Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 605
Taking the Green Pill
Counter-Currents Radio
202 words
Angelo Plume hosted the latest edition of Counter-Currents Radio, and welcomed Adam Green as his guest. They talked about Green’s work researching Israel, Zionism, Judaism, and, ultimately, Christianity. It is now available for download and online listening.
3:02 – How did Adam Green become interested in Zionism?
7:24 – Is Christianity a Jewish “Trojan Horse”?
10:03 – Angelo’s relationship with Christianity
14:49 – Jesus didn’t exist
20:40 – Adam on getting attacked by Christians and Jews
25:59 – On the claim that Jesus wasn’t Jewish
28:13 – What rabbis say about Christianity
33:27 – “The Jews killed Jesus!”
41:22 – Jewish identity needs anti-Semitism
44:41 – The Judaic Matrix
49:38 – Is the Scofield Bible to blame?
55:25 – The CQ is the ultimate red pill
59:18 – The Darkening Age
1:00:30 – The goal of the Messiah was to conquer Rome
1:03:21 – The “No True Christian” fallacy
1:05:08 – So was Jesus a Jew or was Jesus a fictional character?
1:08:54 – On anti-whiteism
1:14:34 – The JQ isn’t the full story
1:17:14 – The CQ isn’t the full story
1:18:38 – Deplatforming, censorship, and slander. What Adam has endured as a consequence of touching these third rails.
1:24:51 – Where can we listen to replays of CC streams?
1:25:51 – Adam’s new book The Jesus Deception
1:27:34 – Gatekeeping Christians don’t criticize the Torah
1:29:38 – What’s the solution?
To listen in a player, click here or below. To download, right-click the link and click “save as.”
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
42 comments
Good stuff. Adam Green is the real deal.
The real deal? More like really controlled opposition. His last name is Green for christ’s sake. Adam Green constantly critiques Judaism and Christianity full-time yet he’s able to pass the extensive Israeli security checks and vacation in Israel whenever he wants. Remember when Greg Johnson was arrested in 2019 the moment he arrived in Norway? Why wasn’t Green immediately arrested when he visited Israel, or completely denied access for his online antisemitism when he traveled there a few years ago? Most of Adam’s research is just regurgitations from the book of Christopher Jon Bjerknes. Someone should ask Green whatever happened to his cute 21 year old buddy Matthew North.
His last name is Green for christ’s sake.
I hear Alfred Rosenberg was Jewish too. The Fuhrer must be told!
His name is Green for Dagda’s sake!
Excellent interview. I’ve admired Mr. Green’s work for many years.
I wonder if he has come across the work of Jila Ansari of Foreign Policy Truth.
Religion can be viewed as a guide to life. Noahide religions provide this in a constraining fashion—with a clear beginning and end. Perhaps existence itself must be modeled this way to a certain extent (for example there is the Kali Yuga or Age of Iron— which we are apparently all in—referenced in Buddhism; Mr Plume has mentioned this on previous podcasts). In that sense the Noahide religions, which Ms. Ansari in the very least opposes as a certain cooptation of Iranian/Persian culture, fit the bill for ordinary people (at a massive price).
Very thought provoking. By going woke and open borders the churches are digging their own graves. It would be difficult to hate them if all they did was pray and give alms to the poor.
A valuable discussion Thank you.
Mr Green seems to harbour a lot of resentment towards the religion he was indoctrinated with as a youngster. I can understand that. However the pro-White cause ought to be working to revert the Catholic and Orthodox, Lutheran and Anglican churches to an anti-Jewish, pro-nationalist position. Whether or not Jesus was a real person is immaterial. That his crucifixion was called for by the Jews and that they accepted the consequences is. Every Aryan needs to hear that story a hundred times before he is seven.
That argument was addressed in the discussion. It still locks one into the Jewish paradigm granting them that they will always being underdogs, picked on, and singled out. Adam Green quotes from Romans 11 debunking that.
It is thoroughly fictional while locking one into the rabbi’s narrative but seeming revolting, or at the least kooky, to normies as well.
