won’t convince them otherwise. It has become imprinted in their brains, and so they play the “discrimination” card whenever they encounter any difficulty in their lives. They lay all the blame for their shortcomings upon those who succeed where they fail, which absolves them of responsibility for their behaviour and deflects the shame they would otherwise feel at being evolutionary losers.
While evolution is a horrendous system, one which we certainly would never have chosen, it’s what we’re stuck with. The essence of evolution is eternal struggle, that of finite quality against infinite quantity. With the abrupt reversal of the eugenic revolution, the world stage was set for the revolt of the underman. The excess glut of humanity now numbers some six billion, and among this surplus has emerged an ever-growing contingent of spiteful defectives, all marching in unison under the banner of equality.
Tracing the genealogy of this “wokeness” reveals it to be a product of Christ’s egalitarian sentiments about the brotherhood of man. I recall a study, conducted some years ago, which revealed that the areas of the brain associated with fear and disgust are momentarily activated in self-proclaimed liberals when they are shown images of black male faces. This indicates that liberals, on a subconscious level, are just as aware as we are about the primitiveness of blacks. They can see it in their physiognomy, and it scares the hell out of them. Negroes provide a constant reminder of our crude origins and are a testament to the reality of human evolution. I think this is why whites fetishize blacks and their “culture” so much. It’s a classic case of overcompensation. It is impossible for our people to confront the inherent danger posed by blacks when most of them can’t even bring themselves to admit that they are intimidated and disgusted by blacks. 160 years after Darwin’s discovery, society has still not fully accepted the fact that we are animals, and the mere insinuation creates extreme discomfort. This can be seen in the fierce resistance to categorising humans racially, which is “dehumanising” according to the prevailing neo-Christian value system.
Kevin MacDonald and his protégé Andrew Joyce have done some phenomenal scholarship on the Jews, but they are both blind to the role Christianity has played, as the progenitor of both liberalism and communism. MacDonald subscribes to a monocausalist explanation for white decline, pinning the blame almost exclusively on the activities of Jews, with whites themselves assuming little to no culpability. I recognise that the Jewish Question and the Christian Question are synonymous, however, and that whites have been complicit in their own downfall by prostrating themselves before an alien religion.
In his multi-volume Christianity’s Criminal History, Karlheinz Deschner painstakingly uncovers how the new religion plunged classical philosophy into centuries of near-oblivion, clashing with the established and ancient European wisdom regarding the inequality of men. Spreading first among the slaves and lowest classes of the Roman Empire, the Christian faith came to teach that all men were equal in the eyes of a universal creator, an idea that was totally alien to traditional European thought, which had recognized a hierarchy of competence among men and even among the gods. Opposing the traditions of classical philosophy and scientific enquiry, Christianity introduced the concept of a single, omnipotent “God of History” who controlled all phenomena in the universe, with mankind being the pinnacle of his creation. Since all human beings were “the children of god”, all were equal before their Divine Maker. Faith in the church’s interpretation of supposedly prophetic revelations became more important than scientific or philosophical enquiry, and to question the church’s view of reality was a grave sin, one that could spell death for the blasphemer. I recommend The Darkening Age by Catherine Nixey for a more concise summary of this tumultuous history.
Nietzsche saw that the successful promotion of Christianity relied on a pretence of reciprocal hostility between Christians and Jews. It required making the Jewish cult, when peddled to gentiles, seem non-Jewish and even anti-Jewish. “Was it not a necessary feature of a truly brilliant politics of vengeance, a far-sighted, subterranean, slowly and carefully planned vengeance, that Israel had to deny its true instrument publicly and nail him to the cross like a mortal enemy, so that the whole world (meaning all the enemies of the Jews) might naively swallow the bait?” It would, and did in Deschner’s case, take many a tome to chronicle the nefarious history of Christianity, from its known beginnings around the middle of the second century to the triumph of a particularly shrewd and aggressive sect in the fifth century. There were hundreds of sects, each with its own bundle of gospels, peculiar doctrines, and adroit theologians, all of whom took seriously the purported antagonism of the Jews to the new religion.