Yes, but Mr Green’s solution seems to be to attempt to utterly discredit Christianity and by implication write off the last sixteen hundred years as a dead end. The doctrines of Christianity are malleable. Catholicism is to a large extent polytheistic and emphasises ritual and good works for the masses. Restore the healthy suspicion of Jews which was its hallmark and all one needs to do then is scrap the adherence to globo-homo. Over time the Hebrew elements could be de-emphasised in favour of old gods or new ones.
“Over time the Hebrew elements could be de-emphasised in favour of old gods or new ones.”
The opposite, however, is what has actually happened, as Laurent Guyénot has argued.
If Christianity could include, among its adaptive aspects, the rejection of the Old Testament’s Jealous God and the Big Lie of Jewish chosenness, then it would be redeemable. But Christians would rather sell their souls to the devil than become Marcionites. In two thousand years of existence, institutional Christianity has consistently evolved in the opposite direction, becoming more and more scriptural, Judaized, and Israel-centered: from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, and from Catholicism to Protestantism, the trend is unmistakable.
Your first point is self-evidently true of the present, but segregated churches and functioning apartheid in the mid-twentieth century, as well as the accommodation between much of institutional Christianity and National Socialism in Germany in the face of international Jewish-led propaganda, argue against the slide being inexorable over millennia. No doubt, as Jews have gained power in the West they have been more and more successful at subverting the churches into pro-Jewish positions. It is up to us to take a leaf out of honorary antipodean Mel Gibson’s book and revert them to their one-time anti-Jewish essence.
“segregated churches … argue against the slide being inexorable over millennia”
Christianity is on course within the next twenty-five years to become 75% non-White.
The slide continues apace.
By their fruits ye shall know them!
Whether or not Jesus was a real person is immaterial.
And whether he was born a Jew is even more immaterial. These proselytizing atheists have a remarkable knack for missing the point, and for contradicting themselves. They will tell you that NTC is a logical fallacy, and then turn around and tell you that you’re no true Christian unless you’re fine with Israel blowing up children but condemn even nonlethal measures in defense of your own border, apparently all at the same time. Likewise, they insist that you’re no true Christian unless you give all your wealth to the poor, ignoring Matthew 19:21, which counsels voluntary poverty only for those who “would be perfect.” This is no different from the advice any ancient sage would give in the same circumstances. The wandering mendicant was known throughout the world during this period. Nevermind tiny houses, Diogenes is said to have lived in a barrel!
The more fundamental problem with these people is that they are not spiritually curious, and they do not understand those of us who are. By itself, that would be fine, but then they insist on attacking what they don’t understand. Early pagan converts didn’t choose a foreign god over their native gods. Rather, they chose the God of their own pagan philosophers (e.g. Aristotle’s Prime Mover) over the gods of Greco-Roman folk religion. An unapologetic elitist like Plume ought to understand that. It was inevitable that people would conclude that this and the Jewish God were one and the same. When you conquer foreign lands, a degree of cultural influence is almost always part of the deal.
Julius Ceasar said that the Gauls worshipped “Mercury,” a Roman messenger god, even though the Gauls knew nothing of him. That’s why Wednesday (Wotan’s Day) is named after Mercury in Romance languages (mercoledi, miercoles, mercredi). JC equated Odin with Mercury because that’s just what people do. Tne question of why it was Mercury and not some other god is quite fascinating and instructive, but beside the point here. He just didn’t believe in strictly-local gods. I suspect noone does outside of uncontacted tribes in the Amazon or the Sentinel Islands. No amount of pouting or temper tantrums will stop people from drawing these kinds of comparisons.
Syncretism is unavoidable unless we’re going to be stereotypical closed-minded chauvinists who believe they have a monopoly on truth. Most white people aren’t like that and will never be like that. Moreover, I suspect many of the Jews early Christians encountered, befriended, and talked with about God were relatively less ethnocentric and more pro-Greek than most Jews of their time, very different from the assimilatio-resistant Jewish community we know today.
Finally, I find it very strange that atheists assume that the only reliable kind of special revelation is easily-faked Divine dictation a la Quran, Stone Tablets, or the Book of Mormon. If an idea develops over centuries of deliberation among thoughtful, image-bearing seekers rather than appearing out of thin air, well that just goes to show it’s all made up. This is a bizarre notion. It dismisses out of hand the possibility of inspiration by the Holy Spirit, or the Muses, if you prefer, and therefore assumes the very atheism it attempts to prove.
I don’t care if Will Williams wants to be a “Cosmotheist” or Plume wants to be a pagan or whatever. I do care about the treasure trove of Western art currently held in trust by the Vatican. The Gospel is for all of humanity, but the Sistine Chapel is ours and noone else’s. If the Church is to be a universal rather than a European institution, they need to turn over our stuff. What would Plume and Green do with it?
Beautifully put
You diverge into philosemitism with your theories about how this one specific subset of Jews were actually good Jews, not at all like the ones we have today. This sort of thing is precisely Plume’s point – Christians always eventually have to engage in apologetics for Jews.
Moreover, the universalist bias of the Christian value system is evident in your reply. You describe syncretism as inevitable and only resisted by close minded chauvinists. This is little more than an argument for diversity and substantively no different from all the other arguments we hear to that end.
Christians in these circles always twist themselves into knots like this. They force themselves to attempt the impossible task of reconciling a left wing, Judaic religion with right wing antisemitism. It is much simpler and more logically sound to just dispense with it entirely.
You diverge into philosemitism with your theories about how this one specific subset of Jews were actually good Jews, not at all like the ones we have today. This sort of thing is precisely Plume’s point – Christians always eventually have to engage in apologetics for Jews.
Heaven forbid I ever defend a single Jew anywhere on Earth at any time! Because if I recognize that at least some Jews in the early Roman Empire must have been willing to shoot the shit about God with pagans, I won’t be able to countenance any criticism of their behavior now, however exploitive, disruptive, or hypocritical it may be. Is this what you’re driving at?
Moreover, the universalist bias of the Christian value system is evident in your reply. You describe syncretism as inevitable and only resisted by close minded chauvinists. This is little more than an argument for diversity and substantively no different from all the other arguments we hear to that end.
Oh dear. I need to lie down. Anti-Christian arguments always make me dizzy. You have lost your sense of direction in time, and therefore you cannot see which way the arrow of causation points. Under the relevant historical circumstances, syncretism was indeed inevitable, precisely because White people are what we are. You seem to think that White openness and curiosity are defects that put us on a slippery slope to racial perdition, but that is a you problem.
A shallow fancy for diversity will turn you into a midwit shitlib who thinks that your whole past and future is a small price to pay for ethnic restaurants. A deep love of diversity will turn you into nationalist who insists on the right of self-preservation for all, especially one’s own. I want White people to be able to travel and meet interesting people until Kingdom Come or the heat death of the universe.
Christians in these circles always twist themselves into knots like this. They force themselves to attempt the impossible task of reconciling a left wing, Judaic religion with right wing antisemitism.
Au contraire. It is you who are attempting an impossible task: you want to attack Christianity as Jewish and universalist all at the same time, which it obviously cannot be. Pick one so we can have a rational discussion.
It is much simpler and more logically sound to just dispense with it entirely.
Here we see the radical, antitraditional ahistoricity of anti-Christian White nationalism. You reject White civilization as it has evolved over time in favor of the simple, coherent, logical White civilization you dream up in your head, purged of all the messy accretions of time and experience. When you build a Wayback Machine, let me know and we can decide whether we want to chance a mulligan on the past 2,000 years. In the meantime, your simple solution wouldn’t be so simple in practice. You’re going to have to throw out an awfully cute baby with that bathwater.
Here we see the radical, antitraditional ahistoricity of anti-Christian White nationalism. You reject White civilization as it has evolved over time in favor of the simple, coherent, logical White civilization you dream up in your head, purged of all the messy accretions of time and experience.