Nietzsche observed that Christianity is anti-Darwinian, its value system having dysgenic consequences. Time and again, computer algorithms identify sub-Saharan faces as simian, not human. This is because computer programs are objective. They have no concept of soul equality, since they have not been tainted by Christian axiology. If our people had never been infected with this Levantine poison, it is doubtful that blacks would be classed as human. It is more likely that they would be viewed as an infestation, a hostile species of archaic hominid in competition with us for our beautiful white women. Darwin believed that, if not for Christianity, we would have exterminated them with pitiless indifference. César Tort, arguably the most extreme figure on the Far-Right, proclaims that “Christianity, in essence, means not the number of priests ordained, but the number of niggers loved.” It is for this reason that Christians are unlikely to be motivated by ethno-nationalism, their focus being on God’s eternal kingdom in the hereafter, not on any earthbound nation. Their priority is the salvation of immortal souls, and the importance of genetics will not resonate with them.
As if fulfilling Nietzsche’s prophecy in Der Antichrist, the Third Reich was a culture that, for the first time in over a thousand years, rejected the “spiritual syphilis” of Judeo-Christian ethics and adopted a more organic, evolutionarily informed moral code. It was essentially a return to pagan values, and Germans were soon reaping the rewards, becoming the most scientifically advanced nation in the world. In terms of politics and philosophy, they had a very intimate understanding of certain realities which are to this day verboten to acknowledge. Viewed within the context of society as a living organism, a revolutionary concept at the time and one which is consistent with many contemporary findings in evolutionary psychology/biology, the Nazi movement was a healthy immune response to the latest manifestation of subversive exploitation which the Jews had wrought upon their host nations since time immemorial.
Nazism identified disease vectors in the body politic and neutralised them, with the SS functioning much like antibodies, developed in response to a deadly bacillus. Mercilessly exterminating this parasite without remorse would previously have been unthinkable, due to Christian moralism. The regime’s days were numbered, however, as the existential threat posed by Jewry had bifurcated, with bolshevism looming in the east and the forces of international finance preparing to attack from the west. In due course they would form a pincer movement to encircle and destroy the one nation that stood in their way. Although this new culture was obliterated while still in an embryonic stage of development, one cannot help but be awed by its unrivalled success in such a short space of time. Unfortunately, instead of heralding a new era, it proved to be the last gasp of a dying civilization.
In the ensuing decades, the narrative of the Second World War as a herculean effort to defeat the ultimate manifestation of evil became set in stone. To be the antithesis of Hitler in every way became the paragon of virtue for all white people, and the nascent science of genetic hygiene was tossed into the trashcan of history without having demonstrated a modicum of its potential. We failed to instigate a revolution amongst our people. Why? Because their minds have been stewing in a culture shaped by two thousand years of Christian delusion. To hope that a people imbued with the conviction that a Jew is God will revolt against Jewry is a fool’s errand. As more time passes, it will become clear that the evil in the West not only emanates from the Jewish mass media and our treacherous elites, but also our own people, whose operating systems contain malware implanted since the time of Constantine.
The only salvation lies in a Nietzschean transvaluation of values, a complete and total elimination of malware from the psyche of our people until it is restored to that healthy and virile condition before the Christian infection. This is what the Nazis were attempting to do in Germany, a renaissance that was promptly nipped in the bud by those traitorous nations that should have been her allies. The German defeat at Stalingrad was a portent of things to come, that Europe’s metamorphosis into a racially conscious empire was to be slowly and agonisingly aborted. With the destruction of the Third Reich, the flame of white civilisation that had burned so brightly for millennia was finally extinguished. The combined effort of whites in America, Britain and France had destroyed tens of millions of their racial comrades in the heart of their ancestral homeland, and for what purpose? To free the dregs of humanity from imprisonment so they could exact their revenge upon those who had recognised them for what they were. 1945 was the year of the total inversion of “Aryan” values into Christian values.