And here we see the Christian apologist using ‘history’ as a cudgel because it favors the Christian case. We know that the Christians destroyed every bit of contrary history they could get their hands on. As a consequence, ‘history’ really is only the playground of the victors. It has no objective status. It’s high-class propaganda. Always has been. Like you, when that propaganda agrees with my own predilections, I admire it. When it doesn’t I reject it.
History isn’t physics. It’s not a science. And no matter how much ‘historians’ try to argue that they can produce ‘objective history’, it never happens. All history is just an exercise of power.
As for ‘anti-traditional’, well, again, you’re happy to talk about ‘tradition’ because it favors your case, not the case of White Nationalism. Because Christians systematically destroyed or distorted all indigenous White ‘traditions’ that they could get their hands on (and co-opted what they could not destroy), any appeal to ‘tradition’ automatically favors your case.
But what if the job of White Nationalism isn’t to preserve anything but the White race? What then? What is the use of any ‘tradition’ that doesn’t feed directly into preserving (and advancing) the White race? What then? It seems to me that if we win, ‘history’ is what we decide it is (for the benefit of the preservation and advancement of the race) and ‘tradition’ is what ‘the (White) people’ want (as long as it is consistent with the preservation and advancement of the race).
What do I need ‘history’ for except to reaffirm by beliefs? What do I need ‘tradition’ for if not to affirm my Whiteness?
The relationship between Whites and Christianity might be kind of a ‘starter marriage’. We learned a great deal from each other, but now its time for Whites to move on and face the future with a different partner or partners.
It is not the job of White Nationalism to ‘preserve’ anything except the White race.
There is more than a hint of irony in a Christian appealing to tradition. When the Red Sea Pedestrians walked over to our ancestors and told them about Rabbi Yeshu, they began the long process of Christian subversion and eradication of the European traditions which had existed for thousands upon thousands of years.
@Hamburger Today
Reverting Christianity to its anti-Jewish origins and rendering it compatible once more with racial preservation ( as is already the case with multiple national churches which had to survive in the Ottoman Empire – Croatian, Greek Orthodox, Maronite, Coptic ) IS a strategy for White preservation.
Well, it looks like I struck a nerve here, didn’t I?
There is more than a hint of irony in a Christian appealing to tradition.
Here I was thinking the very same about you, Mr. Plume. You decry the fact that early Christians “cut themselves off from their ancestors,” as you see it. Then, you turn around and demand that I… cut myself off from my ancestors, because you wish history had gone the other way.
long process
There was no “long process,” Mr. Plume, though you need to believe there was in order to wave off the fact that Christian philosemitism is a very recent phenomenon. There have been two historical junctures that advanced pro-Jewish Christianity: British Israelism and Vatican II. British Israelism is a retrograde superstition, ironically much more similar in substance to the childish, transactional paganism that you pine for: We do for you so that you will do for us. The only difference is that instead of just one, you have to appease and placate many gods. Worse still , appeasing one, you may anger another. I seem to recall something about a famous Greek trilogy involving something like that. More irony: Green complaining about the fact that he grew up afraid of God. Fear and appeasement were absolutely central to ancient paganism.
Much to his credit, at least Dawkins, less absurdly romantic about paganism than you, seems to understand that, to any extent modern science has been unkind to Christianity, it is absolutely brutal to ancient paganism. He has recently begun to have some misgivings about his anti-Christian campaign, and is now calling himself a “cultural Christian,” I assume because he fears that the devil he doesn’t know may be far worse.
Vatican II and the “continuing covenant” innovation was nothing more than a reflection of rising Jewish power. As I have pointed out before, the long March went through all the institutions, not just some. You single out Christianity because you are not capable of setting aside your anti-Christian agenda for the sake of White unity, even though you know damned well that Christians are, in the main, more pro-White than non-Christians. That is a real shame.
of the European traditions which had existed for thousands upon thousands of years.
I don’t know about thousands and thousands of years, but let’s assume that’s true. I don’t really think that should be the criteria. The pagan legacy is sparse in Western Europe. We have some great stories, written down for posterity by the very Christians you accuse of wanting to eradicate the past, and a bunch of really big rocks arranged in a circle. Around the Mediterranean, we have some ancient ruins, some great literature that didn’t have to wait for Christians to write it down, and even some surviving infrastructure! Still, what we have from the last 2,000 years outweighs the pagan cannon and remains many times over. Be a pagan if you like, but I choose to delight in European culture from the inside, not as an alien from the outside.
My point here is not to claim that Christianity caused the rise of Europe. I suspect that in certain respects, such as the idea of a comprehensible and orderly universe, it did in fact contribute a great deal to European greatness. You’re not going to get very far in science if you believe that a tempest at sea is not the result of matter in motion but rather attribute it to Poseiden having a temper tantrum because Odysseus put out the Cyclops’ one eye.
But, ultimately, I don’t think Christianity was a but-for cause of modern science, because I don’t think either Nordic or Greco-Roman paganism would have survived in anything like their contemporary form for any significant length of time, anyway. White people just aren’t that credulous. The very raw intellectual power that wrote the Greek tragedies and built the Roman aqueducts would have finished off ancient paganism in short order.
So here we are, 2000 years later. To me the choice seems clear: I embrace all of European history, not just some. I actually think that pagan mythology and literature are most satisfying and relevant precisely when they are viewed as pointing to something higher to come. This is the view of the Classical Christian Studies movement, which has done and is doing more to promote regard for ancient European culture than all the beleaguered Classical studies departments in the secular universities could ever hope to do as they struggle for survival in a hostile, anti-DWM environment. Yet, you and your sort insist on making enemies of friends amd friends of eenemies.
The slide continues apace.
Come now, Theodora, don’t equivocate. The slide Antipodean was referring to was about Jewish influence, not demography. The error you anti-Christian WNs make is that you fail to appreciate the profound differences between Christian populations from one place to another. Like typical mainstream conservatives who think that race doesn’t matter as long as we have the Constitution, you believe that Christianity is capable of racial alchemy and homogenization. It is not. I don’t care if the whole planet turns Christian. White forms of Christianity will always be radically distinct from non-White expressions, and you don’t have to take my word for it. Go visit some churches and see for yourself.
P.S.
Sorry this post is so long. If I had more time, I’d have made it shorter.
Christianity comes under attack because it’s failed to be a genuine religion for White people. It failed to bind Whites to Whites as Whites and, instead, convinced Whites to reject themselves (as ‘the overdog’) and prefer non-Whites (as ‘the underdog’). I don’t see how you get around that. Christian ethics isn’t now – nor will it ever be – partial to the White race and still be Christian as Christianity has expressed itself or over a thousand years.
It doesn’t not matter if you, personally, can continually re-weave a pro-White perspective from ‘Christianity’ or not. An ‘intellectual’ Christianity has never been dominant in the USA and I doubt it ever will.
The emotional/ethical aspect of Christianity is the only part that ever had any penetration. 90% of the people who do ‘Bible study’ come away with a few bits of ‘scripture’ to justify their prefered behavior.
Rather, they chose the God of their own pagan philosophers (e.g. Aristotle’s Prime Mover) over the gods of Greco-Roman folk religion. An unapologetic elitist like Plume ought to understand that.
No. The vast majority of Whites didn’t ‘choose’ anything. The Middle Eastern colonists bringing their alien religion used the ‘aura of Rome’ to convince tribal leaders to convert, which resulted in being given the choice of being excluded from the tribe or become ‘Christian’.
The truth in what I see can be seen in the steady decline ‘Christian’ observance and participation in every country where ‘the Church’ has no state support.
The boot of Christianity has come off the neck of the White race and now Whites are walking away.