In the post-war years, the memory of the Nazis became a moral cudgel, a tool to browbeat any whites who still dare express ethnocentrism into submission. This has cultivated ethno-masochism and pathological altruism in whites all over the world. We are condemned live under the inescapable tyranny of usury, fiat currency, and the international system of interest-based debt slavery. Government abuse of our money has been an accepted part of life for so long that nobody alive today can remember a time when this was not the norm. Since the founding of the Federal Reserve in 1913, a staggering $48 trillion has been spent on actively undermining the political sovereignty, economic stability and demographic homogeneity of the United States. The fruits of our own labour are used to finance our destruction, and not just in America. In every white country. This constitutes nothing less than the greatest betrayal in the history of human civilization, on a scale so unprecedented, utilising methods of subversion and deceit so vile and revolting, that it strains comprehension. Few dare complain, and many are happy to turn a blind eye and make bank by exploiting the unparalleled opportunities that late-stage capitalism affords them. Technocracy, plutocracy, and the elevation of talentless “social media influencers” to celebrity status are symptoms of a terminally ill civilisation.
An awesome comment demanding an expert answer, and considerable time composing it. I will only note that Deschner, none of whose writings I’ve read, seems to have been a leftist, someone who condemned Christianity for egalitarian reasons – quite the opposite from your anti-Christianism (which I think is mostly a crude caricature of the Faith, but that’s a contention I cannot elaborate upon right at this moment).
These are the issues: is Christianity metaphysically true? If yes, does it necessarily (logically) lead to the dysgenic ethical strictures you impute to it? If no (as you obviously believe), has it nevertheless been on balance a positive force in Western Civ?
I do not know if Christianity is true. But I do not believe that it necessarily leads to the racial debasement that you decry. I think that debasement is a product of modern liberal modes of thought having infected the Faith, rather than a natural outgrowth from the Faith’s core tenets. Finally, even if Christianity is finally false in its truth-claims, I think it has been on balance a net-positive for the West, though obviously not a wholly positive one. I would rather myself live in a churchly, Christian country like America used to be, than in ancient Rome, or Nazi Germany. Of course, I’d rather have lived in one of those societies than today’s increasing woke-diverse hellscapes where my people are truly oppressed, and with no compensating benefits to show for it.
All speculation about Christianity probably started with St Augustine’s puzzling statement:
“That which is known as the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never did not exist.”
Since historically JC existed concurrent with Tiberius, it’s not only pretty young, it started after most of the truly interesting Human eras had come to an end.
If Augustine meant what he said he said something interesting. It has bearing on the idea that the Church fathers took an ancient Greek deity and retrofitted him with a Hebrew overlay.
You mention Eusebius and by coincidence I am reading the G.A. Williamson Penguin Classics 1965 translation of Eusebius’ History of the Church right now. You like footnotes, so you should love Williamson. So cutting and wry. For example, Eusebius writes “And this [sudden retirement of a Roman emperor] had not yet come about when the whole Empire had split into two…” Williamson’s footnote: “A colourful way of saying that Christians were differently treated in east and west” (page 346).
Entirely irrelevant, I feel. Christianity is what you make of it. Nationalism can co-opt Christianity just fine. Orban seems to be doing a good job of it.
It would seem that way, yes, but there is also a detectable level of Zionism in him and his camp. Unsure how much of that is simply realpolitik, and it’s usually less than you think.
The most interesting part of the article for me was the exaltation of the values of benevolence and charity by the Romans. This paints a very different picture than Evola’s. It is important to note however, that benevolence in itself does not immediately lead to globohomo. Slaves in Rome were still slaves, and heroes were still divinized. Benevolence did not destroy social stratification. It might blurr the friend-enemy distinction though, even if the many wars of Rome and particularly the fate of Carthage point in a different direction. But it seems that only when we add ‘equality’ (or even ‘equity’) to benevolence that we get the witches brew called globohomo. Where does this ‘equality’ come from? It seems that an important source is a world denying, ‘gnostic’ attitude that considers matter as evil and material differences therefore as irrelevant. Christianity has always had this tendency, but globohomo is even more extreme, with its denial of racial differences and sexual dimorphism.
I think it is highy important to save benevolence from the poisonous embrace of globohomo. We are engaged in a very complicated war, and we might be tempted to resort to simple brutal hate or violence. Not only is this a fatal error because we do not stand a chance against the system, we will suffer the demoralizing effect of going against our nobel ‘Aryan’ nature, that even cares for stray animals. We need to find ways to fight without violating our sense of benevolence. I myself find inspiration in the way of Ju-Do: seduction of allies, and returning the force of an attack back to enemies.
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