I’m glad you’re able to weave (and re-weave) against the grain of your faith to be pro-White. But, in the end, I think a project to ‘pro-White-ify’ Christianity for the masses of White Christians is not going to come as fast as ‘White Nationalism’ will become the religion of White people, binding the fate of every White to the fate of every other White in virtuous cycle of nurturing strength and strengthening nurturance to secure and advance White Life for White People.
It failed to bind Whites to Whites as Whites and, instead, convinced Whites to reject themselves (as ‘the overdog’) and prefer non-Whites (as ‘the underdog’). I don’t see how you get around that.
It’s easy. All you have to do is be realistic about who is or who is not the “overdog.” I also reject your view that Christianity doesn’t bind Whites to Whites. Rather, Marx was absolutely correct that intraracial class warfare has been decisive in European history going all the way back to the Roman Republic. What did ancient paganism do to contain the avarice of the tiny gerontocracy (Senate = old men) for the sake of the overwhelmingly more numerous and desperate native poor?
By contrast, the deep and passionate Christian who also happened to be one of if not the very greatest storyteller of all time, Charles Dickens, decried what he called “telescopic philanthropy” that ignored the miserable living conditions of the urban destitute. I have my children read Dickens as intended, serially and in very small doses, because it is too intense to gobble up quickly. Go read Chapter 7 of A Tale of Two Cities and, when you’re finished mopping up your tears, come back and tell me that Christianity is of no use in binding a people together.
In America, it was the very disregard of the underdog in favor of unbridled selfishness that led numerous White men to sow the seeds of national destruction by importing black slaves, all to avoid paying White workers a decent wage. Now, we have HIB Pajeets, Mexican farm workers, etc. Indifference to the poor of one’s own country is far more toxic to the soul than indifference to the poverty of others. You have to actually walk past and ignore them. This creates a temptation to justify the status quo, blame the victim, and harden your heart to human suffering. That’s why charity must begin at home.
No. The vast majority of Whites didn’t ‘choose’ anything.
I wasn’t talking about the vast majoity of Whites, HT. I was talking about the particular Whites who came into contact with the Jews of the early Roman Empire, in an attempt to help you understand the process of syncretism. This contact was the beginning of the Christian movement that spread across Europe.
The Middle Eastern colonists bringing their alien religion used the ‘aura of Rome’ to convince tribal leaders to convert, which resulted in being given the choice of being excluded from the tribe or become ‘Christian’.
You have it backwards, HT, the Middle Easterners weren’t the colonists. They were rather the imperial subjects. As for the rest of it, I don’t know the details of how much of the spread of Christianity was by force and how much by choice. What I do know is that nothing can be done about it now.
How was it wrong of the Jews to crucify Jesus? If there was a subversive White man who called for the “universal”, anti-ethnic values that Jesus called for, you’d want him crucified too. Essentially, you hate the Jews for rejecting multiracialism. That either makes you a hypocrite, or it leads you to accept multiracialism.
How was it wrong of the Jews to crucify Jesus?
Foul! No defense of Jews is allowed here!
If there was a subversive White man who called for the “universal”, anti-ethnic values that Jesus called for, you’d want him crucified too.
Christianity was a Jewish conspiracy against Rome! Christianity was a Roman conspiracy against the Jews! This is the kind of stupidity you get when spiritually tone-deaf people try to make sense of religion. You don’t understand it, so you insist it’s just politics in disguise.
No, Siegfried, if a White man or woman told me that they think God loves non-Whites, too, I most certainly would not wish a long, painful, tortuous execution on them. I wouldn’t even wish the cross on a proven traitor. The guillotine is more my style. Its quick and painless, but it makes a big bloody mess pour encourager les autres. If you really feel that Jesus had it coming, please check yourself in to the nearest psych ward because you are a deranged lunatic.
I never said that Christianity was a Roman conspiracy against the Jews. The new testament is a storybook, and stories have meaning. Thus, if you hate the Jews for rejecting Christian morality, then you must accept Christian morality. But Christian morality is antiwhite. So, Christian antisemitism inevitably leads back to antiwhitism.
Thus, if you hate the Jews for rejecting Christian morality, then you must accept Christian morality.
I don’t hate the Jews, but I do accept Christian morality, and I think they are wrong for rejecting it.
But Christian morality is antiwhite.
But didn’t you just say yourself that Christian morality is anti-Jewish? So anti-Jewish, in fact, that the Jews were justified in torturing Christ to death?
Which is it?
I suppose what you meant, but didn’t say, is that Christian morality, when applied by Whites in their dealings with non-Whites, is bad for Whites. I suppose that’s true in a sense, but it ignores the benefits of good reputation and the costs of duplicity. The Jews have to go to a great deal of trouble and expense to suppress any discussion of their dual strategy, and even then there are no guarantees. Paranoia is the inevitable result.
I reject the claim that Christianity demands suicidal altruism as opposed to mere recognition of the humanity and legitimate interests of outgroups. Rather, I suspect that Christian morality and enlightened White self-interest, before WWII, was about to make the non-White world much more liveable and, in so doing, possibly prevent this whole immigration disaster. Of course, that had to be nipped in the bud.
Being both a Christian and a nationalist, I assume that most people are happier among their own folk and in their own culture. Immigrant reports of how miserable they are in White countries would seem to bear this out. Therefore, I assume that the best kind of Christian charity is the kind that allows people to grow where they’re planted. That is how I would have others do unto me, after all.
Christian morality is antiwhite, and anti-any folk which falls to it. So, the Jews, in this fictional storybook called the Bible, were right to crucify Jesus. Not recognising the Jews’ right to work in their interests means that you must also deny Whites to work in ours, or you’re a hypocrite.
Before Christianity, we had religions (which the Bible calls “ethnicos”) which are based around ethnicity. Ethnic morality, and the worship of one’s forefathers, are core pillars of this worldview. The victory of “universalist”, non-White Christianity against ethnic White religions was a clear loss for our folk. It is as if someone who said he was White positive was cheering on the Islamic conquest of Spain in the dark ages, or the genocide against Whites in Haiti or South Africa/Boerland.
Could you eleborate about what you meant by this: “I suppose that’s true in a sense,”.
Why do ‘Aryans’ need to hear that Jesus hated jews? How does hating jews turn into loving White people? I’m an anti-Semite but I don’t confuse anti-Semitism with pro-White politics. They’re not the same thing. I look at anti-Semitism as a kind of immune response to jewish infiltration of White life and the pro-White movement.
I have said this before and I’ll say it again: It’s up to ‘pro-White Christians’ to convert their anti-White ‘Christian’ brethren and sistren to pro-White views. That’s not White Nationalism’s job. The foundation of White Nationalism is Whites caring about Whites become they are White (and no other reason).
Now, in theory, Christians should be able to care about Whites equally to non-Whites, but that’s not White Nationalism. White Nationalism is about a positive partiality toward Whites – all Whites no matter what their background or dispositions. It’s not about promoting Christianity or any other pre-existing religion.
As far as I am concerned, White Nationalism – Whites caring about Whites because they are White (and no other reason) – is my religion.
I don’t need Bronze Age stories about supernatural events to make my religion meaningful to me and the Whites I encounter (even if they don’t share my faith in Whiteness I believe they can still feel my affection for them).
Christianity did not create ‘Christendom’. White Europeans did. Christianity has had 700 years to make Africa a Christian paradise and, so far, has nothing to show for it of consequence.
Pro-Whites should reject ‘Christianity’ as a viable religion until such time as the faith ceases to be ‘universal’ and starts being partial to Whites. Until then, Christianity is no different than any other ‘universal’ Abrahamic faith that seeks to exploit Whites for their own purposes at the expense of White life.
Interview raises great points that won’t be addressed by Christians.
Why not interview some traditional theologians for once?
Why? Theologians have been saying the same supernatural mumbo-jumbo for over a thousand years. What does a ‘traditional theologian’ have to say to Whites that actually being pro-White independent of religion wouldn’t say even better. I don’t need supernatural explanations as to why God doesn’t care about White people more than non-Whites. In the end, ‘theology’ is just a dodge. Piling logical argument on top of logical argument based upon irrelevant premises.
Christians have plenty of sites where they can debate their supernatural beliefs without taking up space in White Nationalist circles.
I don’t know why the early Christians had to destroy and deface ancient temples and statues. I think the Vatican should be turned into a library or museum.
Thank you for an excellent podcast!
Green could take the more constructive mythicist-route, explaining greco-roman origins of Jesus and gospel narratives. Paul has plenty of mystical cues. Also, accomodarion to Roman empire. Instead, green sounds like he harbors mostly resentment and is just being anti-.
Two friendly remarks on this generally good and informative discussion:
curious that Adam did not mention the posthumously updated “The Christ Conspiracy” by Dorothy M. Murdock, revised edition 2002, some 535 pages including significant amplification; a tour-de-force of the sources. Far from the (erroneous) New Age impression of “Acharya S”.
“like you and I” and such is not just bad grammar but imo a marker of suggestibility – it may scan/sound better than “like you and me” but indicates the speaker has heard the expression yet the solecism has entered into conscousness and thence to currency bypassing the good-sense sentries of the intellect. Repetition is a tool of the (bad) propagandist but that does not mean the thing constantly heard/repeated is correct. This abuse of English needs to be nipped in the bud on every platform, not least because it makes the speaker (and the ideas which he represents) appear stupid.
There are mythicists who see the New Testament as distinctly pro-Roman. Even Carrier has admitted this much. We miss the greco roman current within it only because we don’t know our classics as we should. Rather than abolish Christianity, the narrative of it needs to change. The greco roman scholars admit this as the main problem and how their views of a hellenistic and gentile driven church are systematically marginalized. But why not begin from their work, which have recently found vital inroads and audiences, rather than abolitionism which will loose a lot of people?
Europeans were never fully Christianized. Even throughout the entire Middle Ages and into the early modern period, nominally “Christian” whites were still engaged in folk magic and various other heathen practices like sacrifice, divination, etc.
It’s been nearly 2,000 years and it’s high time that people admit the Christian experiment failed. Certainly in the case of whites, it’s just not compatible with our race. Christians who still think they can turn European societies into Christian societies are just as delusional as communists who still insist, “that wasn’t real communism,” and they can somehow make it work in the future…
What’s the popular definition of insanity again?
This is just not very serious. The existence of spiritual deviance is acknowledged in christianity and has been an issue in every people throughout the world. In reality, no people has been more Christianized than the Europeans.
It has been 2000 years and the Christian “experiment” has succeeded time after time within white peoples, inspiring and leading much of what makes our history so great. Saying it’s not “compatible” with our race is again, historically illiterate and ridiculous. All of this thoroughly debases the rest of your claim.
It was real Christianity, it was glorious, and it will be again.
“Real Christianity”? Christians have been slaughtering each other for the last two thousand years because they still can’t even form a consensus on what “real Christianity” is, even though they have a giant textbook which supposedly makes it all clear. You call that “success”? How many more thousands of years must pass before Christians can finally agree with each other on the one true interpretation of their one true religion? And what will you have to show as justification for the centuries upon centuries of holy war? What benefits?
I urge everybody to read Dr. Revilo P. Oliver’s “By Their Fruits Ye Shall Know Them”. It’s only about 12 pages long but it’s the most concise breakdown of Christianity that I have come across in 40 plus years.
The only problem I ever had with Adam Green was his slavish admiration for the mischling serial liar, Christopher Jon Bjerknes. Green was peddling Bjerknes lies about Hitler, National Socialism and WW2 for many years. I quit listening to him after that so I have no idea if he still shills for Bjerknes and his brazen misinformation.
Also Green took a trip to Israel when his YT channel was known as the “largest anti-Semitic” channel on YT. He spoke of being given as special tour by “connections” he had there. That, coupled with the Bjerknes business, peaked my jewdar and I’ve never trusted the guy since. Perhaps I’m completely wrong about him. I hope I am.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment