The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Vernon Thorpe Archive
Ben Shapiro and the Myth of the Judeo-Christian West
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Steven Crowder. CC BY 3.0

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Ben Shapiro, The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great (New York: Broadside Books 2019)

As the cathedral of Notre Dame burned in Holy Week, Ben Shapiro took time out to tell his vast social media audience that:

“If we wish to uphold the beauty and profundity of the Notre Dame cathedral, that means re-familiarizing ourselves with the philosophy and religious principles that built it.”

ORDER IT NOW

Shapiro went on to clarify that the cathedral was a “central monument to Western civilization, which was built on the Judeo-Christian heritage.”[1]https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1117867417831477248

The term ‘Judeo-Christian’ is a favourite of Mr Shapiro’s and appears with wearying frequency throughout his latest bestselling book The Right Side of History: How Reason and Moral Purpose Made the West Great.

It took an Israeli paper, Ha’aretz to point out the obvious yet unmentionable:

“There certainly seems to be a degree of willful blindness, if not crass manipulation, in Shapiro setting up 12th-14th century France, when Notre Dame was being built, as embodying “Judeo-Christian religious principles,” when during that period France’s Jews were expelled (twice), their holy texts subject to public book burnings and their property confiscated by the crown (several times).

Look at the actual tangible built evidence of the cathedral itself, whose west front is adorned with twin statues: proud Ecclesia (the Church) and Synagoga (with head bowed, blindfolded with a snake, her crown at her feet and the tablets of the law falling from her hands), representing Christianity’s triumph over Judaism.”[2]https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-ben-shapiro...138947

The Times of Israel paper recorded elsewhere that a prominent and influential rabbi, Shlomo Aviner, considered one of the leaders of the religious Zionist movement, had suggested that the burning of Notre Dame could be divine retribution on Catholics. The piece reported:

““The first great Talmud burning happened in Paris, right there at the Notre Dame Cathedral square,” Aviner wrote. “It was the result of the Paris trial in which Jewish sages were forced to debate Christian sages, and the result was the burning of the Talmud. Volumes of Talmud were brought in 20 carts and burned there, 1,200 Talmud volumes. So [the fire demonstrates] ‘there is justice and there is a Judge,’” he wrote, the quote a reference in Jewish religious literature to divine justice.”[3]https://www.timesofisrael.com/radical-rabbi-says-not...rning/

Mass-burnings of the Talmud took place close to the cathedral in 1242 following the debates Rabbi Aviner mentions. The French-born rabbi further elaborated that Christianity

“is our number one enemy throughout history. [They] tried to convert us by arguments and by force, carried out an inquisition against us, burned the Talmud, expulsions, pogroms. Western anti-Semitism draws from Christianity’s hatred of the ‘murderers of God.’ It also had a role in the Holocaust.”

The disputations had arisen after another French Jew, Nicholas Donin, had converted to Catholicism and gone to see Pope Gregory XI in 1238 to warn him of the blasphemies contained in the Talmud and the danger the text posed to a Catholic culture. Among the charges Donin levelled against the Talmud was that it crudely blasphemed Christ and denigrated His mother (Notre Dame) and that it was the basis of a new anti-Christian rabbinic religion which was not the Judaism of the Old Testament, but rather a way of wrenching away the message of those books from their true fulfilment in the New. In so doing, the Talmud it deliberately kept Jews from the light of Christ.

This content of the Talmud was a revelation to most people in Christian Europe at the time. Subsequent scholarship, most recently by Professor Peter Schaefer of Princeton University[4]https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8383.html has largely backed what Donin had to say about the animus and blasphemies contained in the Talmud (primarily but not exclusively the Babylonian Talmud), with the Gospel of St John a particular target of ire. Schaefer and others highlight the extent to which these authoritative texts deliberately slander the holiest elements of the Christian sacred narrative.

More generally, Israel Yuval of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has done much to establish the conclusion that “The polemic with Christianity that gradually came to dominate the Land of Israel was not conducted openly, but in a convoluted and allusive manner. The Talmuds and midrashim do not explicitly state the name of the rival with whom they are struggling, but the shadow of Christianity nevertheless looms in these rabbinic texts.”[5]https://www.academia.edu/37618749/Israel_Jacob_Yuval..._50-74 Long before these debates, St Jerome was well aware of earlier Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament, which he set out to refute with Christian interpretations, producing an authoritative Latin version of the Bible for the purpose of confuting anti-Christian Jewish accounts.

None of this is even alluded to by Mr Shapiro, who goes on to quote the Talmud approvingly and who in the acknowledgements thanks (alongside John Podhoretz and David French, the man Bill Kristol endorsed for President), his “Talmudic study partner Rabbi Moshe Samuels” (Director of Israel Engagement at Congregation B’nai Jeshurun in New York who “recently served as the Director of Tikkun Olam in Tel Aviv-Jaffa a service-learning Masa program, spearheading the field of Jewish peoplehood and leadership training”).

It’s worth spending some time on this issue, because anyone who talks about ‘Judeo-Christian’ values, let alone makes the term central to his thesis about the decline of the West, needs to be asked some questions. This is not to deny that the term is sometimes used benignly to signify a willingness to work together with those of another Abrahamic faith on genuinely positive social goals. However, use of the term is suggestive of a political agenda which is in some areas far removed from what a well-informed defender of Christendom will see as worthy of support. As Mr Shapiro is continually hailed as an important ‘conservative thinker’, it is worth asking what his version of conservatism omits and what lies behind the terminology he promotes.

Judeo-Christian

The term Judeo-Christian has an interesting and varied history. A very early user of the term was Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860) who in his lectures on New Testament theology was concerned to understand how Christianity emerged from the religion of the Old Testament and retained certain features of that ‘particularist’ religion of the ‘chosen people’.[6]https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbkk0mv This section relies on essays from this illuminating collection unless otherwise stated.

For this Protestant German idealist and advocate of higher biblical criticism, the term Judeo-Christianity was a theological term used to distinguish between competing schools of thought following Christ’s founding of the Church. Baur accepted supercessionism, though his further aim was to relegate Catholicism, tainted in his view by Judaism, in favour of a ‘Pauline Christianity’, which he saw as Protestant and uncontaminated by the ‘Judeo-Christianity’ of Catholicism.

This Hegelian approach to religious questions was to have an influence on major political question through Baur’s students at the Tubingen school. In Baur’s hands, the term had a negative meaning and, while it took seriously the Jewish/Hebraic roots of Christianity (especially in terms of a firm monotheism among faithful Hebrews), it in no way endorsed the idea that Judaism had not been superseded by Christianity. Baur’s view sounds odd today, for while Catholicism recognises its continuity with the religion of the Old Testament and the sacrifices of the Temple which would ultimately be fulfilled in Christ’s sacrifice and the Mass which re-presents that event, it has also historically regarded the post-Christ and post-Temple religion of Judaism, as formulated through the Talmud and rabbinic schools, as an enemy of Christianity and a locus of attraction for heretical ‘protesting’ sects.

Baur’s concerns were primarily theological, but at about the same time in France, the term Judeo-Christian took on a political meaning. Joel Sebban has emphasised the way in which the term arose following the French Revolution and Jewish emancipation in 1791. As part of this tradition, the term was taken up much later by Jacques Maritain who sought to build up a liberal Catholic understanding of Judeo-Christianity; this went together with some decidedly heterodox and indeed incoherent ideas of the relationship between Church and State[7]https://muse.jhu.edu/article/635981/summary as well as assigning Judaism a role in salvation history impossible to square with a traditional Catholic understanding.[8]So Maritain can say, for example, “In regard to what touches indirectly on the salvation of the world, [the Jewish people] obeys a calling on which, in my opinion, we should insist above all else and which gives the clue to many an enigma. While the Church is assigned to the work of the supernatural and supratemporal redemption of the world, Israel is assigned, in the order of temporal history and its proper ends, to the work of terrestrial activation of the mass of the world. Though it is not of the world, Israel is there to irritate it, to exasperate it, to move it. As a foreign body, as an activating ferment introduced in the mass, it will not leave the world at rest; it prevents it from sleeping, it teaches the world to be discontented and restless as long as it does not possess God; it stimulates the movement of history.” – a point which Paul Claudel rightly saw as definitely not a ‘Divine Calling’ as Maritain supposed. As one commentator puts it, regarding Claudel’s response, “Claudel found Jewish involvement in modern social unrest completely negative, subversive, and destructive.” https://maritain.nd.edu/ama/Royal/Royal05.pdf It was no coincidence that Maritain ecstatically praised the US Constitution when it came to Church and State relations. His political project was aptly summed up by Aurel Kolnai, a Jewish convert to Catholicism, who wrote of him,

“[Maritain] aims at a compromise, not between the Christian religious position and this or that extra-religious, worldly though naturally justifiable point of view, [but] between the Christian religious position proper, which he espouses whole-heartedly and is eager to make valid, and another position “religious” in nature: that of “temporal” Christendom, Christianity made into the quasi-religion of progressive democracy, Christianity inverted and secularized into the humanistic self-worship of the “person” and of the body politic…What he really has in mind is not an agreement, adjusted to what is attainable according to time and place, between Christ and Caesar, but a synthesis suffused with all the religious afflatus of the soul, between Christ and the idol of modernity: between Christ and His modern caricature; between the true Christ of faith and the substitute Christ of humanism; between Christ and Anti-Christ.”[9]AureL Kolnai, Between Christ and the Idols of Modernity: A Review of Jacques Maritian’s Man and the State collected in Privilege and Liberty and Other Essays in Political Philosophy edited Daniel J. Mahoney (Oxford: Lexington Books 1999) p.176-177.

The seeds of this political trajectory lay, however, much earlier, in the Reformation’s critical interest in the Hebrew Bible and its political implications, which continued through to the Enlightenment. As one scholar puts it,

“In the 16th century, primarily in Protestant milieu, the academic interest in other religions, both Christian and non-Christian, is facilitated by the political campaigns for tolerance and separation between Church and State as well as the search for a prisca theologica (an ur-religion). Evidence of this lineage are two students of John Selden (1584–1654), who wrote many renowned writings on the Hebrew Republic, James Harrington and Thomas Hobbes, both of whom also sought to draw political lessons from the Hebrew scriptures.”[10]https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&...=false

As Sebban demonstrates, the concept of Judeo-Christianity certainly goes beyond the boundaries of theology: a fact which all of the authors who locate its origins in the period between the 17th and 18th century appreciate.

America

The US founders, largely Deists rather than orthodox Christians, did not use the term Judeo-Christian, and in the US, where Shapiro’s primary audience is based, the term Judeo-Christian has gone through a number of transformations, coming to the fore in the 1930s as a way of identifying values or beliefs shared by Jewish and Christian traditions with a common Western religious outlook[11]https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&...=false. Deborah Dash Moore claims that the term “first came into the public lexicon as a symbolic vehicle of liberal Jewish and Christian leaders…looking to signal their contempt for (and provide an alternative to) pro-Fascist sympathizers and anti-Semites in the United States who had mobilized around the term Christian. Specifically, the term Judeo-Christian was intended to include Jews as one of the three “fighting faiths” of democracy. During the war years, as Moore puts it, “this new creed expressed a distinctive and essentially pluralist American religious faith that underpinned American democracy.”[12]https://thesocietypages.org/files/2013/03/One-Multic...ia.pdfThe term may also have been intended to distance the term ‘Jewish’ from its association with Bolshevism at the time.

By the 1950s, we are told, “Historians are confidently able to identify the precise day, nay, the precise hour, the term “Judeo-Christian tradition” achieved its vaunted victory over the term, “Christian tradition.” It was December 22, 1952, around noontime. On that hour of that day, then President-elect Dwight David Eisenhower made the following remark in the course of a speech: “[O]ur Government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply-felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us, of course, it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that [teaches] all men are created equal.”[13]https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&...=false On the eve of his first inauguration, Eisenhower thus stated clearly: our religion, our deeply-felt religious faith is “the Judeo-Christian concept.” In other words, according to Eisenhower, when the Declaration of Independence of the United States proclaimed that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” it did not allude to the Christian tradition, but to the Judeo-Christian tradition.”[14]https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&...=false

During this decade, Moore points out that “one of the distinctive contributions of the Judeo-Christian advocates to the American religious-democratic worldview was their embrace of Jewish difference as a constitutive component of American pluralism…Judaism was for the first time claimed as an identity with cultural integrity and value of its own rather than a mere by-product of historical oppression.”[15]https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&...=false

Public intellectuals such as Arthur Cohen, while dismissing talk of a ‘Judeo-Christian tradition’ as a myth, at the same time called for co-operation and collaboration between Jews and Christians and for “an identification of common enemies, an abandonment of millennial antagonisms in the face of threats which do not discriminate between Judaism and Christianity; and these threats, the whole of the Triple Revolution—automation, the population explosion, nuclear warfare—these are the threats which evoke the formation of the myth.”

By the 1960s the term was utilized by Martin Luther King Jr as a way of defending his campaign for racial equality and the civil rights movement more generally.

By the 1980s and onwards, a survey of the term’s usage concluded that “Judeo-Christian was used in far more conventionally, culturally conservative ways than when it first entered the public lexicon in the middle of the century. The point here is not just that the term tended to be deployed more often by conservative commentators or associated with conservative positions on social issues; rather (or, perhaps, in addition), it is that the idea of Judeo-Christian tradition assumed the role of designating the mainstream cultural core of the nation for authors and commentators of all moral and political persuasions.”[16]https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&...=false

Shapiro stands clearly alongside Dennis Prager in the tradition which identifies the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ with ‘the West’ and sees the US as the great achievement of the West, as distinguished from an increasingly secularised Europe. As one scholar sums up the views of Prager and others, it is the

“…United States, where the civil religion is considered to be Judeo-Christian because references to a Judeo-Christian foundation are part of the imaginary of the nation’s foundation. An example of this Judeo-Christian imaginary is the design of the Great Seal of the United State proposed by Benjamin Franklin: “Pharaoh sitting in an open chariot, a crown on his head and a sword in his hand passing thro’ the divided waters of the Red sea [sic] in pursuit of the Israelites: rays from a pillar of fire in the cloud, expressive of the divine presence, … and command, reaching to Moses who stands on the shore and, extending his hand over the sea, causes it to over whelm Pharoah [sic]”. Early Americans considered their flight from Europe as a new exodus and America as the new Promised Land, separated, according to Jefferson from the tyrannies and corruptions of the continent they left. Judeo-Christian values distinguish America from all other countries, Dennis Prager states. The Christians who founded America considered themselves heirs to the Hebrew Bible as much as to the New Testament. Americans identify with the Jews’ chosenness. “It is a belief that America must answer morally to this God, not to the mortal, usually venal, governments of the world.” If one day America will not be Judeo-Christian anymore, it will become secular and amoral like Europe, Prager warns.”[17]https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&...=false

Shapiro is, of course, one of the stars of Prager University, which promotes his videos and showers him with praise.

Both Prager and Shapiro use the term Judeo-Christian in a highly politicised sense, with Prager telling us a few years back,

“This sense of mission is why more Americans have died for the liberty of others than any other nation’s soldiers.

It is why those who today most identify with the Judeo-Christian essence of America are more likely to believe in the moral worthiness of dying to liberate countries — not only Europe, but Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. That is why America stands alone in protecting two little countries threatened with extinction, Israel and Taiwan. That is why conservative Americans are more likely to believe in American exceptionalism — in not seeking, as President Bush put it, a “permission slip” from the United Nations, let alone from Europe.”[18]https://www.dennisprager.com/what-does-judeo-christi...-mean/

Since 9/11, the term Judeo-Christian has increasingly been used to distinguish the ‘Judeo-Christian West’ from Islam and feed into the idea of a clash of civilizations. Such ideas, of course, deliberately ignore the plight of, for example, Palestinian Christians, whose leaders sign declarations against US supporters of Israel who seek to use the persecution of Christians to advance a defence of Israel in terms of the above ideas.[19]https://www.globalministries.org/palestinian_church_...4_1336 These Christians tell us,

“Your attempt to blame the difficult reality that Palestinian Christians face on Palestinian Muslims is a shameful manipulation of the facts intended to mask the damage that Israel has done to our community…we Palestinian Christians declare that “the Israeli occupation of Palestinian land is a sin against God and humanity because it deprives Palestinians of their basic human rights, bestowed by God. The Israeli occupation is the primary reason why so many members of the oldest Christian communities in the world have left the holy land, Palestine.”[20]https://www.globalministries.org/palestinian_church_...4_1336

What is true of Palestinian Christians is also true of the numerous Christians impacted by US foreign policy in the Middle East and elsewhere, not to mention Jewish populations which also suffer from such reckless policies.

Judaism

Blessed Cardinal Newman noticed, in the 19th Century, how Judaism in the fourth century was a force which naturally sought to undermine Christian orthodoxy and ally itself with heretical sects, something which has carried on throughout history in relation to the Catholic Church (as can be seen in the work of Rabbi Louis Israel Newman).

Writing about the Arians of the Fourth Century Cardinal Newman was to observe

It is […] a question, whether the mere performance of the rites of the Law, of which Christ came as anti-type and repealer, has not a tendency to withdraw the mind from the contemplation of the more glorious and real images of the Gospel; so that the Christians of Antioch would diminish their reverence towards the true Saviour of man, in proportion as they trusted to the media of worship provided for a time by the Mosaic ritual. It is this consideration which accounts for the energy with which the great Apostle combats the adoption of the Jewish ordinances by the Christians of Galatia, and which might seem excessive, till vindicated by events subsequent to his own day. In the Epistle addressed to them, the Judaizers are described as men labouring under an irrational fascination, fallen from grace, and self-excluded from the Christian privileges; when in appearance they were but using, what on the one hand might be called mere external forms, and on the other, had actually been delivered to the Jews on Divine authority. Some light is thrown upon the subject by the Epistle to the Hebrews, in which it is implied throughout, that the Jewish rites, after their Antitype was come, did but conceal from the eye of faith His divinity, sovereignty, and all-sufficiency. If we turn to the history of the Church, we seem to see the evils in actual existence, which the Apostle anticipated in prophecy; that is, we see, that in the obsolete furniture of the Jewish ceremonial, there was in fact retained the pestilence of Jewish unbelief, tending (whether directly or not, at least eventually) to introduce fundamental error respecting the Person of Christ.”

It is a warning to be heeded, even today. St Paul, after all, had centuries before identified those Jews who rejected Christ with the sons of Hagar in the following passage from Galatians 4:

21 Tell me, you who desire to be under law, do you not hear the law?22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave and one by a free woman.23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, the son of the free woman through promise.24 Now this is an allegory: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.27 For it is written,

“Rejoice, O barren one that dost not bear;
break forth and shout, thou who art not in travail;
for the desolate hath more children
than she who hath a husband.”

28 Now we, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise.29 But as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so it is now.30 But what does the scripture say? “Cast out the slave and her son; for the son of the slave shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.”31 So, brethren, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.”

(Galatians 4: 21-28)

The promises made to Abraham and the patriarchs who followed are now seen as finding their fulfilment through those who demonstrate the faith of Abraham and follow Jesus Christ, – these are the true children of Abraham and Sarah. Jews who reject Jesus Christ are outside the covenant of grace and are to be regarded as children of Hagar (though as Paul makes plain, only too welcome at any time to be ‘grafted back’ into the spiritual children of Israel).

The theological absurdities of Christian Zionism, which relies on huge distortions of the biblical texts, are familiar to readers of Robert Sungenis in these pages and are well-documented by Stephen Sizer. These need little elaboration here, but contribute in the minds of many to the confusions surrounding the whole notion of ‘Judeo-Christianity’.

Who is Ben Shapiro?

Ben Shapiro is a media personality created by a Hollywood producer[21]https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/how-hollywoo...hapiro who has risen rapidly through associations with Breitbart, David Horowitz’s Freedom Centre and the Shillman Foundation, among others. The latter is funded by the “ultra-Zionist” tech mogul Robert Shillman, a board member of the ‘Friends of the Israel Defence Forces’ which in turn bankrolls the likes of Horowitz to spread fear of Islamo-fascism far and wide, and promote military interventions in line with what they perceive to be Israel’s interests, as well as persecuting academics insufficiently respectful of Israeli policy, while claiming to be champions of free-speech.[22]https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/04/11/david-horowi...jects/ This can coexist with the promotion of ‘conservative’ ideas insofar as these do not conflict with a neoconservative agenda – so quaint ideas like a just-war theory to which more than lip-service must be paid, defence of a confessional state, critiques of usury and contraception etc. tend to be excluded, while opposition to abortion is broadly supported. It is a little difficult to describe the agenda as neoconservative, despite the origins of the term, because Ben Shapiro seems clear that to use the term ‘neoconservative’ at all is to be guilty of an anti-Semitic slur.[23]https://www.salon.com/2015/12/16/patton_oswalt_glori...itism/

One has to admire the skills of publicists in transforming Shapiro into some kind of expert debater, concerned with ‘objective facts’ and valid arguments. Shapiro’s frequent incompetence in simple matters of logic has been well documented[24]See e.g. https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-k...sopher and Ben Burgis’s book https://www.amazon.com/Give-Them-Argument-Logic-Left...042100 but, like other low-level sophists such as Sam Harris[25]https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/being-mr-reasonable and Stefan Molyneux[26]https://mises.org/library/molyneux-problem, he is mistaken by his philosophically naïve audiences for a bona fide philosopher whose reasoning is impeccable.

Nor does he do much better with ‘facts’: even when he is right to call out some of the absurdities of gender theory, for example, his understanding of the subject is so lazy and ill-informed that he makes basic errors in setting out the positions of those he opposes, as well as confronting people in an unpleasant way. Indeed Shapiro’s entire approach to ‘reason’ is decidedly smelly. One reviewer of his book noted the following words of Shapiro as characteristic of his approach, when it comes to “unreasonable people”:

“Reason, in fact, is insulting. Reason suggests that one person can know better than another, that one person’s perspective can be more correct than someone else’s. Reason is intolerant. Reason demands standards. Better to destroy reason than abide by its dictates.”

The reviewer notes: “These are not the words of someone committed to reason out of a passionate love for the truth, as Plato would wish, nor out of a commitment to human excellence, as Aristotle encourages. Reason, for Shapiro, seems to be nothing more than an instrument for domination, an arena for reassuring himself and others that he is better and worthier than they.”[27]https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/06/the-west-acco...hapiro Hence all the titles of articles with Ben “destroying” other people in arguments and books about how to “destroy leftists”.

Having achieved a prominent position and a large audience, Shapiro was ready to transform himself into a serious thinker with this new book. Unfortunately, as part of the book’s promotion, he was interviewed by the BBC’s Andrew Neil. Neil tactlessly brought up the fact that, given that the book was supposed to be about elevating discourse and advancing the cause of civilisation, these aspirations were in some tension with Shapiro’s history of making incendiary statements such as “Israelis like to build. Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage.” When challenged, Shapiro reacted by claiming he had disowned his youthful statement, only to be reminded by Neil that he had simply re-applied it to the Palestinian people in general – a group he has also in the past called to be ethnically cleansed in the past (something ordinary Germans have deserved too).[28]https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/11/paul-gottfried/b...sting/ It seems that Ben can be quite ‘collectivist’ when it suits.

Interestingly, when Neil then asked Shapiro precisely what he meant by Judeo-Christian values, Shapiro decided that he had had enough and walked out of the interview, having first denounced the somewhat neoconservative interviewer as a “leftist”.[29]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

Aspirations

Shapiro’s book does appear to aim for something more elevated than this. He rightly reminds readers early on that we are all made in God’s image and that this truth, presented in the book of Genesis, is profound and has consequences. By page 17 he warms to his theme:

“The fusion of Athens and Jerusalem, tempered by the wit and wisdom of the Founding Fathers, led to the creation of a civilization of unparalleled freedom and replete with virtuous men and women striving to better themselves and the society around them. But we are losing that civilization”.

Shapiro later tells us that, “The Light that allegedly shone at Sinai incontestably illuminated the world”, dating the appearance of this light at approximately 131 BCE (Christ has been replaced to ‘Common Era’ in this text – there was a time when non-Christians still used BC and AD). This should be no surprise as Ben Shapiro not so long ago told Joe Rogan that “Jesus was a Jew who tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and got killed for his trouble, just like a lot of other Jews at that time who were crucified…” (sic).[30]Christ has been replaced by ‘Common Era’ in this text – although there was a time when non-Christians also were content to use BC and AD. More worryingly though perhaps not so surprisingly, Shapiro not so long ago told Joe Rogan that “Jesus was a Jew who tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and got killed for his trouble, just like a lot of other Jews at that time who were crucified…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2D_iyY4DGc Shapiro does not say who it was who called for His death and why, but merely reduces Christ to the level of a Jewish revolutionary. He does not say who it was who called for His death and why, but merely reduces Christ to the level of a Jewish revolutionary.

Shapiro sums up Judaism as follows: “First, Judaism claimed that God was unified, that a master plan stood behind everything. Second, Judaism stated that human beings were held to particular behavioural standards for moral, not utilitarian reasons – we were ordered to be moral at the behest of a higher power, even if God’s rules could benefit us in this life. Third, Judaism claimed that history progressed: that revelation was the beginning, but it was not the end, that man had a responsibility to pursue god and bring about a redemption of mankind, and that God could use a particular example – a chosen people – to act as a light unto nations. Finally, Judaism claimed that God had endowed man with choice, that men were responsible for their choices and that our choices mattered.”[31](p20-21)

But Shapiro’s description of Judaism makes no mention of Original Sin or man’s need for a Saviour. Indeed, Original Sin, as understood by Catholics, for example, has no place in the Judaism to which Shapiro adheres. Shapiro appears to concur fully with Melanie Phillips’ views expressed in her book The World Turned Upside Down which similarly attempted to put Christianity in the service of a neoconservative agenda.[32]https://www.amazon.com/World-Turned-Upside-Down-Glob...r=8-13 The review in Culture Wars by Israel Shamir is reproduced here: https://www.unz.com/ishamir/a-poison-cake/ Phillips told us, years ago, that:

“If the neo-cons aren’t really conservative, they differ even more strikingly from their Christian co-counter revolutionaries. For the neo-con view of the world is a demonstrably Jewish view. Christians see man as a fallen being, inherently sinful. The neo-cons have the Jewish view that mankind has a capacity for good or ill. Christians believe humanity is redeemed through Christ on the cross; the neo-con approach is founded on the belief that individuals have to redeem themselves. Christians believe in transforming fallen humanity through a series of mystical beliefs and events. Neo-cons believe in taking the world as it is, but encouraging the good and discouraging the bad. It is this impulse to tikkun olam or repair of the world, this belief that the world must not be allowed to fester but can be persuaded to change for the better, that gives the neo-cons the optimism that so distresses old-style paleoconservatives when the principles are applied to world affairs. For it was the neo-con belief that good can prevail over evil, that pre-emptive strikes against rogue states are justified and that regime change into democracy can transform a terrorist state into a model world citizen, that lay behind the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.”[33]http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Squeamishness.htm#_edn32

As with Phillips, the notion of Original Sin, man’s fallen nature, the need for Divine Grace, and Redemption through joining oneself sacramentally to the Suffering Servant who is God are absent from Shapiro’s worldview. Shapiro glosses over the differences between Judaism and Christianity in his claim that:

“Christianity took the messages of Judaism and broadened them: it focused more heavily on grace, and successfully spread the fundamental principles of Judaism, as emended by Christianity, to billions of human beings across the planet.”[34](p21)

However, Shapiro is clear on the importance of monotheism versus polytheism and on the importance of the former for philosophical progress to be made. He is also clear on the notion that there is progress in history. As he puts it,

“The Bible immediately sets God in the context of a time-bound history: God exists outside of time, but He is intimately involved in creating progress…When God intervenes in the world, it is to better the lot of mankind, or to teach lessons. God inserts Himself in history by preserving Noah and his family; He restrains himself from stopping history ever again by destroying His creatures, no matter their choices. God manifest Himself to Abraham to send the first monotheist on a journey to a place Abraham doesn’t know – and God then makes a covenant with Abraham to build him up into a great and mighty nation, connected with a particular parcel of land: Israel. God chooses Abraham. He chooses Isaac. He chooses Jacob. And He chooses the people of Israel to act as exemplars of morality across history – to spread His word, with Moses as His prophet.”[35](p29)

What this does not address is what happens to the role of creating progress in history if the Messiah who (Christians believe) came in history was rejected by the very group he came to. What happens if such beliefs are wrenched away from a teleology which finds their meaning and fulfilment in Christ? Cardinal Newman explores these issues in his Grammar of Assent in the following way:

“Such was the categorical prophecy, literal and unequivocal in its wording, direct and simple in its scope. One man, born of the chosen tribe, was the destined minister of blessing to the whole world; and the race, as represented by that tribe, was to lose its old self in gaining a new self in Him. Its destiny was sealed upon it in its beginning. An expectation was the measure of its life. It was created for a great end, and in that end it had its ending. Such were the initial communications made to the chosen people, and there they stopped;—as if the outline of promise, so sharply cut, had to be effectually imprinted on their minds, before more knowledge was given to them; as if, by the long interval of years which passed before the more varied prophecies in type and figure, after the manner of the East, were added, the original notices might stand out in the sight of all in their severe explicitness, as archetypal truths, and guides in interpreting whatever else was obscure in its wording or complex in its direction.

And in the second place it is quite clear that the Jews did thus understand their prophecies, and did expect their great Ruler, in the very age in which our Lord came, and in which they, on the other hand, were destroyed, losing their old self without gaining their new. Heathen historians shall speak for the fact. “A persuasion had possession of most of them,” says Tacitus, speaking of their resistance to the Romans, “that it was contained in the ancient books of the priests, that at that very time the East should prevail, and that men who issued from Judea should obtain the empire. The common people, as is the way with human cupidity, having once interpreted in their own favour this grand destiny, were not even by their reverses brought round to the truth of facts.””

Without recognising these truths, Shapiro’s true statements about monotheism and progress become dangerous, for that which is promised in the Old Testament is distorted and becomes a toxic messianism cut off from its natural trajectory, something no longer living in any healthy way but rather in rebellion against its great fulfilment.

Athens

Shapiro, borrowing from Leo Strauss, wants to stress that ‘Western Civilisation’ relies not only on ‘Jerusalem’ but also on ‘Athens’ i.e. Greek thought as well as Hebrew Scripture. He proceeds to give us a somewhat breezy summary of Plato and Aristotle and talks of the importance of a teleological view of nature and the need for Logos. It is welcome that he emphasises the importance of teleology – that is, explanation in terms of final causes, ends or goals. He does so, however, in such a cursory manner that important distinctions are left largely unexamined – for example, the distinction between how such causes operate in natural processes in themselves as compared to through rational agency. (How, for example, is efficient causation supposed to relate to final causation, and is final causation to be understood as purposiveness not merely in relation to orientation toward a goal, but as importantly motivating that direction to the goal in terms of ‘goodness’ as perfective?)

While it would be unfair to expect a philosophical treatise from Shapiro, the reader of this section never gets a sense of the depth of Greek thought either metaphysically or ethically. Shapiro, as one reviewer has noted, tends to lump together Plato, Aristotle and on occasion the Stoics, when delineating their differences would have allowed for a deeper consideration of their contributions to philosophy and a profounder sense of what was happening when Enlightenment thinkers moved away from teleological notions and the idea of agents being motivated by the reality of objective goods and normative features of the world.

Shapiro goes on to praise Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, but then rather undermines his good work by statements such as, “But Christianity, like all religions, focuses on the spiritual to the exclusion of the physical”.[36](p71) It is hard to think that anyone reading Aquinas could speak in such terms, so resolutely ‘physical’ is his metaphysics and ethics – hardly surprising given his Catholic belief in the Incarnation and the Transubstantiation. Few thinkers in history take the ‘physical’ as seriously as Aquinas. (That said, the history of the Catholic Church more generally might be seen as a refusal to get caught into a battle between the ‘spiritual’ and ‘material’, stressing instead the difference between the Uncreated and the Created in a way which honours both.)

Shapiro goes on to say “When it comes to communal capacity…the dominance of the Catholic Church provided a stumbling block. Neither Augustine nor Aquinas would have contemplated a separation between church and state in any real sense.”[37](p71)

This should come as no surprise to someone who can write,

“The founding ideology was the basis for the greatest experiment in human progress and liberty ever devised by the mind of man. But then again, it was an idea developed through Judeo-Christian principles and Greek rationality, molded and shaped over time by circumstance, purified in the flame of conflict. It was the best that men have done, and the best that men will do in setting a philosophic framework for human happiness.”[38](p90-91).

This startlingly Whiggish view, which sees the founding ideology of the US as the pinnacle of human achievement fits well with the views of the founders and the messianic zeal which motivated some. Those rejecting the Light of the World may still believe that a particular Nation may remain a Light to the World, though there is a price to pay for such hubris.

Some of the Founders whom Shapiro so admires were quite clear in their hubristic aims.

As historian Perry Anderson has pointed out, “The United States was unique among nations, yet at the same time a lodestar for the world: an order at once historically unexampled and ultimately a compelling example to all. These were the convictions of the Founders. The radiance of the nation would be in the first instance territorial, within the Western hemisphere. As Jefferson put it to Monroe in 1801: ‘However our present interests may restrain us within our limits, it is impossible not to look forward to distant times, when our multiplication will expand it beyond those limits, and cover the whole northern, if not the southern continent, with people speaking the same language, governed in similar forms, and by similar laws’. But in the last instance, that radiance would be more than territorial: it would be moral and political. In Adams’s words to Jefferson in 1813: ‘Our pure, virtuous, public spirited, federative republic will last forever, govern the globe and introduce the perfection of man’. Towards mid-century, the two registers fused into the famous slogan of an associate of Jackson: ‘the right of our manifest destiny to overspread and possess the whole continent that providence has given us for the great experiment of liberty and federated self-government’. For a land ‘vigorous and fresh from the hand of God’ had a ‘blessed mission to the nations of the world’. Who could doubt ‘the far-reaching, the boundless future will be the era of American greatness’? The annexation of half the surface of Mexico followed in short order. Once the current boundaries of the United States were largely reached, the same sense of the future took more commercial than territorial form, looking west rather than south.”[39]https://newleftreview.org/issues/II83/articles/perry...perium

While Shapiro is rightly critical of aspects of the Enlightenment, especially its atheist and anti-teleological turns, he nevertheless bows down before John Locke, seeing him as an influence on the Founding Fathers and as someone who would shape “the foundations of the free market enterprise”, a viewpoint which would be deeply influential “in the formulation of the greatest economy in the history of mankind.”[40](p86-87).

What he does not seem concerned about is his hero Locke’s endorsement of rational individualism (otherwise known as ‘liberalism’) in which the world is seen as made up of autonomous units, with political philosophy given the task of devising a means to contain these units without altering their essence. By painting the ‘family’ in individualised terms, introducing the concept of contractual marriage and divorce, even hinting that the continuation of the family is problematic when children come of age, Locke is in fact a dangerous underminer of moral polity – even before we get to his dangerous definition of ‘personhood’ based on ‘capacities’ rather than on the inherent dignity of the human being.

Locke, of course, has no time for Original Sin, and, importantly, made the case (alongside Spinoza and various Deists) for religious toleration and the disestablishment of state religion. Into a disenchanted post-Hobbes word, Locke and others saw the chance to build a liberal democracy and to liberalise Christian churches, getting them to respect a strict separation of church and state. Indeed Locke, in The Reasonableness of Christianity had sought to emphasize the moral message of Christianity without conflict about doctrinal matters. Such an approach neutralizes Christianity, gradually making it a mere pauper looking for a modicum of accommodation from a State now guided by hostile forces – the working-out of Original Sin for those with eyes to see.

Such thinking contradicts the teaching of Pope Leo XIII which proposes that the Church stands as soul to the state of the body, united to form a single Christian community just as the union of soul and body forms a single person …Because the spiritual good served by the Church is a good of the whole soul-body union, but higher than that served by the state, the state, when Christian and ruled by the baptized, must be prepared to support the Church in spiritual matters, lending its coercive power to the Church, acting as the Church’s agent and on her authority – just as in deliberate human actions that serve the intellectual purposes of the soul, the body operates at the direction of the soul.”[41]https://www.academia.edu/32742609/Dignitatis_Humanae...o_XIII

For Pope Leo, the state should recognize the truth of the Catholic faith, for the state is governed, just as much as individuals are, by a duty, under natural law, to worship God in whatever way he directs and reveals.

For followers of the Americanist ‘Judeo-Christian’ religion this must seem anathema. And yet, the manifold problems Shapiro refers to in the latter half of the book – the evils of abortion, transgender ideology, moral nihilism, post-modernism, racism (and we might add, those of usury, reckless wars and militarism, neoconservatism, Israeli racism) are allowed to flourish precisely because the State, wrenched away from its natural position in relation to the Catholic Church founded by the Messiah Shapiro rejects, becomes, gradually or not so gradually, a locus for anti-Christ. Whether through Maritianian liberalism, the Lockean version, or what Shapiro admires in the US foundation, the results end up the same. When the Catholic Church is weak, the State is not going to uphold the Natural Law if separated from its soul.

The problem is particularly acute for Shapiro when he rightly rails against certain false philosophies. He denounces the Frankfurt school (“a group of German scholars”[42]p189) and its deeply subversive philosophy, but entirely ignores the Jewish roots of that particular subversion. He denounces racism yet is an uncritical supporter of Israel and is happy to defend the crimes of that state. This is a particular problem because his religious Zionism, furiously adhered to, refers to a deep transgression which is given ‘religious’ justification.

As the Israeli writer Yoav Rinon put it,

“viewing the founding of the State of Israel as a realization of the messianic implied a transgression of the boundary separating the metaphysical from the physical and, even more perniciously, attributed a positive value to this act. Both of these were potentially explosive from the outset, as each cultivated and nourished the other: The positive value ascribed to transgression relies on religious justification, and the religious-messianic component accrues strength and influence the more it is realized by means of acts of transgression of the boundary separating the metaphysical from the physical.”[43]https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZIN...338787

Shapiro is very much caught up in such messianic zeal and has proved to be an asset for neoconservatives in the current administration. Although he is right to decry some of the things he does, he is doing so in a cause based upon transgression and duping confused Christians into thinking that he is an ally across the board when it comes to Christendom. Ultimately, he throws his hat in with those who undermine Christianity – not in the way the Frankfurt School aimed to do, or as the ‘leftists’ he so often denounces, but as someone who seeks to displace Christ from any political order and replace Him with a false ‘Judeo-Christian’ model which is nothing more than cover for an essentially Jewish conception of America and Israel as a Light to the Nations.

Bishop Robert Barron when he spoke recently to Shapiro neglected to propose to him courteously the way out of this morass which is baptism and conversion. Could Shapiro transcend his post-Temple Jewish roots and look with a critical eye on the transgressions he has so far defended so insistently? Let us hope so. And while we are at it, let us hope that the Catholic Church will always care enough about Jews like Shapiro to seek to convert them, helping them overcome the many obstacles in their way for which they are certainly not alone responsible.

Notes

[1] https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1117867417831477248

[2] https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-ben-shapiro-glorifies-judeo-christian-values-and-absolves-its-anti-semitism-1.7138947

[3] https://www.timesofisrael.com/radical-rabbi-says-notre-dame-fire-retribution-for-13th-century-talmud-burning/

[4] https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8383.html

[5] https://www.academia.edu/37618749/Israel_Jacob_Yuval_Christianity_in_the_Talmud_Parallelomania_or_Palallelophobia_in_Franklin_T._Harkins_ed._Transforming_Relations_Essays_on_Jews_and_Christians_Throughout_History_in_Honor_of_Michael_A._Signer_Notre_Dame_University_of_Notre_Dame_Press_2010_50-74

[6] https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvbkk0mv This section relies on essays from this illuminating collection unless otherwise stated.

[7] https://muse.jhu.edu/article/635981/summary

[8] So Maritain can say, for example, “In regard to what touches indirectly on the salvation of the world, [the Jewish people] obeys a calling on which, in my opinion, we should insist above all else and which gives the clue to many an enigma. While the Church is assigned to the work of the supernatural and supratemporal redemption of the world, Israel is assigned, in the order of temporal history and its proper ends, to the work of terrestrial activation of the mass of the world. Though it is not of the world, Israel is there to irritate it, to exasperate it, to move it. As a foreign body, as an activating ferment introduced in the mass, it will not leave the world at rest; it prevents it from sleeping, it teaches the world to be discontented and restless as long as it does not possess God; it stimulates the movement of history.” – a point which Paul Claudel rightly saw as definitely not a ‘Divine Calling’ as Maritain supposed. As one commentator puts it, regarding Claudel’s response, “Claudel found Jewish involvement in modern social unrest completely negative, subversive, and destructive.” https://maritain.nd.edu/ama/Royal/Royal05.pdf

[9] AureL Kolnai, Between Christ and the Idols of Modernity: A Review of Jacques Maritian’s Man and the State collected in Privilege and Liberty and Other Essays in Political Philosophy edited Daniel J. Mahoney (Oxford: Lexington Books 1999) p.176-177.

[10] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=IS+there+a+Judeo-Christian+tradition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnz5Xz7P3lAhVlqnEKHet4A_EQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=IS%20there%20a%20Judeo-Christian%20tradition&f=false

[11] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=IS+there+a+Judeo-Christian+tradition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnz5Xz7P3lAhVlqnEKHet4A_EQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=IS%20there%20a%20Judeo-Christian%20tradition&f=false

[12] https://thesocietypages.org/files/2013/03/One-Multicultural-Nation-Under-God-Changing-Uses-and-Meanings-of-the-Term-Judeo-Christian-in-the-American-Media.pdf

[13] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=IS+there+a+Judeo-Christian+tradition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnz5Xz7P3lAhVlqnEKHet4A_EQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=IS%20there%20a%20Judeo-Christian%20tradition&f=false

[14] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=IS+there+a+Judeo-Christian+tradition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnz5Xz7P3lAhVlqnEKHet4A_EQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=IS%20there%20a%20Judeo-Christian%20tradition&f=false

[15] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=IS+there+a+Judeo-Christian+tradition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnz5Xz7P3lAhVlqnEKHet4A_EQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=IS%20there%20a%20Judeo-Christian%20tradition&f=false

[16] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=IS+there+a+Judeo-Christian+tradition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnz5Xz7P3lAhVlqnEKHet4A_EQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=IS%20there%20a%20Judeo-Christian%20tradition&f=false

[17] https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=d53UCwAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=IS+there+a+Judeo-Christian+tradition&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnz5Xz7P3lAhVlqnEKHet4A_EQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=IS%20there%20a%20Judeo-Christian%20tradition&f=false

[18] https://www.dennisprager.com/what-does-judeo-christian-mean/

[19] https://www.globalministries.org/palestinian_church_leaders_10_10_2014_1336

[20] https://www.globalministries.org/palestinian_church_leaders_10_10_2014_1336

[21] https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/12/how-hollywood-invented-ben-shapiro

[22] https://www.counterpunch.org/2005/04/11/david-horowitz-s-corrosive-projects/

[23] https://www.salon.com/2015/12/16/patton_oswalt_gloriously_smacks_down_ben_shapiros_absurd_cries_of_anti_semitism/

[24] See e.g. https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher and Ben Burgis’s book https://www.amazon.com/Give-Them-Argument-Logic-Left/dp/1789042100

[25] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/10/being-mr-reasonable

[26] https://mises.org/library/molyneux-problem

[27] https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/06/the-west-according-to-ben-shapiro

[28] https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/11/paul-gottfried/ben-can-be-interesting/

[29] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

[30] Christ has been replaced by ‘Common Era’ in this text – although there was a time when non-Christians also were content to use BC and AD. More worryingly though perhaps not so surprisingly, Shapiro not so long ago told Joe Rogan that “Jesus was a Jew who tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and got killed for his trouble, just like a lot of other Jews at that time who were crucified…” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2D_iyY4DGc Shapiro does not say who it was who called for His death and why, but merely reduces Christ to the level of a Jewish revolutionary.

[31] (p20-21)

[32] https://www.amazon.com/World-Turned-Upside-Down-Global-ebook/dp/B0067NCQII/ref=sr_1_13?keywords=World+Turned+Upside+Down&qid=1561983710&s=gateway&sr=8-13 The review in Culture Wars by Israel Shamir is reproduced here: https://www.unz.com/ishamir/a-poison-cake/

[33] http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Squeamishness.htm#_edn32

[34] (p21)

[35] (p29)

[36] (p71)

[37] (p71)

[38] (p90-91).

[39] https://newleftreview.org/issues/II83/articles/perry-anderson-imperium

[40] (p86-87).

[41] https://www.academia.edu/32742609/Dignitatis_Humanae_continuity_after_Leo_XIII

[42] p189

[43] https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.MAGAZINE-neither-israel-s-nor-germany-s-slide-into-fascism-was-accidental-1.7338787

(Republished from Culture Wars by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 288 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. SharkSale says:

    Excellent analysis of so many things wrong with Shapiro. Of course Mr Shapiro has no interest in actually debating any of these points. But it’s very useful to locate him intellectually. Fascinating quote from Perry Anderson.

    • Agree: Ash Williams
  2. Thomm says:

    All these anti-Jewish articles are designed to tickle the grudges of WNs, but nonetheless fail the basic logical test :

    i) If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the combined Western World, able to control everything? The entire premise of White Nationalism fails.
    ii) Jews are not distinguished from other whites by blacks. So Jews face all the same risks from blacks that gentiles face. Somehow, this does not compute in WN ‘logic’.
    iii) Virtually everything that White Nationalists say about Jews is what blacks say about whites. Given the small number of Jews and no prior history of enslavement, the WN claim is even weaker. Claiming oppression and superiority simultaneously is evidence of Dunning-Kruger.
    iv) The Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting, perped by a White Trashionalist, didn’t kill off any billionaires of media executives. The people killed were just everyday, middle class innocents. The fact that some of the White Trashionalists over here thought that shooting was a good thing reveals how illogical their entire premise is.

    Thanks,
    -Mordecai ‘Ira’ Rabinowitz

  3. Shapiro’s sister Abigail is an opera singer with a spectacular set of ginormous Khazar milkers. That’s about all the positives that can be said. Maybe Ben really is delusional?

    • LOL: HammerJack, Gall
    • Replies: @Realist
    , @Damocles
    , @Richard B
  4. anon[838] • Disclaimer says:

    Ben Shapiro would have created a similar phrase : Judeo-Islam ,if he were born in 1200 AD and would have eulogized the hyphenated entity while looking into the Notre Dame cathedral in 1239 .Of course he would have been one of the close contacts of Maimonides in Morrish Spain .

  5. (((Shysters))) like Shapiro feed off the stupidity of Christian Zionists in an unholy feedback loop.

    • Replies: @Realist
  6. Rahan says:

    China, India, and Japan are still pagan.

    Someday this will have to be adressed by the Abrahamists. For now it’s all well and good to be concerned with this “inter-sect” stuff between three monotheistis branches, but sooner or later I’d love to see an intelligent discussion somewhere here, on how to accept for example Buddha or Krishna.

    Or are we going to pretend this stuff isn’t really happening, and three billion people aren’t participating in various folk religion variations of polytheism and ancestor worship?

    And still build computers and super fast trains?

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @anonymous coward
  7. Ben Shapiro is a fake conservative, as is any conservative who continues to support endless wars and endless immigration. We need a new nationalist/patriots party, since the DNC and GOP have basically combined into a uniparty of deep state swamps who want endless wars and endless immigration.

    • Agree: Realist, HammerJack, Dannyboy
    • Replies: @Alfred
    , @Colin Wright
  8. mcohen says:

    What ?

    “helping them overcome the many obstacles in their way for which they are certainly not alone responsible.”

  9. Ghali says:

    The title of the book sounds ridiculous. Shapiro should go to Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya and tell the people there about “reason” and “moral purpose”. What a hypocrite? In reality, violence and exploitations made the West.

    Why Judeo-Christian? Weren’t the Jews who killed Jesus, and for centuries (even today) doing the best to destroy Christianity. In fact, there is no communality between Jews and Christians. No sane Christian wants to be bigoted, corrupt and violent as Jews.

  10. Exile says:

    Judeo-Christianity, Neo-Conservatism and Christian Zionism are dog’s breakfast pseudo-concepts that don’t hold up to any determined scrutiny.

    In the absence of enormous cultural, academic, media and even legal pressure against Noticing whose interests these homonculi serve, they could not exist.

    One BBC interviewer was enough to “destroy” one of their leading “Dark Web Thought Leaders.”

    Not surprising, though. Aristotle or Cicero couldn’t have defended these shabby theo-ideologies, logically or even rhetorically.

    Instead of a Golden Calf, today’s Ashkepaths and their Cucktian fellow travelers are bowing to a golem made of BS.

  11. The Jewish God of the Torah and the Christian God of the Testament of Jesus Christ are not only different Gods, they are diametrically opposed Gods.

    Whatever else Jesus may have or have not said, and whatever other words ‘theologians’ and others may have put in his mouth over the past 2,000 years, there’s no escaping the fact that the Sermon on the Mount–the crux and core of his teachings–is as thoroughgoing a renunciation of Jewish theology as may be imagined.

    Indeed, there have been endless contortions among Christian theologians ever since Nicaea to try and reconcile this House Divided Against Itself. Notably, they cast Marcion aside, branding him forever a heretic, and did their best to erase his work from history. At least the Jews don’t have to reconcile these two antithetical canons. But this raises the question of why they strive to include Jesus among their Tribe. I say it’s for the same reason they try to claim that the Testament of Jesus Christ doesn’t actually contradict the Torah and Tanakh, despite the clear words of the Antitheses.

    Marcion promoted a version of Christianity which was indeed more ‘pure’ and ‘beautiful’–because it was more accurate. More accurate in the sense that it represented the teachings of Jesus Christ in their essence, particularly as transmitted through the Sermon on the Mount, and especially as they renounced the primitive, bloodthirsty, and hate-mongering God of the “Old Testament” Torah/Tanakh/Bible.

    It’s been said many times that the “Judeo-Christian” Bible is a ‘House Divided Against Itself’. Because taken together, the two ‘testaments’ describe two antithetical Gods and promote two antithetical theologies.

    Early Christian Councils, such as that of Nicaea and of Constantinople, were inevitably political as much as religious, with predictable results. It would seem that the revolutionary teachings of Jesus Christ were acceptable only within limits.

    However, Jesus Christ didn’t just renounce Jewish law, he renounced it in the most forceful and definitive terms imaginable. He said– repeatedly–’you have heard the elders (prophets) telling you that, but instead I say this.’ And then went on, point by point, to preach the diametric opposite of Jewish Law.

    Supposedly he framed this within ‘I come not to defy the elders (prophets) but to redeem them’ and if he said that he could have been trying to save his skin (didn’t work!) or retain his audience (sort of worked), or any of a dozen other possible interpretations. But there is NO possible interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount which does not recognise that Jesus is casting aside Jewish theology lock, stock, and barrel. Jesus was a revolutionary, an apostate, and ‘righteous judaism’ indeed spat him out.

    Torah: “you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”(Exod. 21:22-25)

    Jesus: “But I say to you, do not resist one who is evil. Whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone would sue you and take away your coat, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.” (Matthew 5:39)

    It’s possible that many ‘hebraics’ get caught up on this point simply because they cannot understand Jesus Christ’s admonitions. An alternative possibility is that they are simply infuriated by those admonitions.

  12. The very term “Judeo-Christian” is somewhat of a tautology and thus misleading, if not nonsensical. Given Christianity’s judaic roots (the Bible!), there is no need to further emphasize the Jewish element. I suspect the term “Judeo-Christian” has only come in vogue after the Second World War, for reasons that do not need further clarification here.

    As for a useful interpretation of the commercial success of a book (and therefore also Shapiro’s scribbling), I should like to refer to Arthur Schopenhauer.

  13. gotmituns says:

    Christianity has been Judaized by stealth. Jews are not Westerners. Their moral code is extremely fluid, allowing them to choose what they will and won’t do, resulting in them actually not having any morals at all.

    • Replies: @Geowizz
  14. Why does Ben wear a camo beanie (it blends almost unnoticeably with his black hair)?

    Just wondering…

  15. GMC says:

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why this Zionist word was introduced. The Zios hide behind the Jews and the Jews hide behind the Zios. I believe they have Judeo – Christian prayer meetings in the White House at 9 am. And I’m sure everyone is reminded to have their Drone kill lists in by 1400 hrs – too. What’s next – Judeo Peace conference in Gaza ?

  16. “Judeo-Christian” is an euphemism for jewish-masonic, and an oxymoron. Masons have been the self declared enemy of the Catholic church, so they sponsored Protestants in name only, who were usually masons. The EU love “judeo-christian”

    This quote is nowadays often mistranslated, “Judeo-christian” inserted, or just “disaster for the world”, and shortened.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  17. And we are back to the central fact.

    These people have no place in the white men’s countries.

  18. the best way to control the opposition is to lead it. ~ unmentionable russian dude

  19. Ted Heath says:

    Shapiro, just like any other Jew, has his lies that he prefers to justify his corrupt way of thinking. This is how Jews operate. Only people who live a lie can justify Israel, Zionism and the Holocaust myth.

    Christ is nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth. Christ is a fiction created in 325AD at the Nicean conference of Bishops who decided that Jesus, contrary to scripture, was God. Jesus never claimed this. From 325AD Christianity, just like Judaism on which it is modelled, is a political entity using religion to enforce its beliefs on the world.

    The followers of Jesus of Nazareth followed what was termed as ‘The Way’, after his death and resurrection. They looked upon Saul, now known as Paul, as a fraud and usurper. Essentially Paul created the Jewish church of Christ to defraud the gentiles and to betray the Jewish converts to Jesus. Christianity has always been a Jewish construct based upon the ancient Greek Christians from 500BC who studied the divine secrets of the Greek pantheon of pagan gods.

    Christianity is just a slave religion for the goyim. There were, however, as always happens with these Jewish subversive plans, unintended consequences! The Romans adopted Christianity and wrested it from the hands of the Jews, and it evolved in to the insane Protestant variants found in the USA today and the mystically peculiar Orthodox churches…both utterly disconnected from Jesus of Nazareth.

    Shapiro is a typical manipulator of the truth common within the Jewish fraternity. There is no such thing as Judeo-Christianity and Jews have always parasited off the west, taking everything they can without giving anything back, which is why they are so hated.

    According to Israeli government figures, only 2% of Jewish Israeli residents are in fact Semitic, which compares to 85% of the Palestinian population being semites. Consequently it is the Israeli Ashkenazi Jewish converts like Rothschild and Netanyahu who are the real anti-semites. But then Jews, as is shown in the Shapiro scam, lie. This is what they are good at.

    Ted Heath, ex UK PM who lied to his people when asked to by the Rothschilds, just as Churchill did before him, and Johnson is doing today.

  20. SharkSale says:
    @Thomm

    This has nothing whatsoever to do with the article in question.

  21. While liberal democracy can work to undermine Christian hegemony, so can every other system of government. Moreover, the Golden Rule and other ethical teachings of Jesus seem to lead in the direction of political liberty and equality. The centuries when theocracy was the norm were characterized by all sorts of un-Christian behavior such as burning heretics at the stake, religious wars, abuses of clerical power, and subversion of the church by secular elements.

    What Shapiro is promoting seems the best we can hope for: peaceful coexistence and harmony between Christianity and religions with similar ethical norms. No doubt Shapiro’s thought and writing exhibits the same sort of biases as everyone else’s. But he is a sharp, effective debater and advocate for socially conservative views that can point to few other gifted advocates. (Tucker Carlson might be the best, but he’s spread pretty thin. E. Michael Jones is articulate but his theocratic starting assumptions are not shared by many. )

    The big question where Shapiro and his fellow neocons is concerned is how to prevent their fear of anti-Semitism from choking off any train of thought that seems open to the possibility that not everything that is “good for the Jews” is good for the society as a whole. The frequent Jewish policy of “zero tolerance” of criticism or even recognition of a Jewish agenda forces critics either to shut up or proceed with “damn the torpedoes” recklessness. These are not reasonable ‘rules of engagement’ from a Christian point of view since Jewish and Christian goals are not always congruent.

  22. @Thomm

    Just stop with the (((gaslighting))) already.

    Jewish strategy in any situation is like the classic arbitrager, who can make money regardless of whether the market is going up or going down. Study of the Talmud is the training ground for such an approach. Your tribe has been doing this for centuries, and examples abound throughout history. Currently for example, Zionists promote Israeli nationalism in the halls of Congress so that the US will provide mercenary soldiers against Israel’s enemies in the Mideast. Meanwhile, other members of the tribe promote tikkun olam meddling in Western societies in order to quell their nationalistic tendencies and promote globalism. It’s always a two-pronged approach, just like the two horns of your master the Devil.

    See how that works? But of course, you knew already.

  23. mp says:

    In the 4th century, St. John Cassian (of the Orthodox tradition) writes about, “the deception of that Mesopotamian monk, who, having shown great self-control, was then so deluded by demonic dreams and revelations that he reverted to Judaism and circumcision. One night [the demon] showed him the Jewish people surrounded by light and living in joy, while on the other side the Christian people downcast with shame, wasting away with dejection. Such was he deceived.”

    Today, in my area, Christian churches worry about how to make their congregations more inclusive to homosexuals. That is their concern. The idea that modern-day Christians will renounce Jewish influence appears unlikely. Christians have become Jews, for the most part.

    • Replies: @Dr ExCathedra
  24. anon[103] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm

    the west is a mix of

    aryan spirit softened by cristian morals and graeco romans logos

  25. anon[103] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm

    the jewish success can be easily sumarized as


    -relativization they have win a battle in a war over 2000 years .do you think jews sucumbed to their misery and stop beliving in thenself

    -they are an ultratribalistic group like ron unz showed in his essay of american meritocracy of how overepresented they are in all the ivy league universities in proportion to their academic achievements only explainable by
    a well organized minority can easily defeat a individualistic minority , muslims in britain are attaining more and more political and economical power being the majors of a lot of important cities even if they are the worst academical group more or less like jews thank thanks to the colective counciousness that islam infund in them

    -we dont need blacks or jews both are parasites that destroy everything they touch while we built the best nations to life and america in the 60s prior to the jewish takeover is a testament of that like all western europe .
    what do you think was more prosperous stable and fear inducing the 1960s america or the actual one ?

    jews are simply not good for european interest nor for the country as whole either

    • Replies: @anarchyst
  26. This is a very long & very good essay, but it suffers from the usual flaw of such approaches: it is historiosophical. I could write even longer stream of consciousness comment on it, but ….

    1. Christianity way, from the outset, a confluence of a few elements: intra-testamental Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Greek Orphic cults & various Greek currents, including Stoicism & Neoplatonism. Its vocabulary & phraseology is mostly derived from Hebrew (plus some Greek) sources, but Christianity’s “ideology” is a mixture of Zoroastrian ideas of the time, Orphism, Essene Jewish sectarians & whatnot.

    2. among various types of Christianities, the central debate on spiritual anthropology is this: is the divine element in man, Imago Dei, just covered, blurred- or virtually extinguished? Judaism & Islam think that it is just covered, so that the Fall of Man is not a catastrophe, just the origin story; for Christians of various stripes, it is almost extinguished, so the Savior is so crucially important, because we, without him, cannot do much- or anything. For most Christians, human nature is irredeemably corrupt; for Jews & Muslims- not. Of course, we should ignore Christian thinkers who developed their own anthropologies where inner man was incorruptible (see Meister Eckhart’s sermon “On the Noble Man” – https://dailymeditationswithmatthewfox.org/2019/05/30/meister-eckhart-on-the-nobility-inside/)

    3. Locke, Spinoza, Hume, Voltaire, the Founding Fathers … are treated as if they were bad guys. I wouldn’t agree. People were just tired of wars of religion, too many dead & wanted a peaceful prosperous life without religious fanaticism & all the medieval (in the narrow sense of the word) stuff. Their spiritual father was, re sensibility, Michel de Montaigne, a natural man- as opposed to Pascal, who was the true successor of St. Augustine. Times change.

    4. Judeo-Christianity was a term used mostly to accommodate secularized Jews who contributed much to the modern civilization, but were not willing to dump their old religion. So, to appease them..

    5. Ben Shapiro is a faux-conservative ideologue, good with words, but he remains basically a Jewish nationalist who had associated with this type of American “conservatism”. His primary interests are Jewish (which may be understandable), but to treat him as a serious thinker- this is a joke.

    • Agree: Republic
  27. Realist says:
    @Thomm

    If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the combined Western World, able to control everything?

    I am sure this is the only thing we agree on.

  28. Realist says:
    @Sick of Orcs

    Shapiro’s sister Abigail is an opera singer with a spectacular set of ginormous Khazar milkers.

    She looks like Ben with tits.

    • LOL: Gall
    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
    , @VICB3
  29. Walter says:

    A Reform Rabbi once told me that “Judeo-Christian” is a rhetorical term most people had not heard prior to the agitpropaganda of WW2, and that the term was intended to facilitate the acceptance of Jews in America by the nominally Christian population. It was, he said, a social-construct and essentially a deception for political purposes.

    In those days the Rabbi was a zionist. But since we can see the brave zionists shooting, murdering, kids every Friday I wonder if he still feels that way.

    Actually I don’t wonder…I am sure he’s representative of many US Jews, and is disgusted. He too was bamboozeled by the Rhetoric and Propaganda.

    It’s a manifestation of yet another Jewish Civil War. “Two Jews, three opinions” the Rabbi used to say…

  30. anarchyst says:

    Tying Judaism to Christianity was a clever trick used by the jews to “cement” their claim to the “land of Israel” and of the covenant, to which I reply, “God is not a real estate agent”.

    Jews rejected the covenant when they murdered Jesus Christ. Their covenant with God was then “null and void”.

    It is the flawed Schofield translation of the Bible that elevated jews to the status of Christianity’s “elder brothers”, which was then reinforced by the Catholic (flawed) “Vatican II Ecumenical Council” in the 1960s.

    I cringe when I hear well-meaning people talk about out judeo-Christian heritage.
    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    The only common thread between Christianity and judaism is the Ten Commandments, nothing more.

    The god of judaism is a vengeful god, totally unlike the merciful and welcoming God of Christianity.

    Christianity welcomes ALL, regardless of nationality or social status, not true of judaism.

    Judaism is an insular belief system that shuns outsiders, prohibits proselytization, and promotes a form of supremacy, relegating all gentiles (non-jews) to the status of livestock-subhumans with souls, only to be used for the advancement and benefit of jews. In fact, slavery (of goyim) is still condoned and encouraged in the jewish Talmud.

    Jews DID murder Jesus Christ.

    Sad to say, even the present-day (post-Vatican II ecumenical council) Catholic church has bought into absolving the jews for Jesus Christ’s murder. As always is the case, the jews got others, the Romans to do their dirty work for them, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

    How can Christians have the same values as the Jews; the very people who denounced and betrayed the founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, and call for his execution (by others, of course, that is the Jewish way).

    It makes absolutely no sense at all. Jews have no respect for Christianity, for Jesus Christ or Mary, his mother, who are both honored as Prophets in Islam, but instead, Jews spit on hearing their names and do the same while passing a Christian of any kind or a Christian Church in Israel. They have no respect for Christians or any other religion.

    It is time the Jewish lobbies and the American Government leaders as well as the evangelical Christian leaders who mislead the poor American young into joining the military and believing that they are doing something for God and Christianity by fighting Israel’s wars were named, shamed and arrested and tried for treason.

  31. anarchyst says:
    @anon

    The one reason that makes “jews” so successful is that they formulate and enact laws (civil-rights for some) that deny us whites the right to look after our own self-interest while they flout the laws that are imposed on the rest of us.
    THAT, my friends, is a reason for their “success”.

    [MORE]

    A good example of jewish flouting of “civil-rights” laws is the jewish community of Kiryas Joel, New York, among others. If you are not jewish, you cannot buy property there, nor can you send your non-jewish children to the (jews-only) “public” schools, despite so-called “civil-rights” laws enacted to prohibit discrimination in housing and education.
    Not only that, but most of the jews who occupy Kiryas Joel and other “jews only” communities also take advantage of “social services” and “welfare” programs out of proportion to their numbers. Almost every jew in these “jews-only” communities is running some kind of “scam” on the American “social welfare system”.

    You see, “multiculturalism and diversity for thee, but not for me” is the jewish mantra and is the primary way that they destroy cultures and civilizations. Their lack of morality figures heavily into their success. Jews think nothing of screwing over a “goy”; it is just “normal business” for them…

    Jews are the only group that lacks a moral component. Jews are very amoral, think nothing of screwing a “goy” out of money, possessions, or even reputation or life. You see, the jewish talmud elevates the jew above all others, “goyim” being “livestock with souls, created only to serve the jew”.

    This amorality is a critical component in jewish life and is partially responsible for jewish successes. When one does not possess a moral compass that defines and separates “right from wrong” THAT in itself gives the jew greater latitude to “get what he wants” as there are “no limits” on what a jew may do to gain the advantage in just about any situation. The lack of a moral component within jewish life is a major reason for jewish supremacy in civilized societies.

    Let’s not forget the jewish practice of “male genital mutilation”-circumcision.
    Performed on the eighth day of a jewish male’s life, this barbaric practice can be linked to mental illness prevalent in jews in later life.

    The dirty “mohel” that performs the “deed” then proceeds to fellate the baby after the “deed” is done.

    This, in itself is one way to introduce STDs and other nasty diseases from the “mohel” to the infant.

    This could be a reason why so many jews are “twisted”, as many STDs do not manifest symptoms until later in life.

    Attempts to outlaw “male genital mutilation” and the subsequent fellatio of the infant has been met with stern resistance from every jewish group.

    It’s not “smarts” or “IQ” that gives jews an advantage over gentile whites, but is their rabid insistence on cultural and social cohesiveness, insularity and nepotism (but only for themselves) that gives them an “advantage”.

    This same cultural and social cohesiveness that is prized so highly by jewish interests is denied to gentile whites. Jews, to a man will fight to deny this same cultural and social cohesiveness to gentile whites that they themselves enjoy as it is a major part of the jewish purpose–the destruction of gentile white culture, which IS superior to any jewish cultural or social society. If jews did not possess this power, they would most likely be rag merchants, liquor merchants, or furniture merchants–nothing more.

    As I have previously stated, jewish success is based on cultural and social cohesiveness and insularity–NOT “smarts” or “IQ”. Once enough jews get into a position of power in the work world or education systems, they will hire and promote their own, even bypassing more qualified gentile white candidates.
    Jews have latched on to cultural cohesiveness and nepotism, as it serves their purpose exceedingly well.

    At the same time, jews pushed the concept of racial “equality”, (but only for gentile whites), backing it up with “civil-rights” and “equal accommodation” laws which are enforced by governments–but only against whites. These “civil-rights” laws are used as a “battering ram” against gentile whites to diffuse and fragment any semblance of gentile white solidarity and cohesiveness that may arise.

    A great reckoning dealing with the jews is coming. As gentile whites become more marginalized, the accusation of being tagged as “racist” or a “holocaust denier” is rapidly losing its “sting”.

    Increasingly, jews are more wary of being “called out” and recognized as “jews”. One can call a jew a shyster, shylock, bankster, criminal or ne-er-do-well, and it will roll off his back like water off a duck, BUT call a jew a “jew”, and he will recoil in horror, having been “found out”.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @anon
    , @ViewFromOnHigh
    , @Alden
  32. Shapiro is the dirty, back-stabbing Khazar-Jew that betrayed the Visigoth Spaniards and allied with the Moors. He is the infiltrator in the Vatican and the thief in the night.

    At heart, he hates. It is a hate with no logic. It is visceral; imbibed with his mother’s milk. It is the hate that declares:”Anti-semitism is in the European DNA”.
    IOW, it is the hate that lashes out, seeking vindication.

    Shapiru will receive his vindication in this lifetime. The whole time he will weep, gnash his teeth and dream of revenge like a deluded criminal.

    He is the enemy of humanity.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  33. @Bardon Kaldian

    Your point #3 philosophers are all subject to point #2 in that they are flawed human beings and therefore, without Christ, have peddled flawed ideas. Next, many of your own assumptions are flawed. According to the Encyclopedia of Wars (2005), religious wars account for only 7% of all wars throughout history, and Islam accounts for more than half of those. People may get tired of religious wars, but are greatly exaggerating their quantitative aspects throughout history, no doubt for their and your own flawed purposes. And for your point #5, you don’t have to be considered a serious thinker to have a serious impact on ignorant and/or media-drugged, brainwashed people.

    • Agree: utu
  34. @Thomm

    Thanks for showing European Christians your superior intellect. It is awe inspiring.

    Back to the shtetl Khazar. Go sell some untaxed vodka.

  35. The irony of the term “Judeo-Christian” is highlighted by the fact that Christ spent the better part of

    the New Testament ranting about the jews.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  36. Republic says:

    BBC Two – Politics Live, 10/05/2019, Andrew Neil takes on US conservative Ben Shapiro

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p078tgjd

  37. Anonymous[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr McKenna

    Excellent. Thank you.

    The god of the OT is not the same as the god of the NT.

    • Agree: HammerJack
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  38. geokat62 says:

    Christian Zionism, The Tragedy and The Turning, Part I (Full Documentary)

    Excerpts from Vox Populi article, “Judeo-Christian” is anti-Christian

    “Judeo-Christian” is another false construct, not even as old as “the melting pot” or “a nation of immigrants”.

    From Wikipedia:
    History of the term…

    Anyone who is using the term “Judeo-Christian” is referencing, consciously or not, left-wing anti-Christian agitprop. There are no historical “Judeo-Christian” values; to the extent there is overlap they are Christian values.

    Note that “Judeo-Christian” in its post-1940s revisionist usage is a part of the same program as the 1965 Hart-Celler Act. It was adopted specifically to redefine America and destroy the historical fact of America having been founded as a de facto Christian nation.

    It is also worth noting that despite Islam being related to both Christianity and Judaism in precisely the same manner, we do not hear much talk of “Judeo-Islam” or “Islamo-Christianity”, much less take seriously the idea that Americans must defer to Muslims or grant them any special status on those grounds.

    To claim “Judeo-Christian” is nothing more than recognizing Christianity’s roots in the Old Testament is akin to claiming that “Communism” just means people sharing with other members of their community. Moreover, to claim that Christianity is “Judaic” in that sense is to erase the other tribes of Israel; it would be 12 times more accurate to say “Hebreo-Christian”, “Israeli-Christian” or “Jacobite-Christian”.

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/08/judeo-christian-is-anti-christian.html?m=1

    • Agree: Jon Baptist
    • Replies: @anonymous
  39. @jack daniels

    You can’t polish a turd. Even if it was possible, what would you have once you got it to shine?

    • Replies: @Ash Williams
    , @Realist
  40. Yet another excellent article on Mr. Unz incomparable review (apologies to Occidental Observer). This missive from Mr. Thorpe will require at least one additional re-read on my part, as there’s a lot to absorb.

    My only quibble is that Harris and Molyneux while arguably sophistic, at least appear earnest and honest with no agenda than to seek truth. Regrettably the same cannot be said of our favorite “littlest chickenhawk”.

  41. “Christianity is our number one enemy throughout history. [They] tried to convert us by arguments and by force, carried out an inquisition against us, burned the Talmud, expulsions, pogroms. Western anti-Semitism draws from Christianity’s hatred of the ‘murderers of God.’ It also had a role in the Holocaust.”

    -it’s funny that the group that has manipulated and maligned Christians and Christianity trying to destroy them for the past 2,000 years, only to be punished when caught, plays the victim. They’re always the victim. If this is not a case of severe psychological projection, I don’t know what is.

  42. Rahan says:

    I saw a week ago, on the street, a couple where the woman was East Asian, and then man–an obvious (((Fellow White))) with the hair and the schnoz, and their 3-4 year old daughter had her daddy’s curly hair and her mommy’s eyes and cheekbones.

    The interbreeding takeover of Yellowtopia has been unleashed. Soon, soon China will have its own (((fellow Chinese people))) to deal with, I’m thinking.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  43. Realist says:
    @Monotonous Languor

    (((Shysters))) like Shapiro feed off the stupidity of Christian Zionists in an unholy feedback loop.

    Correct. The term Judeo-Christian purports to conflate Judaism with Christianity…this is not the case.
    The use of the word Jew is ambiguous…Sammy Davis Jr. was a black who converted to Judaism and referred to as a Jew…he sure as hell was not an ethnic Jew. A more precise term would be a Judaic black.
    Not all ethnic Jews are judaic, many are atheists. Ethnic Jews, descendents of Abraham, can be broken down into two main sub groups, Ashkenazim and Sephardim…it is complicated.

  44. @Thomm

    i) Whites are not a monolithic group. Most Euro-history is about White guys battling other White guys. Jews, being small in number, don’t have the luxury of factions, and (loose) adherence to religious laws will always be stronger than secular. Similar racial nepotism is found in minority populations everywhere. Whites foolishly teaching English in China likely also band together in similar fashion.

    ii) On the surface it makes no sense that Jews demand open borders everywhere then whinge about ‘rising anti-Semitism’ in Europe. Although the two Semitic religions gave teamed up from time to time, mohammedans don’t view themselves as Jews’ “cousins.” Perhaps wealthy Jews living in guarded European enclaves decided a few Jewish middle class deaths via terrorism was an acceptable trade-off for the chaos mohammedans bring to the West.

    Blacks are by-and large ill-quipped to function in any advanced society, so second-guessing their reactions in any given situation is a fool’s errand. Unless Blacks are told who is Jewish or the stereotypes are blatantly obvious it’s unlikely they would discriminate between Hymie and Henry. Excepting certain opportunists who organized Blacks, most Jews know better than TO RELAX around them.

    iii) Jews do the exact same thing you’re describing, posing as a helpless persecuted minority hated “for no reason” until a real threat (cough*Jesus*cough) to their power comes along. (mohammedans do the same thing, but being dumb have to rely on gullible shitlib apologists to carry their water until their numbers grow.)

    iv) Most Whites did not and do not support massacres of civilians. Unzfolk already know such attacks are moronic and counterproductive as the federal mafia loves any excuse to grow larger and more tyrannical while certain people garner sympathy using all the media outlets they don’t own and control.

    Keep those cards and letters coming. You will never be Zucked or Dorsey’d here.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
    , @anonymous
  45. The zionists/bolsheviks/communists have infiltrated the Christian churches and are destroying the Christian religion, this is what the communist/zionist/bolsheviks do, they wreck and destroy cultures and nations and this is what they are doing in America!

    Read The Protocols of Zion and there is laid out the template for the satanic zionist plan for a satanic zionist NWO. Also read The Controversy of Zion by Douglas Reed, this can be had on amazon.

    The greatest danger to America and American people is zionism, they are destroying America!

    • Agree: Republic, John Wear
    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  46. @jack daniels

    The big question where Shapiro and his fellow neocons is concerned is how to prevent their fear of anti-Semitism from choking off any train of thought that seems open to the possibility that not everything that is “good for the Jews” is good for the society as a whole. The frequent Jewish policy of “zero tolerance” of criticism or even recognition of a Jewish agenda forces critics either to shut up or proceed with “damn the torpedoes” recklessness. These are not reasonable ‘rules of engagement’ from a Christian point of view since Jewish and Christian goals are not always congruent.

    It appears that even the Jews don’t really know what is “good for the Jews”. Their traditional method of promoting and profiting from moral hazard, combined with their relentless ethnocentrism & tikun olam justified pilpul defense of said, inevitably weakens and fragments their host nations.

    A “Brazilified” West simply won’t have the technological and industrial might to be able to sustain an effective military. This will soon result in the US and Europe being degraded to the point where they won’t be able to project power to protect Israel. That’s assuming they will want to, which in the future (given the course of things), is in doubt.

    China is now in Africa, and in a few generations will be on Israel’s doorstep. The Jews should have been more thoughtful and careful in what they wished for…

  47. @Realist

    To each his own. Still, I doubt anyone here would know the two were related if not explicitly told.

    • Agree: Realist
  48. anon[103] • Disclaimer says:
    @anarchyst

    partially agree but its evident that jews are smart but not smart enought to have such totalitarian power in a meritocratical way

  49. @Twodees Partain

    You can absolutely polish a turd.

    As you have correctly surmised, you end up with a shiny turd.

    • LOL: Twodees Partain
  50. Realist says:
    @Twodees Partain

    You can’t polish a turd. Even if it was possible, what would you have once you got it to shine?

    A shiny politician…which is a non sequitur thereby confirming your proposition, that a turd can’t be polished.

    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
  51. @Thomm

    “…If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the combined Western World, able to control everything..?”

    Because they do not operate as an ethnic group but as an ethnic Mafia.
    And why are Mafias so successful? You tell me!

    • Agree: Ilyana_Rozumova
  52. @DESERT FOX

    See trunews.com November 22, 2019, this program addresses the subject perfectly!

  53. There is a large market constituted by people who seek existential and political orientation. There are some people who have a solid intellectual education, who know how to deal with ideas, who are psychologically strong and seek good ideas and information given by good authors. But there are also many people who are weak, naiv or disinformed. This is the reason why this market has attracted a lot of charlatans and even criminals. That’s why there are so many sects directed by leaders who explore their followers based on the most different ideas (a few days ago The Guardian had an article about a yoga guru who has 43 expensive cars). They use whatever instruments they have, some are much more sophisticated than others, some have broader aims than others. Some are political manipulators. I believe that this is the space that Shapiro wants to occupay.

    Why is this necessary? Because some groups of neoconservative have a power over the American politics that is absolutely out of proportions, that is scandalous and that has been used in a reckless way. They dominate to a large extent the direction of politics in the areas that are important to them. This doesn’t happen through an open and honest debate. On the contrary, the lines of accepted discours are kept relatively tightly. You can say everything only if nobody cares about what you say. But otherwise you wont find a newspaper that publishes what you write, you may be fired, you loose your job, you are slandered and so on. Besides such harder methods they also need some softer instruments of conformism to prevent people from asking questions. They have to satisfy the needs of common people trying to get some political or existential orientation. That’s the function of Ben Shapiro. Maybe it’s also similar to what Peterson and Zizek make, although in their case they have also other aims which may be personal aims which may be more important to them (vanity? academic carreer? I don’t know their work so well in order to speak here with some authority). Shapiro directs his message to the public on the right. There must be some other people who do the same work on the left side of politics (there are like Cohen who writes in the Guardian sundays who tells what is a good leftist politics but in fact doesn’t seem to care sincerely about leftist politics, or Michael Walzer who wrote to the more educated public pretending he was a leftist). It’s the same as some people do here in the the forum discussing below the line: to disguise their purpose in order to confuse readers (they don’t succed very well because people can answer them freely).

    What is remarkable is how weak Shapiro’s arguments are (judging by what V. Thorpe say), some times they are crazy or mad. On the other hand, we have to concede that most people may be easily confused by historical-theological arguments which seem to be pronounced with authority. Most people are also badly informed about current politics and many people are not able to distinguish a good from a bad argument, they cannot deal very well with arguments. The result of all this is that they tend to follow the official line or the most common ideas. They become intolerant about any challenge.

    The function of people like Shapiro is to adress a public that has some education but is naive and uninformed about other areas. His purposes are political, even when he speaks about religion, about historical themes, about ethical questions. There is no other purpose than to send a political message which possibly isn’t stated openly but as something that appears “naturally” or merely suggested in the middle of thousends of considerations.

    Some days ago I thought of a concept (which must surely already exist) of the fanatism or extremism of the middle: people who vote for center or conservative parties, or center left parties, people who are quite well educated, people who are more or less reasonable but react in a furious way as soon as you say something that goes beyond their immediate beliefs. The same people who are polite suddenly react agressively, aren’t able to listen to you and become unpolite.

  54. geokat62 says:
    @Thomm

    All these anti-Jewish articles are designed to tickle the grudges of WNs, but nonetheless fail the basic logical test :

    Speaking of logical tests, you fail to recognize that these same questions could have been asked during Germany’s low point (the Weimar Republic years) or Russia’s low point (post Bolshevik revolution years). It is America’s turn to undergo this same unfortunate process. It is now at its low point… how it comes out at the other end is anyone’s guess.

  55. I’m so confused. All the Jewish-written articles in the MSM papers show a “new” solidarity between Jews and Muslims (and gays), as victims of white supremacists. lol

    They’re now pictured together, huddled, crying. They’ll cite some SPLC “hate” numbers on white people being the devil, etc. Weird stuff these days. All I know is I seem to be the devil in every case, whether it’s black refugees huddled and crying, Jews huddled and crying, women huddled and crying, gays huddled and crying. I made them all cry somehow. Oh well.. Still confused though.

  56. anonymous[378] • Disclaimer says:

    Anti-Whites don’t ‘love diversity’, they just hate White people.

    Diversity’ ‘multiculturalism’ mass immigration are ENTIRELY one way: non-White into White.

    Non-White Privilege is Borders.

    Whites are a mere 10% of the global population, yet the ONLY group not entitled to homelands, self preference and preservation.

    This won’t stop until we all end up on Colin Flaherty’s feed: Whites across the globe terrorized, raped, murdered at “random” by “enrichers”.

    If this were happening to a non-White group, it would be called out for what it is: Gen-cide.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @anonymous
  57. The sudden appearance of the term “judeo-christian” on the google n-gram is no coincidence:

  58. @mp

    I suspect you mean St John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, a famous preacher famously unfriendly to The Chosen. Cassian was a monk and less likely to be interested in the doings of bishops anywhere.

    • Replies: @mp
  59. Anonymous[271] • Disclaimer says:
    @Germanicus

    Judeo-Christian, as you point out, is a euphemism for Judeo-Masonic in America. For example, how about the “conservatives” or “Christians” who routinely appear on Fox News to celebrate Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians, who in the former case appear almost drooling for mass incineration of completely innocent Iranians from the cowards’ vantage of 30,ooo feet in the air? American heroes in action, right?

    Claiming this pansy Shapiro is a formidable intellect capable of defending Western Civilization on the one hand, or a formidable opponent on the other, is so preposterous as to be a joke. Even the most brazen NY Jews back down when confronted with facts and sound argument, disappearing up their own arses with that shameless shit-eating grin on their faces. Members of Congress, for example, aren’t men who become lackeys for the Jews because they’re overwhelmed by Jewish pressure after reaching DC, but are lackeys because they were already chosen by Jewish operatives in both parties before any rank and file Dems or Republicans had even heard their names. Does anyone doubt the Mossad’s got the gay or Epstein goods on the DC establishment?

    Judeo-Christian is also a brilliant excuse for lukewarm Christians to avoid confronting Jews over their subversion, hatred, and criminal collusion in every aspect of life. The Catholic Church, if I’m not mistaken, has fairly recently officially apologized to the Jews for the handful of modestly violent uprisings against the Jews despite two millennia of unrelenting Jewish hatred and exploitation. CUFI-ism, as an exemplar of Fox News’ “Judeo-Christian” flummery, is an almost fully Judaized death and adultery cult disguised in the trappings of Christianity. American Christian men of all stripes will be showing their true colors as passive voyeurs watching the white-hating NFL this afternoon and then disgracing Thanksgiving and defiling Christmas by shopping on Black Friday to mock Christ and fatten Jewish coffers. I guess that’s what Judeo-Christian comes down to in practice.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  60. @Sick of Orcs

    muslim terrorism is good for the jews because:

    Terrorism justifies police state controls.

    Terrorism is used to justify attacks on free speech and gun rights.

    muslims usually kill white Christian people.

    Terrorism causes hatred for muslims.

    Terrorism creates sympathy for israel and justifies endless wars for israel.

    • Agree: Colin Wright
    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @anonymous
  61. @Ash Williams

    What has happened 102 times already will happen a 103rd, then a 104th, then a 105th…

    (Does Little Benny think blindness to one’s own gross moral failings is in the DNA?)

  62. @Ted Heath

    Paul writes of essentially the “Cosmic” Christ, perhaps best considered an archetype of what the Creator made as the perfect, Alpha and Omega of mankind. The historic Jesus, that walked the earth, encompassed this Christ-like quality, the quality of the Divine and the sinless. Paul did not write of the Historic Jesus, in any real sense, but instead the Christ of the heavens, and perhaps this was by the LORD’s intention.

    In the end, I believe everyone can walk in “The Way”, of the Historic Jesus, with His Cosmic Christ overtones, even those who only knew of other “gods” or pagan ways, provided they are not contrary to the teachings or practice of the Way. In that sense, I believe Odinsts or Pagans from Latin American tribes or Shinto-ests, etc (however you call them) can practice what Jesus taught, and be judged by their hearts when the day of (their) judgment comes.

  63. geokat62 says:

    Nick Fuentes on “Judeo Christianity”

    • LOL: Paul C.
    • Replies: @anonymous
  64. Mulegino1 says:

    Talmudic Judaism has never built any appreciable culture or civilization, and has none but a superficial continuity with the religious tradition it claims to be the heir to. It is the husk of an already superseded covenant. The religion of the Patriarchs and Prophets continued uninterruptedly with the establishment of the Church. The destruction of the Jerusalem temple marked the end of the Old Testament worship, and was replaced by the worship of the Church. The Church is the new and eternal Israel. There can be no affinity between the Church of Christ and the Synagogue of Satan.

    Judaism’s set of authoritative “holy” books (the Babylonian Talmud) appear to lack any transcendent spirituality and or profound philosophy; they are in all actuality the vade mecum for the nomadic and criminal navigation of goy society under the mistaken presumption of being the chosen.

    As has been pointed out above, the term Judeo-Christian reeks of Deistic Freemasonry, which has become, over the centuries, a shabbos goy front for the advancement of international Jewry.

    Freemasonry- save in its most secular and atheistic incarnations, themselves pernicious in spreading secularism and revolution- is little more than a pseudo-mystical worship of the symbols of Talmudic Jewry and the Kabbalah. English Protestantism and world freemasonry became the two goy instruments for the ascendance of the Jews in Europe and in the New World, perfectly suited for the age of the predominance of the money changers and haute finance.

  65. @anarchyst

    As I mentioned in another comment section, a clever individual from 4chan started a “blue the jew” trend by coloring the the faces of jews blue who are prominent in Hollywood, the news media, the supreme court, on corporate boards, etc, etc. Of course it’s considered extremely anti-semitic by jews. You have to wonder why.

  66. @Thomm

    ‘All these anti-Jewish articles are designed to tickle the grudges of WNs, but nonetheless fail the basic logical test…’

    He’s baaack. It’s always the exact same post, too.

    • Agree: HammerJack
    • LOL: Dannyboy
  67. AaronB says:
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Great comment.

    Despite its protests, Christianity is essentially a dualistic religion, at least in its mainstream version. Evil is genuinely an independent principle or force.

    That is why the history of the Christian West is of going to extremes – now one extreme of the duality, now the other, often in a brilliant and extravagant way. But never, or rarely, integration.

    Judaism shares with the Eastern religions its sense of the essential underlying nobility of man, and that there is only One principle or force underlying everything, and evil is as much a manifestation of this force as good, and this essential Reality is utterly beyond the ability of human concepts to contain.

    Cultures based on these ideas do not achieve the brilliance of dualistic cultures. Instead, they typically demonstrate a pattern of enduring vitality and health with no final decadence in sight, because they always contain within themselves the principle of correction that prevents them from going too far in any direction. They also, typically, achieve a high civilizational level, although not the explosive brilliance of dualistic cultures.

    Dualistic cultures are generally very unhappy – because they cannot accept evil and have no tragic sense, they are at war with life constantly. This makes them restless and unhappy, but also brilliantly creative in their attempts to escape life.

    Non-dualistic cultures, who accept and embrace the whole of life, are generally very happy and with a strong sense of fulfillment even amidst much suffering and calamity. They are perennially cheerful, but do not take the world of reality quite seriously – they know all is One underneath, and true calamity is only apparent.

    In Judaism, there is no real eternal damnation. Errant souls are purified in hell for no more than one year, so they can be worthy to stand before their Creator. Only exceptionally evil souls, extremely rare, are permanently cut off from the light.

    This is far more optimistic than the truly gloomy and terrifying vision of Christianity, where based on this one life, fragile and weak human beings may suffer eternity in torment – and most, in fact, suffer just that fate. This is bound to pervert ones relationship to life and perhaps ameliorate ones innate capacity for cheerfulness. It is a terrifyingly serious view of the world. The stakes are real, and they are incalculably high.

    In addition, in Judaism there is no part of life that is bad and must be renounced – everything can be sanctified if done in the correct way with reverence for the Creator. In Christianity, so much of human life is simply under the ban – as is natural for a dualistic religion.

    This is bound to create frustrated individuals prone to explosive outbursts and extreme attempts to escape their predicament – which can result in tremendous brilliance, or tremendous destructiveness, as indeed we see.

    Whatever dualistic religions produce, it is not defence acceptance and joy in life.

    Of course, as you note with regard to Eckhardt, there is a strain of genuine non-dualism in Christianity as well, that has resulted in a sense of genuine joy and acceptance of life in its totality that is very beautiful, as with the magnificent St Francis of Assisi and many others.

    • Replies: @Bill P
  68. @steinbergfeldwitzcohen

    ‘Shapiro is the dirty, back-stabbing Khazar-Jew that betrayed the Visigoth Spaniards and allied with the Moors.’

    Do you have a source for that?

    • LOL: Twodees Partain
    • Replies: @Seraphim
  69. Dr. X says:
    @Thomm

    If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the combined Western World, able to control everything?

    Great question.

    The answer is that the Jews are ruthless, cunning, clever, amoral and deceitful. They frequently hide their identity as Jews from whites by adopting pseudonyms. Unlike Christians, who have a universal morality and a universal standard of decency, the only morality of the Jew is personal and tribal self-interest.

    Whereas the true Christian would think it immoral to murder another person, the Jew celebrates it; his holiday Purim is the celebration of the Jewess Esther whoring herself to the Persian king, thereby enabling the Jews to murder 75,000 of their enemies. Whereas the Christian believes that infant life is precious and its loss is a tragedy, the Jew celebrates the deaths of the firstborn infants of Egypt on his holiday Passover. Whereas the God of Christianity preaches “love they neighbor,” the god of the Jews instructs them to murder the Amalekites, including their cattle, sheep, women, infants, and suckling babes. The god of the Jews is grievously offended when Saul spares the king of Amalek, and send his prophet Samuel to cut him to pieces. Whereas the God of Christianity is is a loving, forgiving God, the god of the Jews is himself a murderer, killing all of humanity and sparing only Noah and his clan.

    Jews are in control for the same reason that the thief is easily able to seal from an old lady: because the ruthless criminal finds that the trusting, innocent, decent person is an easy mark.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Agonistes
  70. In my view, the sad thing about the term ‘Judeo-Christian’ is that the original impulse behind coining the term was essentially generous. Of course, originally, the favored term to denote a moral, God-fearing society was ‘Christian,’ but it was realized that this excluded our suddenly very numerous Jewish fellow citizens.

    So ‘Judeo-Christian.’ Come on in, you’re welcome too!

    It was a typically American response — and perfectly laudable.

    But the term has been perverted over the last three decades. Now ‘Judeo-Christian’ implies that we’re brothers in arms — against those evil Muslims. It’s been converted from a term that promotes acceptance to one intended to promote exclusion. ‘Judeo-Christian’ no longer directs attention to who is inside the tent, but who is outside. It’s gone from being a term of love to being one that facilitates hate.

  71. AaronB says:

    Also wanted to note that this a good essay from the Catholic perspective.

    I do not agree with it, obviously, but this kind of tempered, reasonable, humane anti-Jewish polemic in the spirit of Chesterton is a far cry from the odious “Jews are the essence of all evil” attitude taken by most columnists and commenters on this site.

    There is much to argue with here, and one might produce a very different accounting from the Jewish perspective, but that is only natural and not the fault of the author, who writes well from his specific, partisan perspective.

    This essay also unintentionally highlights certain differences between Judaism and Christianity that have had fateful repercussions down the centuries – for instance, the essentially aggressive stance Christianity necessarily must adopt towards Judaism, whereas Judaism merely rejects Christianity as inappropriate for Jews and as not a development of its own tradition, as claimed by Christians.

    This is an essentially lopsided relationship – the continued existence of Jews is fundamentally problematic for Christians in a way that the existence of Christians simply isn’t for Jews, however much they might execrate Christ in writings intended for the education of young Jews.

    It isn’t surprising, then, that Christianity simply is not a topic of serious interest in Jewish writing, while Judaism necessarily looms very large for Christianity.

    To a smaller extent Islam shares the Christian attitude towards Jews – but this is necessarily so, as the children must always have a problematic relation to the father. Newer religions which claim to supersede the old from which they have sprung must take an essentially aggressive stance that isn’t reciprocated.

    This has, unfortunately, led to much tragedy suffered by Jews at the hands of Christians, and to a much lesser extent, Muslims.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @anonymous
  72. PPB says:

    I don’t know much about Ben Shapiro apart from seeing him mentioned a few times as a “Conservative” thinker, whatever that might actually signify in today’s cultural climate. But those few references made him appear to me as basically another self-promoting ideologue, which doesn’t by itself imply that he has nothing useful to say.

    But getting to the more interesting theme of Judeo-Christianity, I never understood why Christianity needs to limp along with the burden of its historical foundation in Judaism, instead of standing solidly on its own feet. Hell, the Sermon on the Mount is by itself a distillation of just about everything that a true religion needs, and I say this as someone who’s neither Christian nor Jewish. A rocket doesn’t need to carry its first stage all the way beyond the earth’s gravitational sphere– it rightfully abandons it to the regions where it’s no longer designed to travel. So why does Christianity feel compelled to remain loaded with all of its historical baggage, and most peculiarly of all, need to find its justification in Old Testament precedent and prophecy as if those were the primary defining criteria of anything outside their own ethos and world view– which isn’t to argue that those don’t in turn occupy their own valid sphere.

  73. Ahoy says:

    @ geokat62 #56

    Hey brother geo, your line “It is America’s turn to undergo this same unfortunate process” is writing “par excellence”. One hundred years of history in one sentence. Rather the most importent part of three hundre years of hisory.

    America has entered the Russian phase of Genrikh Yacoda-Yeltsin(1917-2000). Russia came out the other end through Putin. How America will come out from this low point to the other end you note that “is anybody’s guess”. I agree hundre per cent.

    Here are the Trotskies, Lenins, Abramoviches of America,

    • Replies: @geokat62
    , @Durruti
  74. Durruti says:

    Comment on Thorpe’s Essay, about a Myth:

    As the cathedral of Notre Dame burned in Holy Week,

    followed by

    It took an Israeli paper, Ha’aretz to point out the obvious yet unmentionable:

    “There certainly seems to be a degree of willful blindness, if not crass manipulation, in Shapiro setting up 12th-14th century France, when Notre Dame was being built, as embodying “Judeo-Christian religious principles,” when during that period France’s Jews were expelled (twice), their holy texts subject to public book burnings and their property confiscated by the crown (several times).

    Look at the actual tangible built evidence of the cathedral itself, whose west front is adorned with twin statues: proud Ecclesia (the Church) and Synagoga (with head bowed, blindfolded with a snake, her crown at her feet and the tablets of the law falling from her hands), representing Christianity’s triumph over Judaism.”[2]

    The above-placed at the beginning of Vernon Thorpe’s essay, caught my attention.

    Is Thorpe implying, or hinting that the Zionist terrorists, MOSSAD, et. al., were responsible for the burning of the most Famous Christian Cathedral (Notre Dame), in History?

    Nooo. The Zionists would never do that! They have burned hundreds of Churches and Mosques, murdered millions of Christians and Moslems, destroyed whole countries, Prostituted little girls and boys, created Hollywood, created Casino Trump and Killery Clinton- (whose wife wears a blue Dress, and sleeps around with Epstein), but Nooo – they Nooo. Even Zionist Land Thieves would draw the line at THATTT!!!

    Even the Hunchback would be appalled. He is now one of the Homeless, sleeping around Paris, (as long as he is not disturbed by the Gilets Jaunes).

    What could the Zionist Oligarchs gain by burning, yet another Christian Church? Perhaps this will become a new event at the Olympics?

    Perhaps Vernon Thorpe did not mean to imply anything of the kind.

    The meds are wearing off! What did I write?

    God Bless!

  75. Geowizz says:
    @gotmituns

    Groucho Marx “These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others.”

  76. geokat62 says:
    @Ahoy

    Here are the Trotskies, Lenins, Abramoviches of America,

    Hey, Ahoy. Thx for the positive feedback… appreciate it!

    P.S. Did you mean to post a pic or something?

    • Replies: @geokat62
  77. Brewer says:
    @Thomm

    If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the combined Western World, able to control everything?

    If the general populace is so smart, why do mob bosses gain power?
    Simple really.
    They employ a different moral code, one that provides a tribal umbrella of self-interest rather than humanist, egalitarian values.

  78. anonymous[899] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. X

    Bartoleme de Las Casas, Brief Account of the Devastation of the Indies. (1542)

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
    , @Dr. X
  79. mp says:
    @Dr ExCathedra

    I suspect you mean St John Chrysostom…

    The excerpt I cite can be found in Philokalia, Vol 1; St. John Cassian, “On the Holy Fathers of Sketis and on Discrimination, Written for Abba Leontis”, p. 102.

  80. Alden says:
    @anarchyst

    Affirmative action makes it illegal to hire a White man without bringing down numerous city county state and federal agencies down on the employer as well as lawsuits from blacks Asians Hispanics Indians etc.

    Jews use their tribal tactics and strategies to go around affirmative action and have effectively turned Whites into unemployable untouchables.

    It’s absolutely amazing how Jewish the state department has become since affirmative action. Trash the written test, language skills and substitute the interview and “ relevant experience” and it’s possible to fill everything from a university to a business to a government agency with jews working for Israel and benefits for fellow Jews.

    Jews in top positions dumb black women lower down competent Whites nowhere. That’s the affirmative action ideal.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
  81. geokat62 says:
    @geokat62

    P.S. Did you mean to post a pic or something?

    Disregard. I know see that you posted a video.

  82. @Anonymous

    Claiming this pansy Shapiro is a formidable intellect capable of defending Western Civilization on the one hand, or a formidable opponent on the other, is so preposterous as to be a joke.

    He is a mental midget in my view, dumb as s***, but full of himself.

  83. @Rahan

    China, India, and Japan are still pagan.

    China is not and has never been pagan. They were originally monotheists, similar to Jews. (Complete with a Temple.)

    However, unlike the Jews, they never had an explicit covenant. (They tried to manufacture a fake one centered around autocratic monarchism – ‘mandate of Heaven’ – but being fake and manufactured nobody really took it seriously.)

    Having no covenant, they succumbed very early to the humanism and ‘spiritual, but not religious’ diseases, before even the time of Christ.

    The rest of their history is a case study of how humanism destroys societies.

    They’ve settled on Marxism as the least humanist of all humanist doctrines, but I think they will eventually come around to Christianity. It only makes sense.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  84. Old YHWH sure waited a heck of a long time to avenge the unhappy events of the thirteenth century! It would have been more impressive if he had sent down a few thunderbolts on the heads of those who tormented his chosen at the time. He was, after all, originally a Midianite storm god. In Deuteronomy 32:8-9 the Bible preserves traces of the original theology that Yahweh was the angel-god assigned to that people by the Elyon, the supreme deity. Biblical scholar Margaret Baker’s book “The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God” discusses this in detail, concluding that by the time of Joshua, the local deity adopted by a sect of Jews had become identified with the original universal god entirely. And the name of Yahweh’s divine consort, Asherah, who had traditionally been worshipped alongside him, began to be translated in the Hebrew writings as Ashtaroth, “tree (or grove) of life.” Patai’s study “The Hebrew Goddess” is most illuminating on this now forgotten tradition.

    It may be of some note that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Germany announced in 1935 that in line with the government’s reform policies, the Jewish “Old Testament” would henceforth be stricken from the Canon. This they saw as a continuation of the Protestant Reformation, and to emphasize the connection the announcement was made at Magdeburg, the same place where Martin Luther began his rebellion against Rome. Just as Christianity without a Pope was earth-shaking in the 16th century, so, in their hopes, would Christianity be again fundamentally renewed for the 20th century by deleting its roots in Levantine tribalism once and for all.

    And can we be honest here – what is the Old Testament, in the modern world, but a catalog of barbarities and misbehaviors that truly no longer merits a place in civilized, humane discourse? Our own patriot hero Thomas Paine summed it up eloquently over two centuries ago, in his magnificent work, “The Age of Reason”: “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.”

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @Really No Shit
  85. Durruti says:
    @Ahoy

    Here are the Trotskies, Lenins, Abramoviches of America,

    I am not acquainted with Abramovich. but There are no Trotstyists, or Leninists in your picture.

    You might peruse Trotsky‘s “Their Morals and Ours,” or “The Revolution Betrayed,” Lenin’s essay on “Imperialism,” combined with an honest overview of their political lives; and then, somehow (with the input of researched knowledge), attempt to connect them to the individuals in your composite of photos. You might actually learn.

    As an Anarchist, and partisan of Durruti, and Makhno, I see no resemblance of the above Zionist Oligarch Rothschild, et. al., Traitor-Puppets in 2019, with Trotsky or Lenin. Indeed, Trotsky was assassinated in 1940, and Lenin died in 1924, from complications of an earlier assassination attempt by Fanny Kaplan. I believe she was Irish!!! How may you blame the events of (shall we begin), post November 22, 1963 on Lenin, and, or, Trotsky? – Or Mark Anthony, while you are at it?

    If I take a few shots (of the good stuff), we may have a debate on how many Angels may dance on the head of a pin.

    It is time for the Far Left and the Far Right to join forces and Restore Our Republics.

    Patriotic Nationalism with Economic Justice work well together.

    Durruti

    • Replies: @Jake
    , @Jake
    , @Anon
  86. anon[378] • Disclaimer says:

    Who in their right mind would listen to this jew faggot? How could anybody respect this little twirp. Moving right along, is this what our (((Overlords))) consider a better? What an insult. At least Bibi served in a sayaret. This fruit would only serve as booty fodder against a Palestinian. The Jew cries out as he strikes you, and insults your intelligence as he uses the most pathetic examples of Jewry as commissars

  87. The Judeo-christian label is relegated to a very simple relationship of two perspctives:

    1. The ten commandments and legal prescriptions of order

    2. Christ’s redemption promised through the line of judaism,intended for all but rejected by jews. And that redemption unseated the ten commandments as the prime understanding of faith.

    No one needed to know lick about judaism to walk in the salvation of christ as christian. Christ did not remove the ten commandments as law he relegated it to the back seat to salvation by faith in him. A spiritual acknowledgement: One God, Christ s his son who redeems from the sin of Adam and bestows a holy spirit — in the saved and such saved. Fulfilling a promise, Judaism itself has no force.

    The Judea aspect of christian thought and faith and practice is great for background, history and even encouragement, etc. But no one has to know a line of the OT to be a follower of Christ.

    ———————————————-

    Conservatives do not have to be christians, but for people who are christians their will, in my view reflect a conservative disposition most of time. And here I will get in trouble.

    The founders departed from a conservative, even christian ethos when they chose to engage in a violent revolution to resolve political and economic differences.

    However, it is very difficult to deny the vast influence of Christian belief that pervades the nation’s founding.

    The judeo aspect of that refers to legalisms-emphasis on law and order

  88. This Judeo-Christian thing might work IF Jews were willing to give as well as take.

    But they just wanna take and take, so it won’t work.

  89. Jake says:

    “The disputations had arisen after another French Jew, Nicholas Donin, had converted to Catholicism and gone to see Pope Gregory XI in 1238 to warn him of the blasphemies contained in the Talmud and the danger the text posed to a Catholic culture. Among the charges Donin levelled against the Talmud was that it crudely blasphemed Christ and denigrated His mother (Notre Dame) and that it was the basis of a new anti-Christian rabbinic religion which was not the Judaism of the Old Testament, but rather a way of wrenching away the message of those books from their true fulfilment in the New. In so doing, the Talmud it deliberately kept Jews from the light of Christ.”

    All of the above is true. That is what the Talmud is and what it does.

    WE are now serfs before the masters of the Talmud, because the Reformation served to shatter Christendom. The next step was Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, a Judaizing heresy that was the final piece of the formation of WASP culture. Because the English Empire ruled the world, WASP culture and its Judaizing got spread globally, Yank WASPs made that even worse.

  90. Jake says:
    @Durruti

    “Patriotic Nationalism with Economic Justice work well together.”

    They can work together well for an extended time only if part of Christendom.

    You gotta serve somebody. Either white people serve Christ and Christendom, or before long they are revealed to be serving Jews and the Talmud.

    Even the Brit Royals have been serving Jewish bankers since the Restoration, since archetypal WASP Oliver Cromwell made manifest the Judaizing that was central to Anglo-Saxon Puritanism and struck the deal with Jews.

  91. Jake says:
    @Durruti

    ” Lenin died in 1924, from complications of an earlier assassination attempt by Fanny Kaplan. I believe she was Irish!!! ”

    What kind of dope are you on? Or do anarchists routinely vomit stupid falsehoods?

    Kaplan’s real name was Feiga Haimovna Roytblat. She was a full blood Jew born in the Russian Empire. She never visited Ireland, much less lived there, much less was born and raised there. Fanny Kaplan was a Russian-hating, Christ-hating Jew born in the Russian Empire.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
    , @Durruti
  92. Ahoy says:

    @ geokat62 #78

    On the pic there is nothing more than abiding to the American love for slogans and pictures, Probably I should give the backgrounds of the Russian men behind the names used so people can find their analogues in America today. A modicum of surfing can solve this very easily for the interested person.

    A rule of thump is that a Gates is called an investor, where as an Abramovich is called an oligarch. They are both Jews working for MIGA.

    All the best brother, Stay strong.

    • Replies: @geokat62
  93. Alfred says:
    @Tired of Not Winning

    nationalist/patriots party

    These are not the same things. Nationalists work for those in charge of the nation. Patriots are those who work for the people who belong in the nation.

    Neocons like to pretend that they are nationalists.

    The Yellow Vests of France are patriots.

  94. @Jake

    … and Lenin died of syphilis.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  95. Why do those who view Jesus as a moral guide give any credence at all to Abraham?

    Jesus and Abraham have the same relationship as Judeo and Christian; namely, none. They are antithetical.

    In the era of National Socialism in Germany, Christian theologians earnestly sought to separate Christian beliefs from Hebrew scripture. This was deemed antisemitic, which it is, of course, but why are Germans not to be permitted to define their faith in their own way?

    Except that EMJ is himself committed to Abrahamism — god knows why — it would be terrific to find someone/some institution with the intellectual gravity of Culture Wars explore the work of Walter Grundmann and the German quest for a “Nazi Jesus.” I think I would have liked him.

    –btw — this is inverted:
    ” Deborah Dash Moore claims that the term “first came into the public lexicon as a symbolic vehicle of liberal Jewish and Christian leaders…looking to signal their contempt for (and provide an alternative to) pro-Fascist sympathizers and anti-Semites in the United States who had mobilized around the term Christian. Specifically, the term Judeo-Christian was intended to include Jews as one of the three “fighting faiths” of democracy.”

    Most Americans were adamantly opposed to war in Germany. Jews sought to drag Christians into their camp to support a war. It took the contrived Pearl Harbor to seal the deal

  96. Like any other Zionists Shapiro wants to use ,abuse and sacrifice the stupid goyim for the sake of Zionist colonial and racist project.

    Those dumb “Christian Zionists” who also happen to be extremely racist,just like Jews, make up a huge bulk of the Republican party giving the Zionists unprecedented lobbying power and influence.

    If it were not for such people, likes of Shapiro , Limbaugh , Oreily and Hannity, Zionism would not have been able to penetrate and indoctrinate so many hicks and red necks on it’s behalf.

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
  97. Ben Shapiro is just another Jewish grifter trying to make conservatism good for the Jews and attack the parts of the left that are no longer in lock-step with the apartheid regime in occupied Palestine.

    He’s popular because his backers pour massive amounts of money into advertising – that’s why Ben Shapiro videos are at the top of youtube’s recommended list all the time. It’s just pay-for-play.

    As for all the religious stuff, Shapiro is just doing what Philo before him did, what Catholics like E. Michael Jones do, and what the Protestants at the Southern Baptist Convention do:

    Since the religious writings and ideals of the bronze age are either false, incomprehensible, or simply banal, they get allegoricalized to give them some sort of relevance. Ben Shapiro’s Judaism is simply a racist cult with no serious intellectual content, and it’s a minority cult, so he uses allegories and a lot of pilpul to make it seem relevant to conservative minded Americans.

    E. Michael Jones is well aware that the physical resurrection of the dead and party-tricks like turning water into wine have no resonance with modern Americans, so instead of talking about Jesus Christ he talks about “Logos” and declares his ideas to be “reason” and everyone else’s ideas to be “anti-reason.”

    The SBC has to maintain relevance in an increasingly liberal culture without totally alienating their white conservative base, so they engage in all sorts of Bible-proof-texting to justify what they want to do anyway.

    All a bunch of grifters and con-artists.

    Ben Shapiro is an Ashkenazi Jew with no place in America or Europe, and he’s an agent of a foreign state not to mention a bag man for Jewish organized crime.

    Instead of Catholics taking his nonsense apart point-by-point, a waste of time, maybe White people need to start educating their fellows that Ben Shapiro is only popular because he pays to spam his videos to the top of social media. He has no organic popularity.

  98. Pegasus says:
    @Thomm

    If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the combined Western World, able to control everything?

    If human beings are so smart, how come (insert your parasite of choice here) are able to control everything, infecting them until they die?

    Jews are not distinguished from other whites by blacks. So Jews face all the same risks from blacks that gentiles face. Somehow, this does not compute in WN ‘logic’.

    Forgot to take your meds old man? This has nothing to do with the article and, and even less with the Jewish Question.

    Virtually everything that White Nationalists say about Jews is what blacks say about whites.

    Uh, no.. for what I’ve read whites don’t want reparations and will stop moaning publishing as soon as:

    1- Jews get strict affirmative action in all areas they actually are vastly overrepresented, especially media, hollywood, banking, academia and government positions. Many would be happy if their overrepresentation would not surpass 300% of their population share in those areas.

    2- Jews are banned from having dual nationality while holding government positions

    3- Jews are banned from holding (US, European) foreign office governmental positions, particularly related to Middle Eastern policy

    3- Pro Israel organisations and lobbies such as AIPAC (Jewish Lobby) are forced to register as foreign agents

    4- Jewish organizations (ADL, SPLC etc) and Jewish influencers stop lobbying for more immigration and to curtail freedom of speech (anti BDS, anti revisionism etc), or better yet, lobbying is simply criminalized.

    5- 3 billion plus yearly aid to Israel is spent in building and maintaining The Wall, homeland security grants are distributed proportionally instead of 90% going to Jewish orgs

    6- Taxpayer funded holocust museums either go privately funded or better yet dismantled.

    7- Israel is treated as any other country in the world and let to deal with her geopolitical issues on her own.

    You see, no reparations, no redistribution of wealth, Jews are basically free to make as much money as they can and succeed as much as they can in basically any field.

  99. Durruti says:
    @Jake

    ” Lenin died in 1924, from complications of an earlier assassination attempt by Fanny Kaplan. I believe she was Irish!!! ”

    What kind of dope are you on? Or do anarchists routinely vomit stupid falsehoods?

    Ease off on the coffee!

    Fanny Kaplan is as Jewish a name as you can get. I attempted some humor to direct the reader’s attention to the real assassins of Trotsky, and attempted assassins of Lenin. This revelation that Zionists had both Lenin & Trotsky on their hit lists, upsets your World View, as you cannot explain it.

    Are you familiar with the terms?

    1. Joke

    2. Sarcasm

    3. Humor

    4. Blind as a Bat (you)

    “Vomit” is a Jewish word.

    Yes, I am an Anarchist. You got something right!

    *I will not tell you what kind of ‘dope’ I am on, as you are not my friend.

  100. Durruti says:
    @Germanicus

    … and Lenin died of syphilis.

    It is no crime to die of syphilis, a disease that has killed millions – HOWEVER.

    Some John F. Kennedy haters also insist that he had syphillis. Maybe JFK died of syphilis, a second before the bullets hit him?

    There are many different theories as to the cause of Lenin‘s death. Just surfing the web, I found 4 major theories (and a few minor ones).

    You are quite sure you are correct in this matter? You have proof? You were there? You are a doctor and treated Lenin? Or are you just being snarky, a know it all, or just a Democrat gang anti-Russian who Russia-bate everyone they cannot control, from Casino Trump, to Tulsi Gabbard?

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  101. Apparently, the most striking thing I notice with Shapiro, his voice and he himself resembles Smurfette of the Smurfs.

    Smurfette (French: La Schtroumpfette) is one of the protagonists from the comic strip the Smurfs. Smurfette was created by evil wizard Gargamel, the Smurfs’ enemy, in order to spy on them and sow jealousy.

  102. @anonymous

    Terrible indeed, but the Jewish Bolsheviks’ atrocities made the conquistadors look like a bunch of pikers.

  103. geokat62 says:
    @Ahoy

    On the pic there is nothing more…

    On the pic? I thought you posted a vid?

    When I first saw your post, it contained a blank space under the text. It later reloaded with an AIPAC video. You now indicate you posted a picture. Could a s/w glitch be the explanation for the confusion?

  104. @Durruti

    You are quite sure you are correct in this matter? You have proof? You were there? You are a doctor and treated Lenin? Or are you just being snarky, a know it all, or just a Democrat gang anti-Russian who Russia-bate everyone they cannot control, from Casino Trump, to Tulsi Gabbard?

    I am a Russian bot, should be obvious, Putin sent me. However, I have a healthy dislike for democracy and corrupt US circus, I have no interest in it at all.

    You funny americans seem to think the planet revolves around the US.

    Lenin died of Syphilis, it was common knowledge in medical circles behind the iron curtain, though it could only be whispered.

    Funny how you try to construct a mystery about the well known war between Bronstein and Jughashvili bolshevik factions in Soviet Union, with both factions being jewish to the core.
    Bronstein(“Trotski”) was the decomposing force who wanted degeneracy, and Stalin said, “hold on, you are destroying the soviet society from within, we are not gonna achieve our red utopia”, so he had him killed in Mexico, and Stalin was killed as revenge.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  105. anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @geokat62

    It is also worth noting that despite Islam being related to both Christianity and Judaism in precisely the same manner, we do not hear much talk of “Judeo-Islam” or “Islamo-Christianity”, much less take seriously the idea that Americans must defer to Muslims or grant them any special status on those grounds.

    There is a really good reason why “Judeo-Islam” or “Islamo-Christianity” is never mentioned. That is because Islam is completely antithetical to the core theologies of both Judaism and Christianity. If somebody should come up with such a nonsensical construct, we muslims would gleefully shred that theory to pieces. 😀

    The foundational core of both Judaism and Christianity rests on the quicksand of pagan mangods-worship (I mean, really, how is this any different from Hinduism?). The whole pagan idea of man being created “in the image of God” is shared by all three faiths, and even beyond. This is probably one of the main reasons for the “Judeo-Christian” hyphenation.

    Islam utterly rejects such a pagan idea.

    The core of Islam is unbending monotheism. The following verses of the Holy Quran best describe our true monotheism;

    Say, “He is Allah, [who is] One, Allah, the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, Nor is there to Him any equivalent.”

    See, no mangods for us.

    You are all welcome to debate endlessly about how Judaism and Christianity are similar, or not, but the true monotheism of Islam stands alone.

    • Replies: @Dumbo
  106. @Mr McKenna

    It’s amazing that anybody actually believes this childishness. The idea that Jesus was a protestantizing figure who arose out of and in contradiction to Judaism is just Whig history, the old Mayflower myth projected back upon a distant past that actually contained no trace of such happenings. In the context of the first century, the whole notion of it would have been quite incomprehensible.

    Furthermore, it is internally inconsistent to assert that the Old and New Testaments are opposed to one another. The typology of the New Testament is completely dependent upon the Old and derives from it every bit of its authority and explanatory power. Jesus could not have been the Christ of prophecy if there was no prophecy, could not have fulfilled the law if there was no law, could not have been the key of David if there was no David, and so on ad infinitum. The New Testament could exist without the Old.

    Modern people all seem to agree that Christianity is a religion of bland lovey-doveyness, then they divide over whether they reject it as weakness or embrace it and become decadent. They are, all of them, wrong. You ought to contemplate the fact that the God of Joshua at Jericho is the same as the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, think about what that means, and let the dawning of awareness disabuse you of your false conceptions of Christianity, rather than flinging about the word “diametric” like just another dime-store ‘theologian.’

  107. Dr. X says:
    @anonymous

    There’s no doubt that over the past two millenia, there have been people who committed atrocious crimes, sometimes in the name of Christianity. But such people can rightly be regarded as either heretics or misinterpreters of Christianity, because nothing in the New Testament commands, justifies, or celebrates such actions. To the contrary, Christians are commanded to “love they neighbor as thyself.”

    The same cannot be said of the Jewish Torah and the Jewish holidays, which condone and celebrate trickery, deceit and murder in service of the Tribe.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @anonymous
  108. anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rahan

    The interbreeding takeover of Yellowtopia has been unleashed. Soon, soon China will have its own (((fellow Chinese people))) to deal with, I’m thinking.

    Interesting indeed!

    When others have mentioned that (((judens))) would never be able to get their deathly stranglehold on the chicoms, I have tended to believe it. How naive of me.

    A (((new kind of Chinese)))… that is something else altogether, and given that most “flat-faced” chicoms are sufficiently scornful of their features, even if subliminally, there is surely much scope for enterprising (((judens))) to spread their trojan sperms there.

  109. Seraphim says:
    @Colin Wright

    Of course there cannot be any source for that. The Jews from Spain were not Khazars! They were part of the large diaspora of Jews (i.e. alighting from Judaea, wherefrom they derive their name – they have always been a ‘natio’) started before Roman times and spread all over the Ancient World, both East and West, North and South. Ancient sources, the ‘Chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea’ – IV Century AD, estimates their number at… 6,944,000!
    The ‘Jewish’ Khazars were late ‘proselytes’ and their historical importance was blown out of proportion. But the modern Khazar myth has its usefulness, on the one hand allowing to shift all the blames on them who are not pure Jews, on the other to boast about Jewish achievements (peoples who want to become ‘Jews’ to benefit from the ‘blessings’ of the ‘Covenant’, the Khazar ‘Empire’, the first ‘native’ Empire in ‘Russia’, far more ‘civilized’ than the Russians emerged from the fogs of the North to oppress them and their descendants the ‘Ukrainians’, Russians born anti-Semites, etc.).

  110. anonynous says:

    It’s very strange, almost beyond comprehension but this true:

    Israel, Israeli Jews and Jews in the diaspora in Europe, UK, USA, Canada “the West” are on the same side in most everything that matters with the Saudi Arabian Wahhabbist Sunni Islamists.

    This sounds so crazy, but it’s pretty much the same as Jewish financier, Wall Street/Frankfort/London Bankers being on the same side as Jewish Bolshevik Communists in Russia and Germany.

    Both Saudi Arabia and Israel took approximately ZERO Syrian Muslim war refugees. And both Israel and Saudi Arabia and the Jewish Lib Leftist/Neo Conservatives were/are leading promoters of forcing European nations, UK, Canada, USA to accept virtually unlimited number of Syrian Muslim war refugees and just demand open borders, mass Muslim immigration in to existing White Western countries.

    Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow any Christian Churches to be constructed in Saudi Arabia, I’m not sure what the situation is in Israel, but I doubt Christians are free to open new Christian churches nor spread the gospel of Jesus Christ in the place where Jesus once lived.

    Saudi Arabia has offered to fund the construction of ~ 700 Islamic mosques in Germany and Sweden to meet the religious needs of Muslim migrants.

    OK, so how is it that Saudi Sunni Islamists and Jewish Talmud Zionists or just Liberal Leftist Jews in Europe, the USA are on the same side?

    The answer is because they are – and it’s almost always a tribal power game where these groups Muslims and Jews are working together to attack, take things from White Gentiles/White Westerners/Christians.

    Sounds weird, but it’s true and it’s nothing new.

    Jews were expelled from Spain in 1492 or put under the Spanish Catholic inquistion for taking the Muslim Moor side against local White Spanish Catholics, for being tax collectors for the Muslims, for trafficking White girls in to sexual slavery to Muslim buyers.

    Jews and Muslims know this and Jews consider the Spanish Moor rule of Spain 8th century to 15th century as a golden age for Jews.

    Here is THE best history article on this strange history period of Spain in the 15th Century:

    Spain Might have had some good reasons to….

    http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2012/09/17/sept-11th-muslims-behaving-badly-1492-spain-whites-jews-arab-muslims-same-as-it-ever-was/

  111. Z-man says:

    Very convenient term Jews/Zionists can hide behind while screwing with the Western Christian man. Forget about that dumb Kraut Bauer, that term Joodeo Christian was probably coined by some hooked nose smelly professor in CCNY in the 1930’s.
    Don’t you just want to put a home run swing to that Shapiro face. With the bat of course.

    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
  112. @Dr. X

    ‘There’s no doubt that over the past two millenia, there have been people who committed atrocious crimes, sometimes in the name of Christianity. But such people can rightly be regarded as either heretics or misinterpreters of Christianity, because nothing in the New Testament commands, justifies, or celebrates such actions. To the contrary, Christians are commanded to “love they neighbor as thyself.”’

    What’s also telling is that whatever the shortcomings of people professing Christianity, subtracting their Christianity seems to invariably make things worse still. Three examples:

    1. Mexican independence. When Mexico became independent, the Church was stripped of much of it’s power…power to do things like, say, prevent rancheros from enslaving Indians and working them to death. In Mexican California independence from Spain led to a prompt and dramatic decline in the Indian population.

    2. The Russian revolution. Russia and Russian soldiery had never had a particularly good reputation…but nothing that had occurred prior to 1917 could match the outrages of the Soviet Union.

    3. Nazi Germany. What little effective resistance there was to Nazi atrocities within Germany came from the Church and circles of Christian officers.

    People will yowl about the crimes committed by Christians. What they fail to realize is that absent that Christianity, the crimes would be worse still.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  113. @anonynous

    ‘…Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow any Christian Churches to be constructed in Saudi Arabia, I’m not sure what the situation is in Israel, but I doubt Christians are free to open new Christian churches nor spread the gospel of Jesus Christ in the place where Jesus once lived.’

    It is illegal to proselytize in Israel.

    Thinking about that, it speaks volumes for their capacity for self-deception that Evangelicals swallow that. Scads of them go to Israel, and they must all get firmly told to not spread the Good Word while they’re there.

    …and they accept it. How do they rationalize it to themselves?

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
  114. anonymous[324] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thomm

    The term Judeo-Christian is about as logical as using the term Satano-Christian.

    • Replies: @Priss Factor
  115. @Thomm

    One day, you may be running your mouth in public and forget that you aren’t among friends. That “white trashionalist” jibe that you think is so cool will slip out and somebody will take offense and will stomp a mudhole in your ass.

    Please come here and let us know when it happens.

  116. @AaronB

    ‘…for instance, the essentially aggressive stance Christianity necessarily must adopt towards Judaism, whereas Judaism merely rejects Christianity as inappropriate for Jews and as not a development of its own tradition, as claimed by Christians…’

    Now, Aaron, that’s not at all true. When opportunity has afforded, Jews have been extremely aggressive towards Christians.

    Sources from late antiquity are replete with accounts of howling mobs of Jews chasing Christians through the streets of the Roman East, and the brief Persian occupation of Jerusalem saw a prompt and massive ‘Babi Yar’ of the Christians organized by the Jews. The Jews were so eager to slaughter Christians that they were buying Christian captives from the Persians so that they could kill them.

    Finally, and in modern times, we have the excesses of the often Jewish commissars directed at the Christian peasantry of the Soviet Union. This was particularly pronounced in 1940-41, when the Soviets took over the Baltic States, Eastern Poland, and Bessarabia and Moldavia — and found in the local Jews willing allies when it came to terrorizing and despoiling the Christian population.

    So you’re lying as usual. Certainly Jews have been the victims of persecution — but the snowy-white innocent Jew is a figment of your imagination. Whenever Jews have been in a position to dish it out rather than take it, they have. Witness Israel. Would you like a source on mistreatment of Palestinian Christians in Israel?

    • Replies: @AaronB
  117. @Anonymous

    “Excellent. Thank you.

    The god of the OT is not the same as the god of the NT.”

    And this leads into the centerpiece to the whole thing, to wit, “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me”

    “The Shema and its accompanying blessing/curse reveals the intent of the commandment to include love for the one, true God and not only recognition or outward observance. In the Gospels, Jesus quotes the Shema as the first and Greatest Commandment, and the apostles after him preached that those who would follow Christ must turn from idols. The Catholic Catechism as well as Reformation and post-Reformation theologians teach that the commandment applies in modern times and prohibits the worship of physical idols, the seeking of spiritual activity or guidance from any other source (e.g. magical, astrological, etc.), and the focus on temporal priorities such as self (food, physical pleasures), work, and money, for examples.” Wikipedia

    Okay, those are the basic definitions, let’s look at some implications.

    Imagine a social worker type, a single woman, idealistic, aspirational, clueless–the kind with whom we here are all too familiar–heading off to a foreign country, Haiti, say, or Dominican Republic, to do good works, to bring light to the benighted. For our purposes, she need not be overtly religious, better in fact if she is not. Instead, she worships at the altar of liberalism, a small c christianity, as Pat Buchanan has observed, purged of God but carrying with it the same impulses and sensibilities.

    What she has adopted from Christianity is this: “Shapiro’s book does appear to aim for something more elevated than this. He rightly reminds readers early on that we are all made in God’s image and that this truth, presented in the book of Genesis, is profound and has consequences.”

    “We are all made in God’s image…” and therefore, “Dwight David Eisenhower made the following remark in the course of a speech: “[O]ur Government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply-felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us, of course, it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that [teaches] all men are created equal.”

    “Thou shalt have no other gods before Me” and “We are all made in God’s image” and “All men are created equal”. Armed with this triumvirate, our Salvation Lady ventures forth.

    The first thing she encounters is the practice of bloody rites of sacrifice and appeasement to clay idols, straw dolls and animal headed monsters by people who mercilessly murder their tribal enemies and take delight in the suffering of animals.

    Our heroine is a bit taken aback but reassures herself that “Everything will be alright because we are all made in God’s image, children of one God etc. I must not judge.” And she proceeds to implement her plan, to bring these wayward children into the twentyfirst century of clean running water and central heating.

    Then one day, her mutilated corpse turns up, literally cut to pieces after having been gang raped repeatedly until her tormentors tired of their toy and did her in.

    Now the question is: “Were they really children of the same God?”

    She may have believed so but apparently her tormentors did not. They worshipped quite another God.

    So who are these Christians and what gives them the confidence (blind arrogance?) to assume that everyone else in the world is a child of their God?

    As we have seen, the implications of this belief are indeed “profound and ha[ve] consequences”.

    The Christian so armed just automatically dismisses the gods of every other human tribe as idols and consequently feels no remorse in casting them down, feels in fact that he is doing God’s work in doing so. But more, like this woman, the Christian is motivated by a spirit of dogoodism that is oppressive in its naivety. She arrogantly assumes that these strangers are brothers and sisters, being children of the One and True God, and that they can only benefit from her weaning them of their idolatry. But suppose her actions undermined their deepest held beliefs and core cultural traditions that bound their community together.

    Should we be shocked to read that such a person was abused and dismembered?.

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
  118. G. Poulin says:

    Don’t know about this “two different Gods” thing. Jesus, at the end of the New Testament, shoves his enemies under his footstool, dumps a whole bunch of them in the Lake of Fire, and then proceeds to give his own crew all the goodies. Doesn’t sound very kind, forgiving, or welcoming to me. Yahweh would be proud of his boy.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  119. @anonynous

    Israel, Israeli Jews and Jews in the diaspora in Europe, UK, USA, Canada “the West” are on the same side in most everything that matters with the Saudi Arabian Wahhabbist Sunni Islamists.

    Have a read:

    The Birth of Al-Wahabi Movement and Its Historical Roots

    https://fas.org/irp/eprint/iraqi/wahhabi.pdf

    This is an Iraqi military intelligence assessment captured by the Americans when they invaded and destroyed Iraq, erm, democratized and brought freedom to them.

  120. anonymous[899] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. X

    There’s no doubt that over the past two millenia, there have been people who committed atrocious crimes, sometimes in the name of Christianity. But such people can rightly be regarded as either heretics or misinterpreters of Christianity, because nothing in the New Testament commands, justifies, or celebrates such actions.

    You are serious, it seems. You are not kidding?

    For 13 centuries the official Christian Church had been murdering heretics in thousands and tens of thousands, beginning with heathens and proceeding with their own fellow Christians. You are not in the position to define who is a heretic, the Church does it – as well as defining how to interpret the Scripture.

    The count is indeed in tens of millions and the diabolical wickedness with which it was done is in a league of its own. There has been nothing like the Christian Church. Pure evil. And indeed, nothing in the New Testament commands such actions. The problem is that no one cares what it commands.

    Christians are commanded to “love they neighbor as thyself.”

    Yes indeed.

    The same cannot be said of the Jewish Torah and the Jewish holidays, which condone and celebrate trickery, deceit and murder in service of the Tribe.

    “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” – Leviticus 19:18

    You thought that Jesus said it first? You do not know the Torah. And there is no celebration of deceit and murder in Judaism. Purim celebrates the saving of the Jewish people.

    • Replies: @KenH
    , @Dr. X
    , @Sya
  121. Seraphim says:
    @anonymous coward

    If one digs deeper in Chinese ‘paganism’ would find out that they were not only ‘monotheists’ but even ‘trinitarians’.

  122. @Z-man

    Shapiro looks like David Hogg the MSD High School fake student who helped push the false flag.

  123. @Tired of Not Winning

    ‘Ben Shapiro is a fake conservative, as is any conservative who continues to support endless wars and endless immigration…’

    Of course Shapiro’s a fake conservative. Zionists have merely realized that Conservatives and Reactionaries can be more easily manipulated to serve their agenda than leftists and ‘progressives’ can.

    Once the Left discovered the Palestinians, the Zionists had to change horses. That’s all that happened.

  124. Durruti says:
    @Germanicus

    Stalin said, “hold on, you are destroying the soviet society from within, we are not gonna achieve our red utopia”, so he had him killed in Mexico, and Stalin was killed as revenge.

    So much for your Morality. “so he had him killed in Mexico” You might as well meet our American Cackler, Killery Clinton. When she was asked about the murder of Libyan Leader, Qadaffi, she laughed, and said

    We came, we saw, he died.

    We Americans overwhelmingly believe in the presumption of innocence – until the accused receives a fair trial. Now, as with Assange, and those at Guantanamo, and Syria, and Afghanistan, & a dozen other places, the Zionist American government betrays the ideals of America.

    But We-The-People must not throw those ideals out the window, and surrender to Terrorism.

    We obviously have different values. You are a Russian Germanicus, and I, an American Anarchist.

    Furthermore, I am not sure that Stalin (Djugashvili), had Trotsky (Lev Bronstein) murdered. I am not sure. The evidence points to Zionist circles. Mercader may have been an Oswald – decoy.

    I am a Russian bot, should be obvious, Putin sent me. However, I have a healthy dislike for democracy

    You take your Autocracy, and I’ll attempt a Restoration of Our American Republic! – Which was destroyed in a hail of gunfire, along with a Great Man, on November 22, 1963.

  125. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    Colin, you’re not reading my comment. I said Jewish writing rarely mention Christianity – it simply isn’t a topic that is paid a lot of attention to.

    When Christianity is mentioned, it is from the point of view of educating young Jews on why it it isn’t, as Christians claims, the fulfillment of Judaism. Of course this involves a certain amount of invective against Jesus.

    But I am making here a limited and specific claim – there simply isn’t a lot of material about Christianity in Jewish writing. There is much more writing against Jews in Christian writing.

    And this is normal and natural. Christians see themselves as the fulfilment of Judaism and as rendering Jews obsolete – this will obviously make the continued existence of Jews a much more serious topic for Christians.

    Put your fishing rod and hunting rifle down for just a moment, you Scotch-Irish backwoodsman, so we can have an intelligent conversation…. 🙂

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  126. KenH says:
    @Thomm

    You’ve only posted this about 40 times the last two years. Don’t you have the intelligence to think up some new material?

    i) If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the combined Western World, able to control everything? The entire premise of White Nationalism fails.

    If Jews are so pure and innocent then why have they been kicked out of 109 nations throughout history? The entire premise of Jews as innocent victims fails.

    why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the combined Western World, able to control everything?

    But claiming that Jews control everything is an “anti-semitic trope” when gentiles, white or other, make that claim/observation. If white nationalists make that claim then you howl in Yiddish that they’re “70 IQ white trashionalists”. So now you’re saying it’s true? If so that makes you a 70 IQ Jewish trashionalist and purveyor of anti-semitic tropes.

  127. “Furthermore, it is internally inconsistent to assert that the Old and New Testaments are opposed to one another. The typology of the New Testament is completely dependent upon the Old and derives from it every bit of its authority and explanatory power. Jesus could not have been the Christ of prophecy if there was no prophecy, could not have fulfilled the law if there was no law, could not have been the key of David if there was no David, and so on ad infinitum. The New Testament could exist without the Old”

    Hmmmmm . . . .

    only in recognition of Adam’s sin. After that . . . Christ’s coming occurs regardless. That the old Testament foretells and describes that coming is not the same as Christ; arrival being dependent on the OT. Those promises and those recordings in the Old to authority were meant for the Jews — so that they would know he was the Christ. hence fulfilling the law, coming from the line of David — so that when Christ spoke to the jews they would know where the authority came from —-

    But that authority does not exist for the gentile. A gentile does not look to the Old for authority, but for the life of christ that abides within as written in the New Testament. The fruit of the spirit is not the law.

    The old Testament is history, it’s the track and prescriptions of Jews, it lays the foundations for faith and grace —–against the law that indicts.

    But if that record did not exist, Christ would still come. Salvation is not predicated on the Old Testament, its predicated on God’s promise of a redeemer for Adam’s sin.

  128. KenH says:
    @anonymous

    You thought that Jesus said it first? You do not know the Torah. And there is no celebration of deceit and murder in Judaism. Purim celebrates the saving of the Jewish people.

    Except you forgot the ten plagues your bloodthirsty Yahweh visited on the Egyptians culminating in the death of all of their first born.

    Exodus 11:4-6 King James Version (KJV)
    4 And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt:

    5 And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the first born of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts.

    6 And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  129. So much for your Morality. “so he had him killed in Mexico”

    You seem to have no clue what utter criminal, terrorist,sadist and butchering Jews fought each other there on the back of the Russian people. Fool.
    I do not shed tears for these satanic creatures.

    We obviously have different values. You are a Russian Germanicus, and I, an American Anarchist.

    Anarchists who worship bolshevik terrorists don’t seem to recognize irony. If was a Russian, I had Russicus as nickname perhaps, or Misha the bear.

    You take your Autocracy, and I’ll attempt a Restoration of Our American Republic! – Which was destroyed in a hail of gunfire, along with a Great Man, on November 22, 1963.

    Erm, your Republic was usurped by a criminal corporation in 1871, the DC Act, whic laid the foundations for the FED.

    Seriously , get off your “exceptionalism”, this jewish concept doesn’t do any good for America.

    • Replies: @Durruti
    , @Seraphim
  130. @Thomm AJC National Director Stephen Steinlight admitted in 2001 that Jews were behind decades of mass US immigration/open borders policy with the express intent of reducing white Americans to a minority. He warned that too rapid a demographic transformation was a threat to unprecedented Jewish power, influence and material wealth because non-whites couldn’t be guilted and manipulated by Holocaust propaganda. His solution was to propagandize a revival of Civic Nationalism so that loyalty to America would outweigh any inconvenient ethnic loyalties among Gentiles. And here we are.

    Add Talmudic racial supremacy, usury, sodomy and anti-Christianity, Marxist indocrination, historical revisionism, mass-marketed Biblical fraud, global terrorism, Islamophobia Inc, false flag proxy wars, genocidal ethnic cleansing, uranium theft, cyber espionage, US military tech sales to China, international crime syndicates, elite pedophile blackmail operations and “anti-Semitic” censorship and you’ve repeated history for the 110th time. Hope you’re smart enough to shut your own people up also.

  131. @AaronB

    ‘Colin, you’re not reading my comment. I said Jewish writing rarely mention Christianity – it simply isn’t a topic that is paid a lot of attention to…’

    No…

    What you said was, ‘for instance, the essentially aggressive stance Christianity necessarily must adopt towards Judaism, whereas Judaism merely rejects Christianity as inappropriate for Jews…’

    As noted, when circumstances have permitted, Judaism has gone far, far beyond just saying ‘ohne mich.’

    • Replies: @AaronB
  132. Seraphim says:

    It must be stressed that ‘Judaism’ is not the ‘font’ of ‘Christianity’.
    First of all, the ancient Hebrews were not ‘the Jews’, the religion revealed to Abraham and Moses was not ‘Judaism’. Judaism is a deformation of the prophetic religion of the Hebrews by the tribe of Judah and the illegitimate priests of the second Temple, centered on Jerusalem, who monopolized the cult under the pretension that ‘God’ made a ‘covenant’ with them giving them the property of ‘Zion’ in perpetuity. Judaism and Zionism are co-extensive notions.
    Secondly, ‘Christianity’ is an open ended notion. Jesus Christ did not found ‘Christianity’, but the Church. It had nothing to do with ‘Judaism’, but with the Tradition of the Prophets, that the Judaeans were busy to kill.

    ‘Judeo-Christianity’ is a modern term applied to a splinter of the Apostolic Church, the messianic sect of the Ebionites, or Nazarenes which sprung after the establishment of the Church (the other one being ‘Gnosticism’). They were originally Jewish converts of the Apostles. They considered themselves Jews, maintained an adherence to the Law of Moses, and used only the Aramaic Gospel of the Hebrews, rejecting all the Canonical gospels and the concept of Jesus being the Son of God (as the Second Person of the Trinity) which they deemed of Hellenist origin, accepting nevertheless the Virgin Birth and the belief in the triumphal return of Jesus as the Messiah, King of Israel who will bring the destruction of the Romans and instaure the Kingdom of Israel over the world. They are at the origin of all messianic utopias (and of Islam, btw).

    Saint Jerome wrote about them:
    “What shall I say of the Ebionites who pretend to be Christians? To-day there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans, and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers] are ordinarily called ‘Nasarenes’; they believe that Christ, the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, and they hold him to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended to heaven, and in whom we also believe. But while they pretend to be both Jews and Christians, they are neither”. But more Jews than Christians. Jews used their Christian veneer to infiltrate and subvert the Church.
    Actually they were the ‘synagogue of Satan’ of the Revelation of St. John: ‘”who say they are Jews and are not” and are persecutors of the Christians. And the ‘Judaizers’ of Galatians.

  133. Durruti says:
    @Germanicus

    By the numbers:

    1.

    criminal, terrorist,sadist and butchering Jews

    But you insist it is fine to murder a man – without trial.

    2.

    Anarchists who worship bolshevik terrorists don’t seem to recognize irony.

    My response was full of “irony.” Who does not “recognize irony?” And who do I worship?

    3.

    your Republic was usurped by a criminal corporation in 1871, the DC Act, whic laid the foundations for the FED.

    Our Republic, All Republics are different, and none are perfect creations. Ours was seriously damaged before 1960, but [pay attention here] DROWNED IN BLOOD on November 22, 1963. Our Republic was OVERTHROWN in a hail of bullets, and our last Constitutional President, John F. Kennedy, was assassinated.

    The Russian Monarchy, as with all Europe’s Monarchies, and Zionist & Gentile Financial Oligarchs, all the Power Elite, orchestrated the slaughter of millions in World War I. The Communist Revolution and subsequent growth of fascism was the fruit of the butchery and destruction of Europe’s Republics. Juarez was assassinated, and Debs imprisoned in America. WW II was the 2nd Half of the horror.

    4.

    Seriously , get off your “exceptionalism”, this jewish concept doesn’t do any good for America

    The exceptionalism is yours. and this “concept” is yours. Jews do not own arrogance.

    I may be a Fool, but I do not care what, or who you shed tears for.

    Durruti

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  134. @Colin Wright

    How low must the mean IQ of Christian-zionists be? 90? 85?

    To be a follower of Kenneth Copeland, John Haggee or Benny Hinn, it helps for your IQ to lie on the bottom half of the bell curve.

  135. @ThreeCranes

    Worshipping strange gods: Sounds like Pope Francis and his embrace of Pachamama.

  136. Dr. X says:
    @anonymous

    Matthew 22:36-40:

    “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
    Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
    This is the first and great commandment.
    And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
    On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

    • Replies: @anonymous
  137. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    Ah, I am sorry you misunderstood my comment.

    I did not say Jews have not acted with hostility towards Christians. They did, sometimes, especially when Christians were claiming Judaism was obsolete and trying to convert Jews.

    I said that Judaism, the religion, was not preoccupied with Christianity to the same extent as the reverse, and that it did not see Christianity as having been superseded or needing to be abolished, but only wished to prevent Jews from converting.

    For Christianity, Jews represented a crisis of legitimacy. The continued existence of Jews was problematic. For Jews, Christians were simply a threat, that of an aggressive attempt to win its people over and abolish it. Absent this behavior, Jews were not concerned with the simple existence of Christians.

  138. If you want to understand Judaism you will understand it very easily.
    All you have to ask anybody from Jericho.
    Or maybe you can ask anybody from all those millions of Muslims killed lately in Middle East.
    Fact is that Jews are actually not very nice people.

  139. Ben Shapiru is an homosexual hypocrite, albeit, behind him are major players with major money who are foisting his persona onto the American stage. No good can come of it. Though he did cause me some concern when it looked like Tucker Carlson was on his way out I had the terrible thought that they would replace him with Shaoiru.
    What we must remember is the jews actually worship a different god than we worship. His name is Yahweh. Through him they are allowed to cheat, lie, steal and murder. Christian-Zionis is a trojan horse.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  140. anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Sick of Orcs

    (mohammedans do the same thing, but being dumb have to rely on gullible shitlib apologists to carry their water until their numbers grow.)

    You pagan/godless phuckups will never understand. Our genius will always be in our True Monotheism… the key to our eternal success.

    The likes of you will have plenty of time regretting your choices, made using your “presumably genius” minds, that of either rejecting the Almighty One, because “proof,” or taking mangods for worship… much regret, as you writhe in unimaginable torment, for all eternity.

    • Replies: @Sick of Orcs
  141. @AaronB

    ‘… I said that Judaism, the religion, was not preoccupied with Christianity to the same extent as the reverse, and that it did not see Christianity as having been superseded or needing to be abolished, but only wished to prevent Jews from converting…’

    So there may well be a Judaism somewhere that is not hostile to Christians.

    That’s untrue, but have it. Isn’t what’s of more practical significance what the attitude of actual Jews is towards Christians?

    After all, I could point out that Christianity preaches forgiveness, and turning the other cheek, and not condemning your neighbor, and all that.

    So there were no pogroms, and no expulsions, I guess. All better now?

    After all Christianity would necessarily not be threatening to Jews. To think otherwise would be as absurd as seeing Judaism as hostile to Christians.

    • Replies: @AaronB
    , @AaronB
  142. @AaronB

    ‘…For Christianity, Jews represented a crisis of legitimacy. The continued existence of Jews was problematic…’

    As usual, that’s nonsense.

    Jews are no more a threat to Christians, theologically, than unbelief in any form is a threat.

    Christianity has accepted that Jews rejected Christ from the start. See the parable of the wicked husbandmen.

    From a Christian point of view, it is to be regretted that Jews do not accept Christ — but this is true of all unbelievers. You’re not special.

    Conversely, your dissimilation notwithstanding, the Talmud is loaded with vilification of Christ, Christians, and all the rest of it.

    If we’re going to look at actual behavior, we’ve seen that Jews are at least as awful to Christians as Christians are to Jews, given the opportunity. If we’re going to look at texts, Judaism is loaded with abuse of Christians and everybody else, while Christianity at least attempts to maintain an attitude of ‘if only they would come to accept…’

    What is it that a Christian is supposed to accept? That his soul is closer to that of a beast than that of a human being? That he was born to serve the Jew as a slave while the Jew sits like an Effendi and eats?

    Find the equivalent in Christian theology, if you can.

  143. Seraphim says:
    @Germanicus

    This Durruti showed his true stripes. ‘American Anarchist’. Who “played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in North America and Europe in the first half of the 20th century”?
    Emma Goldman (“modern Joan of Arc”) and her lover Alexander Berkman, both from well-off Orthodox ‘Jewish families’ from Lithuania, then in the Russian Empire. Emigrated to America, they planed the assassination of Henry Clay Frick, the manager of Carnegie Steel Company in order to ” “strike terror into the soul of his class” and “bring the teachings of Anarchism before the world”.
    “Initially supportive of that country’s Bolshevik revolution (“the most fundamental, far-reaching and all-embracing principles of human freedom and of economic well-being”), Berkman and Goldman soon became disillusioned, voicing their opposition to the Soviets’ use of terror after seizing power and their repression of fellow revolutionaries. They left the Soviet Union in late 1921, and in 1925 Berkman published a book about his experiences, “The Bolshevik Myth” and “Now and After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism”. Of course, she went to Spain, hailed as “our spiritual mother” by the anarchists and she met Durruti. She wrote his panegyric at his death.

    • Replies: @Germanicus
  144. @the grand wazoo

    ‘Ben Shapiru is an homosexual hypocrite…’

    I wish. He’s married and, regrettably, has reproduced.

  145. Seraphim says:
    @AaronB

    Actually, it is for Jews that Christianity represents a crisis of legitimacy.

    “33 Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: 34 And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 35 And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. 36 Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. 37 But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. 38 But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. 39 And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. 40 When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? 41 They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? 43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder. 45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them 46 But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet. (Matthew 21:33-46).

    They forfeited themselves their legitimacy and deep down they know, but feign indifference.

  146. anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @anonymous

    Whites are a mere 10% of the global population, yet the ONLY group not entitled to homelands

    A most greedy and psychopathic group of spiritually cursed people who think the whole earth is their entitlement… why do they need “homelands.” Lol!

  147. @anonymous

    The term Judeo-Christian is about as logical as using the term Satano-Christian.

    Or Judeo-Antisemitism.

  148. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    But that’s just it.

    Christians need Jews – and everyone – to convert. Jews don’t need Christians to convert. For Jews, righteous non Jews go to heaven. For Christians, non believers go to hell.

    I don’t see how anyone can deny that this is an essentially hostile and imperialistic stance, quite intolerant, whereas the Jewish stance is tolerant and humane in comparison.

    You are quite correct that for Christians, as for Muslims, all non believers are in a sense a threat, which simply isn’t true for Jews.

    However, Christianity was supposed to have replaced Judaism. Judaism isn’t supposed to exist anymore.

    Other people don’t know about Christ yet. Jews reject his claim to fulfill Jewish prophecies. So the very people who had these do not accept Christian claims about it.

    What’s more, Gods covenant with Jews is supposed to be broken. Jews are not supposed to survive terrible adversity, much less flourish.

    Christianity, the new religion, had to distinguish itself against a Jewish background, and in many ways, in opposition to that background – this naturally led to a preoccupation with Judaism.

    And no, there simply isn’t anything about Christianity in Jewish writing that equals the scope and extent of Christian interest in Judaism, quite simply because there was no need – Judaism did not define itself in relation to Christianity. Thats natural enough. It simply is not a major topic in Judaism. It is a passing “topical” issue with no enduring metaphysical significance.

    Nor did Jews need others to convert. Finally, there is nothing that matches the vitriol and venom of Christian writing on Jews, for the same reason – Judaism was not trying to distinguish itself from a Christian background, but was, rather, only interested in defending itself from encroachment. This led to vitriol and polemics, of course, but not nearly the same extent

  149. AaronB says:
    @Colin Wright

    Sure, but since there is no deep metaphysical or eschatological hostility to Christianity in Judaism, only a defense against encroachment, whereas there is from Christianity towards Jews, then Jewish hostility is clearly defensive.

    In other words, Jewish hostility is merely contingent and circumstantial, whereas Christian hostility is essential and metaphysical.

    However, your point that behavior matters more than theory has some merit, and is a point I have argued with regard to Muslims.

    By this metric, it is obvious that Jews have not been nearly as aggressive. After the initial attempt by Jesus to replace Judaism was thwarted , there was no pattern of widespread massacre and persecution against Christians in places where Jews had power. Occasional instances, sure. But nothing comparable to persistent Christian persecution.

    I grew up orthodox, and animosity towards Christians was not a prevalent attitude – Christianity simply was not a major topic. There was a negative attitude to some extent, sure, but not very heated or strong, and many adult orthodox Jews express a somewhat guarded appreciation for Christianity, at least among my rather conventional acquaintances, while obviously rejecting its specific claims with regard replacing Judaism.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @ivan
    , @Colin Wright
  150. anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Dolan

    muslims usually kill white Christian people.

    Wrong!! Western paid mercenaries with “muslim” names overwhelmingly kill brown Muslim people. The “muslim” terrorist acts which happen in euRapean capitals are usually false flags.

    Perhaps one of the main exceptions would be the Charlie Hebdo attack. Such must be truly Islamist justi… er, I mean, “terrorism.”

  151. anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @geokat62

    How is this happening in the real world, this far-right moral midget asks!

    Well, the same kind of feeling true monotheists feel when they witness pagans taking humans, animals, books, and other inanimate objects as “gods”… and based of whose authority… why, St./Sw. Hearsay of course.

    The irony of the insane ranting about others’ insanity. 😀

  152. Dumbo says:
    @anonymous

    BS. Islam is basically a modified Judaism, adapted to Arab imperialism. In terms of rules it is much closer to Orthodox Judaism than anything else.

  153. anonymous[367] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    … but this is necessarily so, as the children must always have a problematic relation to the father. Newer religions which claim to supersede the old…

    Just because a juden claims some deceitful nonsense, does not make it true.

    The background of the cursed juden has been either animal-worship (the abominable “Calf” deity), down to the “in-his-image” mangod-worship of now.

    The background of Islam has always been the true monotheism of Adam PBUH. True monotheist prophets of the Almighty One, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad-SAW, have never ever prostrated before any animal or any man.

    When we muslims follow such blessed men-of-God, how is it possible that pagan Judaism is the “father,” and true monotheist Islam, the “child”? The idea is so deceitfully ludicrous.

    https://www.masjidtucson.org/submission/monotheism/monotheismnaturalinstinct.html

  154. Abrahamic faith traditions are distinguished from each other not because they recognize “different gods” — an absurdly illogical proposition — but as a consequence of the history of their development.

    The Children of Israel knew God, though the Law given to them was exceedingly harsh, intended to sift the wheat from the chaff and breed a morally upright people who would not only endure from one generation to the next, but serve to benefit others who chose to assimilate into their bloodline. Only in this way would they be a “light unto the nations.”

    Jesus, the Messiah of God, was the fulfillment of prophecy in their Book — immaculately conceived; the only sinless man ever to walk the earth; one who, by God, gave sight to the blind, healed the leper, and raised the dead, who clearly admonished his disciples to abide by Torah Law, yet occasionally provided signs that it would, in the near future, be superseded by a Law not circumscribed to the House of Israel, but available to all humankind without the need for tribal assimilation.

    And here is where many would prefer the story end, claiming that the fulfillment of said prophecy and abrogation of Torah Law occurred with the death and resurrection of Jesus. On the surface, such conviction allows them to disassociate themselves from Judaic cosmology, asserting independence therefrom; yet one may reasonably ask, “If such is the case, then what need would Gentiles have for any association with said cosmology?” After all, they were independent of it for generations aforetime and had already enjoined religious worldviews (of Mithra, Horus, etc.) that shared fundamentally common denominators with the man-god mystery religion that would evolve around a popular conception of Jesus.

    Saul of Tarsus provides the answer, having advocated a religion whose essential characteristics were distinguished from preceding regional ones solely by its Jewish roots. For all practical purposes, Pauline Christianity is an undeniably Jewish innovation, one advanced with the purpose of maintaining Gentile adherence to a pagan mythos, thereby disfranchising them of their inheritance in the kingdom of God (as is consonant with the Judaic understanding thereof).

    So what would Temple Israel have to gain by this? Why create such a golem that would, in future times, prove true the law of unintended consequences?

    Quite simply, they wished to remain the exclusive heirs to God’s Kingdom and accrue all advantage attendant with that position.

    The “secret” to minority constituency Jewish power in America is no secret at all. Their solidarity, their patience, their determination, their sacrifice, their sense of obligation … all are readily available to everyone. The difference is that there are just enough of them who understand the necessity of these characteristics to their survival as if they were uttered in their ear by God Himself and they remain cohesive and committed in preserving them.

    The rest of us aren’t supposed to enjoy that kind of advantage, and when we do, we’re a threat to be reckoned with. When Pauline Christianity first became official political doctrine in the fourth century, European innovation and scientific progress stagnated. Centuries later, it would enjoy a revival, but only as a consequence of contact with a rapidly burgeoning culture whose influence would irreversibly alter the course of Europe for the better.

    We’re also not supposed to know that culture for what it’s worth. As cretinous, unwashed, bloodthirsty pagans whose religion warrants everlasting torment, we’re an undeserving lot. That’s the way the enemies of humanity would like to keep it — we, a cauldron of goybeans, ready to serve.

    Imagine if we could be as strong, as unified, as determined, as self-sacrificing, as loyal to our cause as they are to theirs. Just imagine what we could accomplish.

    God’s Kingdom is everywhere, for anyone, including us. It’s ours for the taking.

    If, that is, we want it.

  155. @Ash Williams

    You think Jews care about Israel? It’s just a means to an end. The Jew is and has always been the most comfortable when hiding. When Israel is inevitably annihilated it will load the Jewish Gun with more bullets than the Holohoax. That’s the whole purpose.

  156. Ahoy says:

    @geokat62 #105

    On the video/pic my mistake. Video only.

  157. @Durruti

    But you insist it is fine to murder a man – without trial.

    You are obviously a Bronstein worshiper.

    A sadistic tyrant was killed, who hated Russians with a dedication.
    The US second amendment grants this as well, fool.
    A militia is supposed to take out domestic tyrants, with or without a trial.

    In case of Bronstein, he was taken out by another tyrant. So what?
    Bolshevik criminals among themselves, who the US Jews sent to Russia.

    Not gonna engage in the rest of your stupid moralizing twaddle.
    Are you a Jew?

  158. anonymous[899] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dr. X

    And the point is?

    You said, “Christians are commanded to ‘love they neighbor as thyself.’ The same cannot be said of the Jewish Torah.” And I said that it is from the Torah.

    Now you bring another commandment. And it is also from the Torah.

    “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.” – Deuteronomy 6:5

    You are trying to argue with me about what?

  159. “You said, “Christians are commanded to ‘love they neighbor as thyself.’ The same cannot be said of the Jewish Torah.” And I said that it is from the Torah.”

    Then you don’t comprehend the Torah

    Th first commandment is the orienting the jewish relationship with God.

    The next nine are all about how jews are to respond to each other and their fellow humans beings.

    and in every respect

    “Do unto others as you would like to be done unto you.”

  160. anon[153] • Disclaimer says:
    @AaronB

    please the core ideology of judaism is ethnic supremacism is nazism for jews while cristianity accept that all human souls have the same value and accept everyone in his realm.

    the problem arise precisely because embracing a supremacistic religion like judaism that see the rest as nothing more than cattle to exploit while living in foreign land and refusing to convert and be one more of the comunity where everyone is considered equal is recipe for disaster.

    sincerely tell me why we shouldnt have expulsed or killed a supremacistic minority like that ?

  161. ivan says:
    @AaronB

    The canard that Christians hated Jews because some Jews in the distant past killed Jesus (who was himself a Jew) is a convenient and serviceable lie that has served Jewish apologetics for well on 2,000 years. In truth the antipathy towards Jews have its origins in their disloyalty, their exploitation of the sins and weaknesses of men for money, in other words the character of their relationship with the surrounding peoples.

    Now it may be true that various Christian mobs were incited at various times to murderous rage against the Jews living in their midst. But in many such cases there were far more proximate reasons for that – ursury, consorting with the enemy and such like – rather than some old saw about Jews killing Jesus, although that is usually an ingredient, in the incendiary rage of the mobs.

    This is not a peculiarly Jewish-Christian phenomenon, you can see the same thing happening today between say the Muslims and Hindus in India, or the Muslims and Buddhists in Myanmar.

    • Replies: @alba
  162. @Seraphim

    This Durruti showed his true stripes. ‘American Anarchist’.

    “Anarchists” are usually communists in disguise.

    Consider the brazen chutzpah, complaining devil Trotsky was killed without a trial, by yet another sick tyrant.
    These people did Twoiki and Troiki “trials”, Cheka tribunals, and caused millions of ethnic Russians, Poles, Germans, Hungarians, Ukrainians, Kalmyks. Koreans, peasants, priests etc to die, rubber stamped by two or three blood thirsty Jews, who had kill quotas.
    So sick.

  163. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Only dumb, racist Judeo-christians make such a stupid comment and ONLY a closet Jewish, like COLIN WRIGHT AGREE with these lies.

    Who is responsible for the past, at least, seven century of wars, destruction, killings and later in late 19th century and 20th century for MODERN TERRORISM, dummy?

    It is no one but Judeo-christians coward.

    Who staged 9/11? It was Israel/US, the criminal Judeo-christians mass murderers.

    Who have created all these terror groups? Taliban, Al Qaeda, ISIS, the traitor kurd terrorists for the zionist project of ‘greater Israel’ as proxy army to kill Mulims?
    Muslims are the VICTIMS, and those who agree to such as racist comment are nothing but mass murderers supremacists like your boss, the Jewish mafia trump family sucking on Jews for protection, idiot liars.

    It is judeo-Christians dummies. Thank god there is still the video that criminal jews are treating ISIS in occupied land cowards.

    Who massacred Iraqis, Afghans, Libyan, Syrian, Iranians, Palestinians, Africans, Indonesians, Korean, Chinese, Turks, Venezuela, Bolivia, Colombians, El Salvadorians, Mexicans, Argentinians, Peruvians, Africans and many more people?
    It is Judeo-Christians mass murderers

    hey, coward Colin Wright, ONLY a closet zionist jew would answer the way YOU did to a stupid comment that is ALL lies, constructed by Jewish mass murderers, baby killers and thieves.

    Your tribe will be destroyed soon so the coward closet zionist mass murders idiot. YOU cannot fool anyone except yourself COWARD.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @alba
  164. alba says:
    @ivan

    in spain they opened the gates of granada to muslims and the thousands of jews scatered in the spanish towns suministred all the strategical information of the road, the situation of the army…..to the muslims ,the confidence in jews was so high that they let them as the “mayors” of the towns while the muslims marched to face the visigoth army

    once the reconquista ended and jews were forced to abandon spain or convert the grand rabby send a letter to all their rabbies to convert as fake cristians and destroy everything from within:
    -be a doctor and kill the cristian childrens
    -poison the water suplly of the cristians
    -enter as priest to subvert in from within

    ………

  165. alba says:
    @anonymous

    he is right
    also stop with that victim mentality little hyena

    • Replies: @anonymous
  166. Durruti says:

    Seraphim wrote:

    This Durruti showed his true stripes. ‘American Anarchist’. Who “played a pivotal role in the development of anarchist political philosophy in North America and Europe in the first half of the 20th century”?

    Who me? I’m that important?

    Oh! Do you mean Goldman & Berkman?

    You accuse and convict them of the crime of planning? Did they actually commit the act you accuse them of supposedly planning? Anarchists Sacco & Vanzetti were framed up and murdered in America. Joan Baez sang a beautiful song about them.

    My favorites are Durruti & Makhno, & the Anarchists of the Paris Commune. Emma Goldman did some good things in her life. My criticism of her & her associates is that they did precious little with their advocacies. They avoided the Front Lines, when the bullets were flying. Marx managed to do the same thing. Conversely, Bakunin, Makhno & Durruti – with thousands of their comrades, advanced to the sound of the gunfire.

    I support the Restoration of our American Republic. Urge support for Tulsi Gabbard, Zionism’s latest victim, and have a philosophical link to Alain Soral’s Equality & Reconciliation political effort.

    An admirer of Hemingway, and Yeats, and Pearse & Connoly & Pedro Albizu Campos & Zapata & Villa, Malcolm X, Lennon, & the Founders, such as Jefferson, the Kennedys, and so many others – no verb needed.

    We Anarchists reject sectarianism & will march with any who seek to Restore the Republic, as well as defend a lovely Lady who is under great stress, Tulsi Gabbard. Durruti died in front of Madrid, -1936, as he & 1300 Anarchists fought alongside the Government’s Republican Militia, to defend their Republic.

    Durruti – for the Anarchist Collective

    • Replies: @homahr
    , @Seraphim
  167. @AaronB

    ‘… By this metric, it is obvious that Jews have not been nearly as aggressive. After the initial attempt by Jesus to replace Judaism was thwarted , there was no pattern of widespread massacre and persecution against Christians in places where Jews had power. Occasional instances, sure. But nothing comparable to persistent Christian persecution…’

    As usual with you, you fail to cite any specifics. I have named the instances when Jews had power — and noted the prompt and violent persecution that occurred when they did.

    You claim ‘there was no pattern of widespread massacre and persecution in places where Jews had power.’ Where were these places?

  168. anonymous[307] • Disclaimer says:
    @alba

    [he is right
    also stop with that victim mentality little hyena]

    I don’t except anything but denial from an illiterate racist supremacist. Your boss is the same.

    You dummies, tell me who is in the Middle East and every country around the world? idiot
    What are you doing there. You staged 9/11 to invade 7 countries in 5 years. You have killed Millions of Muslims, rob their museums, libraries, stealing their oil to run your economy which is nothing but a Casino whore house good for the thieves like Jewish mafia where Trump family is a member.

    Why American mass murderers, have invaded more than hundred countries if your Jewish capitalism which is based on whore houses/gambling/Escourt/ works well, then why do you invade, kill, rape and rob to feed yourself dummies?

    I am not going to continue to tell you the rest of your CRIMES against humanity, you should educate yourself ignorant.

    Who stole half of Mexico by staging false flag at the end of 19th century liars? Who is trying to topple so many governments around the world using your pimps and whores called NGOs to steal other people resources if your economy which is based on whore houses and Casinos are doing well according to ‘stockmarket’ gambling house idiot?

    Who has killed and burned millions, millions, millions of Muslims, many children, and is trying to starve many millions more to steal their resources using the Jewish mafia at the US Treasury packed with zionist jews where you Boss sucks on to send more goodies to Israel idiot?

    Do you have brain to know what is going on? I guess you are like your boss, a racist charlatan.

    You have to feed yourself by using your brain if you have one. You cannot continue killing others to steal their resources. Resources of Venezuelan, Bolivians, Colombian, Africans, Asians are theirs not yours.
    You must fuck off from the region and take your colonists to New York a Jewish strte, if not you soon than later will be thrown out like a rotten rat. Go and study the history of Afghanistan dummy. They throw Evil British Empire run by the Rothschild family THREE times out like a rotten rat from Afghanistan, that’s why these people with resources kept poor artificially. They are fight EVIL like you.

    You boss is illiterate Jewish mafia and has no glue that has to fuck off from the region and Afghanistan soon than later. Those goodies that Trump has transferred to Jewish mafia mass murderers, all will be taken from them, and then you should feed each other by licking each other behind racist.

    • Replies: @alba
  169. Excellent post, the subtext of which is that there are only two kingdoms in this world – The Kingdom of God (The Catholic Church and those who desire to be members of it) and The Kingdom of Satan.

    Saint Augustine described it as The City of God vs the City of Man and the Apocalypse refers to it as the Camp of the Saints and the satanic opposition to it.

    Pope Leo XII, in Humanum Genus describes the Kingdom of God and The Kingdom of Satan in this encyclical

     HUMANUM GENUS
    ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
    ON FREEMASONRY

    To the Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and
    Bishops of the Catholic World in Grace and
    Communion with the Apostolic See.

    The race of man, after its miserable fall from God, the Creator and the Giver of heavenly gifts, “through the envy of the devil,” separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other of those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth. The one is the kingdom of God on earth, namely, the true Church of Jesus Christ; and those who desire from their heart to be united with it, so as to gain salvation, must of necessity serve God and His only-begotten Son with their whole mind and with an entire will. The other is the kingdom of Satan, in whose possession and control are all whosoever follow the fatal example of their leader and of our first parents, those who refuse to obey the divine and eternal law, and who have many aims of their own in contempt of God, and many aims also against God.

    America is part of the Kingdom of Satan which can be seen clearly because it has p[ositive law succoring the four sins crying to Heaven for vengeance –

    Abortion
    So-called Gay Marriage
    Usury
    depriving a laborer of his wages via mass immigration

    America is a light to the world in a certain sense – it is a moral dumpster fire.

  170. The Feast of Christ the King last and its celebration reminded us Catholics that His is a real Kingship that each country must recognise which means that religious liberty and the new ecumenism is a heterodox praxis that must be corrected.

    Any country, including America, that legislates in opposition to His commands is a country doomed to extinction.

    St Augustine : “there is no justice save in that commonwealth whose founder and ruler is Christ” and “kingdoms without justice are but criminal gangs”.

    Thus, any country (like our American Empire) that legislates contrary to the commandments of Jesus Christ, King of Heaven and Earth, is aught but a criminal gang.

    There are four sins crying to Heaven for vengeance and all four sins are the public policy of this Evil Empire, America, and all four sins are the favored objects of positive law in this Evil Empire, America.

    Willful Murder (Abortion, Unjust Wars, Drones, Assassinations)

    The Sin of Sodom (So-called Gay marriage, the acceptance of sodomy as permissible and praise worthy)

    Oppression of the Poor (Usury, which is state-sponsored theft of labor).

    Defrauding Laborers of their Wages (Mass immigration which undermines the wage scale, closing manufacturing in America and relocating it overseas to be done by slaves)

    Given the Truth that the Social Kinship of Christ is Catholic Tradition and that the new ecumenism and religious liberty are opposed to that truth, ought we not work to reestablished the Truth of Tradition?

    Sadly, many Catholics think the The Kinship of Christ is merely a spiritual truth or a truth that will only be actualised at the end of time but that is not Catholic Tradition.

    When Jesus told Pilate His kingdom is not of this world He was testifying that His Kingship did not proceed from or begin in this world, not that it was not in this word especially since His Resurrection

    “In front of Pilate, Christ affirmed three times that He was a King in the same sense that Pilate understood it. ‘Then you are a King?’ Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a King,’ in other words, ‘You are correct.’ It is true that He told him, ‘My kingdom is not of this world,’ but He did not say, ‘My kingdom is not here.’ He used the adverb ‘hinc’ (Regnum meum non est hinc) which indicates movement and does not exist in English. This adverb ‘hinc’ meant three things at the same time, ‘My Kingdom does not proceed from this world, My Kingdom is in this world; My Kingdom goes from this world to the other world.’

    Mr. Shapiru. Put that in your Philosophical Puritan Pipe and smoke it

    • Replies: @SharkSale
    , @Seraphim
  171. alba says:
    @anonymous

    he is saying that muslim ” terrorism ” really beneficiate jewish positions he is not judging the morality of those actions like you imply bringing the past conquest of the west.

  172. alba says:

    the judeocristian is a coup d term to european phyque to arrogate jews as the only maker of the history of europe and the west as a whole and deprive us of any significant rol in our own hisotry

    we have reached reverse nazi germany

  173. “(The Catholic Church and those who desire to be members of it) ”

    Having been raised a catholic and even considered seminary, I can say with certainty, the Catholic Congregation is but one of many followers of Christ.

    Clearly Mr. Shapiro is attempting to define christian belief in political terms.

  174. Ahoy says:

    They use this devious language to keep the white man’s mind in constant confusion. Terms like “diversity”, “multiculturalism”,”judeo-christian” don’t have fixed foundation. It’s like a soccer field with moveable goal posts.

    Example is the preaching of “multiculturalism” for the white by Israel, but when the game is moved to Israel the goal posts are praced on the premise that one can’t break the “social fabric”. Here is Nitiniahou speaking.

  175. homahr says:
    @Durruti

    Tulsi is a supporter of Israel.

    • Replies: @Durruti
  176. @AaronB

    I didn’t read your whole text because I think that you say whatever is convenient to you without much sophistication, withou sources and so on. But just to mention one point of your post and discuss it:

    Christians need Jews – and everyone – to convert. Jews don’t need Christians to convert. For Jews, righteous non Jews go to heaven. For Christians, non believers go to hell.

    1- Christians don’t seem to be very afraid of efforts of conversion from other religions and there is at least presently no religious sanctions against people who leave the Christian religion. The case may be a bit different when people convert to Islam. But the reason for that is not religious but the fact that there is a general negative view of Islam in the West which is in part promoted by Jews. In Judaism there seems to be very strong social sanctions against those who leave the religion. Some orthodox American or Israeli Jews come to Germany in order to escape this pressure and sanctions.

    2- I don’t see Christians around who feel any need to convert people or making any effort in order to promote conversions. On the contrary, Christians are quite open to other religions even when they remain Christians. Churchs are open for anybody, you can go to a mass in a Church and nobody is going to ask who you are, whether you are a Christian or not. Many priesters help systematically other people independently of their religion without thinking of converting them. I don’t think that Judaism is so open to other people or religions. It’s true that Christianity attracted many people and exists in a big part of the world. It differenciated itself along history in very different branches. Some Protestant sects try to convert people. But Judaism also likes to convert some people. The difference is that in order to convert to Judaism you have to be of some value to Judaism and to the Jewish community. Jacqueline du Prés could convert to Judaim in 24 hours because she was a valuable European nordic woman. Other people need one year for that. Palestinians are generally not allowed to convert to Judaism. See the difference? Some time ago I saw a reportage about an America Protestant priester who went to Papua Whatever the Place is Called where he has lived for 10 years with his wife in an isolated place. He has learned a language that is spoken by about 1000 people, he has written a grammar for this language (if I remember well) and he has translated the Bible (OT or NT?) for them. He helps those people who lived isolated with medical assistance and so on). Well, not even Indonesia cares at all about those people who seem to be happy to have converted to Christianity while no Christian besides the priester there cares whether they are Christian or anything else.

    3- You say that for Jews righteous Jews go to heaven and that for Christianity non-believer go to hell. Well, I think that the whole picture is much more complicated than that. You don’t mention the fact that at least according to some Jewish conceptions there is also something similar to hell, it seems even to be worse than hell (it “burns worse than fire”, Wikipedia). Who is there? Are Jews ready to share Heaven with non-Jews? It seems that some of those conceptions in Judaism came from Zoroastrismus, according to wikipedia. Along history Christianity has had dozens or hundreds of different conceptions of hell. For many of them it’s not a place where people burn at all but only the condition of being far away from God and the meaning that he bestows to life. So, it’s place where many people would rather be, maybe many Jews also. In Catholicism, notions of hell have been practically more or less droped. In any case, it’s also a place where non-believers who are good can go (wikipedia gives as source for that the Katechismus der Katholischen Kirche). So, your informations about that isn’t correct.

  177. @UncommonGround

    Some orthodox American or Israeli Jews come to Germany in order to escape this pressure and sanctions.

    Not sure why the come to a country, which allegedly tried to kill them all?
    Apart from the fact that Germans are not asked if they want these “refugees”, who as soon as they arrive issue demands.

  178. anonymous[899] • Disclaimer says:
    @UncommonGround

    So You Want to Convert to Judaism? It’s Not That Easy
    https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/so-you-want-to-convert-to-judaism-1.5312365

    “After 14 weeks or so in a Reform Introduction to Judaism course, you may be invited to join the Jewish people — even if you don’t yet feel fully Jewish.

    “Both the Conservative and Reform movements offer Introduction to Judaism classes throughout the United States that meet for about three hours weekly over the course of 14 to 18 weeks.

    “Orthodox conversion requires commitment to all of the Torah’s 613 commandments and the minutia of rabbinic law, so expect to spend a year or more studying with a rabbi or religious mentor.

    • Replies: @c matt
  179. @AaronB

    ‘Christians need Jews – and everyone – to convert. Jews don’t need Christians to convert. For Jews, righteous non Jews go to heaven…’

    …the righteous non Jews go to heaven…where they are permitted to serve the Jews as slaves for all eternity.

    But do they go to heaven at all? After all, their souls are closer to that of beasts than human beings.

    But is there a heaven in the first place? Isn’t the emphasis on ‘heaven’ something Judaism has acquired as a consequence of living in an intellectual atmosphere dominated by Christian and Muslim precepts?

    You can’t just decide Judaism is whatever is most congenial to your argument. We could make National Socialism sound mighty fine for everybody that way.

    • Replies: @SOL
  180. Durruti says:
    @homahr

    Tulsi is a supporter of Israel.

    You are correct.

    On the other hand.

    1. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard may be a supporter – Under Duress.

    2. Recall, she has already been forced to Recant (apologize, beg forgiveness, kiss Zionist ass) for a previous statement of hers.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/01/17/democrat-tulsi-gabbard-apologizes-lgbtq-remarks/2608913002/

    Next: is the BIG $64,000 Question???

    3. If, by some miracle, Congresswoman, Major Tulsi Gabbard, decided to speak up in favor of the Palestinian People, would we (you and me, and our friends), be able to protect her from the Hell that the Zionist Owned & Controlled Mainstream Media would bring down on her?

    Would we be able to finance her mailings, and other Campaign Expenses? Where might be OUR TV News outlets? Can we defend her from physical harm? We condemn others for failure to do things we cannot help them with. When I gave my children their first swimming lessons, I was there, and capable of performing a rescue.

    You are Correct. You still need $2.50 to ride the NYC Subway.

    Tulsi Gabbard is a decent Human who has served her country, and deserves our support, our protection from the Power elite, who, apparently, wish her to disappear. They are already taking her district away from her.

    4. We failed to Protect President John F. Kennedy, or Avenge his murder, or render aid to Robert Kennedy, Malcalm X, ML King, Lennon, and a thousand others. We cannot protect Mel Gibson, or Jesse Ventura (who has relocated to Mexico).

    Conclusion:

    When a decent Lady, Ms. Gabbard, even if she is not 100% correct on all issues, is slandered by the Media, and even though we cannot protect her in the Bruce Willis/Clint Eastwood manner, we might note the slander, and voice sympathy.

    The Disney Production Fake elections we are subjected to, deserve, at least an active Boycott on our part. What the Oligarchs did to Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and Cindy McKinney (and-she has a correct -say we- position on almost all issues, and what have we been able to do for her, and a thousand other would be candidates who never see the light of MSNBC day?) the Oligarchs will continue to do, until they are stopped.

    On the positive side: If Freedom was easy, we would not appreciate it.

    Durruti

    * All our politicians operate under Duress, or bribes, or both.

  181. @UncommonGround

    ‘… In Judaism there seems to be very strong social sanctions against those who leave the religion…’

    One can see a variation of that outlook right here on Unz Review.

    The site abounds in offerings that are more or less anti-semitic, or more or less hostile to Israel.

    What do Fran and Aaron focus on? Where do they post most promptly?

    Why, invariably in response to whatever Gilad writes. And why?

    Because Gilad isn’t just another gentile anti-semite. He’s an apostate, a renegade.

    If this wasn’t the internet, they’d probably stone him to death. And, in point of fact, Atzmon does come in for an unusual amount of persecution and vilification.

    …and obviously, that’s precisely because he’s Jewish.

  182. c matt says:

    This sense of mission is why more Americans have died for the liberty of others than any other nation’s soldiers.

    Of course it can equally be said that

    This sense of mission is why more Americans have killed for the liberty of others than any other nation’s soldiers.

  183. c matt says:
    @anonymous

    wouldn’t it be easier to just self-identify as jewish?

    • Replies: @anonymous
  184. Gall says:

    I always thought Shapiro was a Neocon scam artist thanks for confirming my original intuition. He’s another what the late Michael Collins Piper calls a Judas Goat:

    https://ia803105.us.archive.org/7/items/michaelcollinspiperthejudasgoatstheenemywithin_201910/Michael%20Collins%20Piper%20The%20Judas%20Goats%20The%20Enemy%20Within.pdf

  185. Art says:

    then President-elect Dwight David Eisenhower made the following remark in the course of a speech: “[O]ur Government has no sense unless it is founded in a deeply-felt religious faith, and I don’t care what it is. With us, of course, it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that [teaches] all men are created equal.”

    1000 to 1 — Eisenhower had a Jew speech writer that wrote that intellectual garbage.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  186. VICB3 says:
    @Realist

    Maybe it’s just me, but the header photo of Ben Shapiro makes him look an awful lot like Greta Thunberg.

    Here, take a look and you decide; take your pick:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Greta+Thunberg&client=firefox-b-1-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiEp7PlpIbmAhVEzlkKHVDQB5MQ_AUoA3oECBIQBQ&biw=1013&bih=571

    Just a thought.

    VicB

  187. SOL says:
    @Colin Wright

    Props to you for continuing to engage that person.

  188. @Thomm

    i) Everything you state is explained by a low-trust high-performance minority acting within a high-trust high-performance majority. Jews also receive complicity and support from gentiles within secret societies.

    It’s also really amusing that you take as given a premise of Jewish control that the ADL would use to have you removed from the Jewish community. Oh so Jews control everything? How anti-semitic. That’s merely a conspiracy right? So you’ve just admitted to the premise of some forms of white nationalism.

    White nationalism doesn’t exist. There is only nationalism, exactly the same as Israeli nationalism, based upon separate European nations. The idea of white nationalism is just a projection of Jewish pan-nationalism.

    Generational institutional control is a reality. It’s like asking why the N’Dragheta is still in operation in Southern Italy – which is apposite, as international Jewry is genetically Italian and operates on the same principles. Collectives prevail against individuals.

    What you should be asking is how it’s possible there is any kind of white identity able to form ‘at all’ given the degree of Jewish dominance. I mean, if you have an average IQ of 115 and you yourself are Marilyn Vos Savant – how is it possible that there is any European opposition at all?

    ii) Jews are not a monolith. As you say, ordinary Jews are at risk from burgeoning black and Islamic, Asian and Hispanic separatism, supremacy and militancy. Yet the evidence of Jewish alliance with supposed anti-Jewish threats is very obvious and has been cited here again, and again. During World War 2 Zionists like Hore Belisha in Britain and Samuel Levinson in the US stopped European Jews from immigrating to the Allied nation – in essence, murdering huge swathes of their people in return for personal and Zionist pre-eminence. European Jews also killed Israeli Jews at the formation of Israel. Jews of different sects will readily engage in conflict with one another – like the Russian Jews and Chabad against the Hasidim. Since when has paradox or counter-intuitiveness ever impeded Jewish socio-cultural innovations and engineering?

    iii) Blacks very typically mistake white people for Jews as you’ve already admitted because you’re a midwit and don’t perceive your contradictory claims, which is understandable given the ‘fellow white people’ Schtick. Again, all of this is explained by explained merely by a low-trust high-performance minority acting within a high-trust high-performance majority. The Jewish diaspora is going to try to compete against the Chinese elites and Indian elites and lose – because they are not used to competing with similarly or even more low-trust high-performance societies. The Diaspora was supposed to pivot to China and David Spengler has made it very clear that the Chinese refused to allow the migration. Whites as well are going to go through very hard times for the foreseeable future, but they too will become low-trust instead of high-trust. The white core that emerges in 50 years is going to be hardened, and probably self-partitioned.

    iv) That is correct, that shooting was stupid and immoral.

  189. anonymous[899] • Disclaimer says:
    @c matt

    Easier for what? Depends on what one wants. Read the article!

    “A 2011 community survey by UJA-Federation of New York found that fewer than 2 percent of interviewees identified as converts. Yet more than 5 percent said they were born outside the faith but considered themselves Jewish despite not having formally converted.

    “So why are you converting? If it’s because you’re in love with a Jew, you’re in good company. Up to one-third of Orthodox converts and two-thirds of Conservative converts choose Judaism for this reason, according to rabbis involved in conversion programs. Conversion may be unnecessary if you’re open to a Reform wedding: Reform Judaism permits interfaith marriages.

    “You can, however, go for more. In fact, a substantial proportion of Orthodox converts are one-time Reform and Conservative converts who want the imprimatur of an Orthodox conversion, or individuals raised as Jews who subsequently realized they didn’t qualify as Jewish according to traditional Jewish law, or halachah.

    “Membership in the tribe also entitles you to Israeli citizenship.” – this is true for an Orthodox conversion, but not the other two.

  190. @Art

    ‘… With us, of course, it is the Judeo-Christian concept, but it must be a religion that [teaches] all men are created equal.”…’

    Now you see, that would be my point. Eisenhower almost certainly had in mind the ‘Christian’ concepts he had grown up with — but substituted ‘Judeo-Christian’ as a way of extending the tent to include Jewish Americans, of whom there were five million.

    It was a generous, inclusive concept. However, since 9/11, ‘Judeo-Christian’ has reversed polarity, so to speak. The term no longer emphasizes who’s inside — both Jews and Christians — but who’s outside — Muslims.

    It’s become a term of exclusion rather than one of inclusion. A way of inciting hate rather than of encouraging tolerance.

    • Replies: @Art
  191. Seraphim says:
    @Durruti

    Make sure you have enough Cocktails Molotov at hand when you’d march for the ‘Republic’. You may call them Cocktails Bakunin (or Goldman for that matter, Molotov was a ‘Stalinist’, or to be more ‘American’ Cocktails Bookchin).
    And yes, you are not ‘that important’, despite what you fancy about yourself. But we notice how hard you try to dodge the question and hide the real source of inspiration of anarchism, lashing out at ‘Zionism’. Alain Soral is a bit of a scatterbrain.

  192. Art says:

    Ben Shapiro and the Myth of the Judeo-Christian West

    Ben Shapiro is a Jew terrorist.

    If we refuse to put the “Judeo” in front of “Christian” – Shapiro will attack us – he will turn the US MSM and the ADL against us.

    Ben is part of the 7,000,000 strong Jew Stockholm Syndrome cabal that terrorizes America.

    Say anything bad about Jews or Israel and they will attack you (all the while weeping and claiming victimhood).

    Are you a good little gentile, and feel sorry for the Jews – do you buy into Ben’s BS game?

    • Agree: DESERT FOX
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  193. Art says:
    @Colin Wright

    It was a generous, inclusive concept. However, since 9/11, ‘Judeo-Christian’ has reversed polarity, so to speak. The term no longer emphasizes who’s inside — both Jews and Christians — but who’s outside — Muslims.

    It’s become a term of exclusion rather than one of inclusion. A way of inciting hate rather than of encouraging tolerance.

    Hmm — after 50 years of condemning Muslims as terrorists – the Jews now tell us that US Muslims are “OUR” victims.

    Those Jews are so hard to please.

    We must get on board with the latest guilt trip!

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  194. “I don’t see Christians around who feel any need to convert people or making any effort in order to promote conversions. On the contrary, Christians are quite open to other religions even when they remain Christians.”

    Then you don’t know I have not met christians that you are aware of. The goal if the faithful is to spread the good news. They may do so verbally or nonverbally, but inviting people to accept Christ is part of the christian walk.

    If people walk away from their faith, that is their choice, and while m,embers of christian faith and practice may pursue return, there is no bootstrap to heel to force the matter.

    However, if a member of a congregation strays and does so willfully, it is not unheard of to remove from the faithful, for the purpose of encouraging a change and upon said chamge — are welcome to return.

  195. @Art

    ‘…Those Jews are so hard to please.

    We must get on board with the latest guilt trip!’

    I agree about half way with this.

    Jews and their issues can get a bit exasperating: I came out of watching the Coen brothers’ A Serious Man, saying ‘thank God I’m not Jewish.’

    It really doesn’t end.

    But the central problem here really isn’t Jews per se. They’re only two percent of the population, and most other ethnic groups have drawbacks of one kind or another. Would we really want an America in which Mormons had a major voice? Right now, we’re contemplating what happens when Mexicans are a big part of the population…hmm, I guess we’re going to have to find out how that works.

    Things are tough all over, as they say. The only real problem here is excessive Jewish power and influence in general, and in particular, the way they’ve harnessed us to the service of that nasty little Ne0-Nazi state they’ve created on the other side of the planet.

    It would all be kind of a joke otherwise. So Jews manage to have issues about everything. Well, they are something, but they’re only two percent of the population…what’s for dinner?

  196. @Art

    ‘Ben Shapiro is a Jew terrorist.

    If we refuse to put the “Judeo” in front of “Christian” – Shapiro will attack us…’

    We should try to figure out how to encourage him to do this. It won’t turn out as badly as you predict.

  197. Richard B says:
    @Thomm

    i) If gentiles are so smart, why are Jews, whom gentiles outnumber 40:1 across the combined Western World, able to control everything? The entire premise of White Nationalism fails.

    If Jews are so smart why didn’t they create their own civilization? The entire premise of Antisemitism fails.

    • Agree: Dannyboy
  198. Richard B says:
    @Sick of Orcs

    Shapiro’s sister Abigail is an opera singer with a spectacular set of ginormous Khazar milkers. That’s about all the positives that can be said.

    Damn! I already used my LOL on the previous comment (#2).

    Only difference being your humor was intentional, theirs wasn’t.

  199. Why …

    The Jews, on the contrary, were ignorant of astronomy, and of science in general, and if a religion founded upon astronomy fell into their hands, it is almost certain it would be corrupted. We do not read in the history of the Jews, whether in the Bible or elsewhere, that they were the inventors or the improvers of any one art or science. Even in the building of this temple, the Jews did not know how to square and frame the timber for beginning and carrying on the work, and Solomon was obliged to send to Hiram, King of Tyre (Zidon) to procure workmen; “for thou knowest, (says Solomon to Hiram, i Kings v. 6.) that there is not among us any that can skill to hew timber like unto the Zidonians.” This temple was more properly Hiram’s Temple than Solomon’s, and if the Masons derive any thing from the building of it, they owe it to the Zidonians and not to the Jews.

    Thomas Paine’s, “Origin of Free-Masonry”
    https://freemasonry.bcy.ca/history/paine_t.html

  200. tac says:

    There is NO historical record for JESUS as the “son on ‘G-d’”; it’s all a Jewish [stolen idea of monotheism] inspired trickery! Will you people EVER simply consider this idea? That the Jews created this “Christian” and “Muslim” “RELIGION” just to keep the masses subservient to the Jew trickery? Of course not ….. not ONE SINGLE thought–to only simply gauge this idea? What does that say about your own curiosity, intellectual integrity or just conditioning to avoid the mere exploration of the topic simply to come to your own conclusions.

    If anyone is curious then review these and come to your own conclusions (by a PHD who is not at all “anti-Semitic”:

  201. AaronB says:
    @UncommonGround

    Well, I’m not so much talking about Christianity today. It is a defunct religion, now.

    Its pretty uncontroversial that Christianity does not believe there is any salvation outside Christ. This is an aggressive stance, and led to inquisitions, burnings of heretics, attempts to destroy foreign cultures, and missionary efforts on a vast scale.

    The Jewish attitude is rather mild – obey the Noahide laws, be good and kind and just, and you’ll go to heaven. Yes, the highest rewards can only be won from within Judaism – but if you want that, convert.

    The Christian attitude is very harshly black and white – you’re with us, or against us. We are everything, and the non us are nothing.

    The Jewish approach admits of gradations and degrees of reward and excellence.

    It is also cooperative rather than imperialistic – everyone has a role to play, all nations. Yes, the Jewish role is the highest, but others roles are valuable. It is a tapestry, although a hierarchically ordered one.

    Anyways, there is good stuff in Christianity, sure, and much to admire and appreciate – but it was born with a sword in its hand, so to speak, it was born in opposition, and aggression and absolutism has followed it like a shadow from the beginning. In more senses than one, Christianity wages war. It rejects the world – rather than elevate it spiritually, like Judaism. It is dualistic – and that means perpetual war.

    Without understanding this extreme character of Christianity, the history of the West is incomprehensible – and the current breakdown cannot be understood or recovered from.

  202. Anon[104] • Disclaimer says:

    “…the evils of abortion, transgender ideology, moral nihilism, post-modernism, racism…”

    Five out of six are genuine evils, but “racism” is like “Judeo-Christianity.” It’s a fake word used by liars and deceivers to manipulate the gullible. Christians were “racist” for many centuries, because they recognized the obvious facts of racial difference in intelligence, psychology, criminality and aptitude for civilization. In the same way, Christians were “sexist” and “homophobic.”

    If Vernon Thorpe thinks that “racism” is a serious term, he should ask himself where the term comes from, who uses it most, and whether they love Christianity or hate it.

    • Replies: @SharkSale
  203. @anonymous

    AYO HOLUP. Is this standard Semitic boilerplate or are you repping moose limbs or the Throwing Star People?

  204. Emslander says:
    @AaronB

    This is Christianity:

    God became man. In the person of Jesus Christ, conceived by the Holy Spirit in the womb of the Virgin Mary, He was born after nine months and lived among us.

    He died because of OUR sins at the hands of the Roman authorities and at the encouragement of the leaders of the people into whom He was born, the Jews.

    He rose again from the dead after His body lay dead for two nights in the tomb, spanning less than 34 hours. He was one of us. He lives now, as God and man, at the right hand of the Father.

    Everything else revolves around these facts.

  205. SharkSale says:
    @Anon

    The term ‘racism’ can, of course, be misused and often is. But if the term means something like, judging that a person lacks ineliminable human dignity on account on account of certain racial characteristics, then that does seem to be an evil incompatible with a Christian worldview. Hence the condemnations of Nazi ideology etc. http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html

    • Replies: @Anon
  206. SharkSale says:

    Depends what you mean by racism. Certain forms definitelu condemned as evil by Catholic Church e.g. http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_14031937_mit-brennender-sorge.html Tha a term is misused by political opportunists does not undermine the truth of the condemnations made in this encyclical.

  207. @AaronB

    In the first place, thanks to the few reactions above to my original comment.

    Now about Aarons answer: You have some ready made beliefs which you don’t test. They are ready and they are quite black and white. When you say that Christianity is dead, maybe you are right. Catholicism became a very tolerant religion. If I’m right, they officially decided not to try to convert Jews and I don’t see today any kind of serious missionary activity coming from European Christians anywhere. But historically the reality isn’t also so black and white as you think.

    Some of the historical points that you mention may not be so clear. People thought that Galileo had to recant because of the traditional doctrine of the Church. But nowadays there are historians who say that religion didn’t play a role, but philosophical questions and the fact that the mainstream of thinkers was Aristotelian, something that Galileo challenged. I think that there are also some historians who say that the Inquisition wasn’t so bad as worldly justice of the time and tended to punish people less severely (I think I read a book about that years ago, but I’m not going to look for it now to try to confirm what I say).

    Yes, it is true that there were some missionary efforts of convertion. I mentioned in my post one American Protestant missionary in Papua. But where did they have success? Where did they act backed by military force? Some Catholic missionaries in Japan were treated brutally as well as Japanese Christians who were tortured and eliminated. India didn’t become Christian (there are a few Christians in India). Countries which became Christian are mainly countries which were created and colonized by Europeans. The Philipines seems to be an exception. Even though Brazil was a Catholic country, African religions remained there until today and are practicised by descendants of African slaves. It seems that they were tolerated and survived.

    Yes, Christianity was a conversion religion, just like Judaism, as Shlomo Sand tells. Judaism expanded in Europe during the Roman times converting people. There was concurrence between both religions. Judaism lost the race and after that it expanded through convertion on the edges of the Roman Empire: North Africa, Asia and so on. It remained a converstion religion even if their conversions nowadays are directed to a restricted set of people (not Palestinians for instance).

    I don’t think that many European went in the past to other places for religious reasons, but for social and political reasons. And they didn’t have much success other than in the Americas and Australia. Of course, some times colonization was brutal. Spanish colonization was hard, but it suceeded for biological reasons (you can read the book by James Scott, Against the Grain which is very interesting) and some people in the Americas treated each other as bad as Christians. I don’t think also that British imperialism, for instance, had religious roots. So, what does Christianity has to do with all that?

    On the other hand, it was a serie of Christian thinkers who created humanism or the idea of a more tolerant society. Pico della Mirandola spoke about the dignity of men. Erasmus wrote against wars criticizing the rulers of the time. Bartolomé de las Casas and other missionaries tried to defend indigenous people and were against their enslavement.

    I notice that religions many times were originally connected to impulses of power. Pre-Inca religions which originated in the centuries after Christ were incredible brutal. Priesters decieved the people with tricks. They were pure projects of power of a caste of priesters. After their origins religions developed in different ways and fullfiled different functions. You can think of Scientology, for instance, and the way that they treat their own members and how their members deal with society afterwards. This is only an exemple. So, we have to see how religions were created and developed. There are also religions or spiritual movements that originated as a reaction to traditional or established religions and created something more p0sitive, or found a more positive development (in some cases they were created like a reaction to established religions but later became institutionalized and rigid). This may be the case of some Asian forms of spirituality or religion. And such challenges happened the whole time inside Christianity (Protestantism x Catholicism). That’s why it has such a rich history and why it developed so much.

    You say that Judaism elevates spirituallity. I haven’t noticed much of that anywhere at any time. I remember reding an article in Haretz telling how orthodox men would choose their wifes only considering the size of the mother of their possible future wifes. Is this Jewish spirituallity? Looking at what The Country does, and the wild fanatism of its followers, how can we talk about the spiritual advantages of Judaism? Maybe some forms of Christianity are nowadys one of the religions which came the closer to become a positive religious movement – a kind of historical exception to religion as a pure project of power – exactly because of the humanist spirit that it promotes, its ideas of inclusiveness – in spite of its institutional problems. If Judaism ever was a religion, it isn’t anymore a religion at all (remember what Marc Ellis says?) and it doesn’t offer any humanistic ideal or practice to the world.

    • Replies: @AaronB
  208. @tac

    Jews created Christianity, but they did not create Christ. He was a nuisance they co opted. Much like the Greeks did with Athena. Real persons with a large popular following, made into Gods for the benefit of the priesthood.

  209. babu says:

    The only form of functional Racism that exists among the people of the known universe is “White Supremacy.” – Neely Fuller

  210. @tac

    Fascinating, scholarly and compelling.
    (I listened to only the last video: whole new perspective.)

    Thank you tac.

    I’d still like to come upon a study of the Jesusianess that Carrier analyzes, in relation to the Roman literature of the first centuries BC and AD — Virgil, Ovid, Cicero — sure would be great to move away from Trump-bashing, Nazi-analogies, and Jew castigating and into a sense of what does form the connecting tissue of American culture. I think the Bible is not what’s right with USA, it’s what is wrong, and just as Carrier demonstrates re the Fig Tree that the old order is over, so it’s time to lay the Hebrew – Christian bible alongside the myths of Zeus, etc. and move on.

    Timothy Schutt lectures on a range of ancient, medieval & also classic American literature. He opens a discussion about Herman Melville & Moby Dick — “America’s Epic” — with the proclamation:

    “IS life worth living? What’s our relation to god, or rather, from Melville’s point of view, with whatever entity or non entity that takes god’s place or the place where god ought to be. Moby Dick is, by design, Shakespearean, Miltonic, Virgilian, Dantesque.”

    It is intriguing that the Judeo-Christian scriptures did not find a place in Melville’s models for great epic literature, and therefore, that it is those classics that infuse Moby Dick that are the glue of American culture. (I consider a nation’s epics to be the glue that holds its society and culture together.)

    anyway, thanks again, tac. You offered much to think about.

    • Replies: @Poco
    , @Seraphim
    , @tac
  211. @Colin Wright

    3. Nazi Germany. What little effective resistance there was to Nazi atrocities within Germany came from the Church and circles of Christian officers.

    otoh, East Coast Protestants supported the Allied war against Christian Germany; participated fully in the vilification of their German Christian brothers to drag the rest of Americans along with the war, and, presumably, fully endorsed the criminal behavior entailed in firebombing of civilians and use of nuclear bombs.

    Did any “Church leaders” and “circles of Christian officers” in USA offer “effective resistance” to those “Allied atrocities?”

    Same question with respect to US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria — what US churches offered “effective resistance” to those atrocities? (Recall that G W Bush sent Fr. Pio Laghi back to the Vatican, unsuccessful in the Vatican’s mission to persuade Bush not to wage war upon Iraq.)

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  212. @SolontoCroesus

    ‘… otoh, East Coast Protestants supported the Allied war against Christian Germany; participated fully in the vilification of their German Christian brothers to drag the rest of Americans along with the war, and, presumably, fully endorsed the criminal behavior entailed in firebombing of civilians and use of nuclear bombs…’

    Yeah…but my point is, would it have improved their behavior if they hadn’t been Christians?

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  213. @AaronB

    ‘… Its pretty uncontroversial that Christianity does not believe there is any salvation outside Christ. This is an aggressive stance, and led to inquisitions, burnings of heretics, attempts to destroy foreign cultures, and missionary efforts on a vast scale.

    The Jewish attitude is rather mild – obey the Noahide laws, be good and kind and just, and you’ll go to heaven…’

    You don’t have any intellectual integrity at all, do you?

    I debunked this yesterday. You even admitted it. And yet here you are, repeating exactly the same canard today.

  214. AaronB says:
    @UncommonGround

    Your comment is too disorganized and general and meandering.

    If we are to make any headway, we have to address one point at a time.

    The idea that there is no salvation outside Christ strips all non Christians of all value whatsoever. The only value of non Christians is in their potential to become Christians.

    History has few examples of such a radicl devaluation of the other. Islam insists on a humiliating dominance of all non Muslims, and comes very close to denying all non Muslims of any value – it too believes non believers go to hell – but it does grant non believers some scraps of legitimacy, however paltry.

    Judaism sees the world hierarchically – with Jews at the top, but others also playing a potentially valuable role. So the worst thing that can be said about Judaism is that it is elitist. It does not radically devalue the other.

    Even the oft heard criticism that Jews think non Jews will be their sevants in heaven, is an elitist and hierarchical attitude – servants have value, and can be treated with kindness and consideration. Their is often mutual affection between servants and masters. Hierarchy and inequality, yes – but no radical devaluation.

    This attitude is obviously not compatible with modern notions of equality – but in the context of the traditional monarchical society in which it emerged, it is conspicuous for its humanity and liberalism. It is quite liberal for its time.

    The harsh devaluation of the other found in Christianity is considerably harsher than anything found in feudal or monarchical societies, and much, much worse than prevailing moral notions of its time. Not the Romans, not the Greeks, and not the Jews, had tldevakued the other like this.

    Now, please address this basic and clear point, and perhaps we can build on that from that point.

  215. @Colin Wright

    How many non-Christians were there in Germany in the wars era?

    And what proportion of Americans were Christians when they were led by FDR to collaborate w/ Communist Russia to destroy Germany on behalf of Jews?

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  216. @tac

    We know Abraham, Moses and King David are myths.

  217. Cleburne says:
    @AaronB

    Begorrah, Aaron, what a bunch of crap. Is this the best the JIDF can do? This is really high school level. Please stop, I’m embarrassed for you.

  218. SharkSale says:
    @AaronB

    “The idea that there is no salvation outside Christ strips all non Christians of all value whatsoever. The only value of non Christians is in their potential to become Christians.” This is not correct (and, of course, all human beings made in the image of God possess enormous value, regardless of whether they have been baptised or not.

    The Cathoic Encycloedia sets out the basic teaching below:

    “The doctrine is summed up in the phrase, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. This saying has been the occasion of so many objections that some consideration of its meaning seems desirable. It certainly does not mean that none can be saved except those who are in visible communion with the Church. The Catholic Church has ever taught that nothing else is needed to obtain justification than an act of perfect charity and of contrition. Whoever, under the impulse of actual grace, elicits these acts receives immediately the gift of sanctifying grace, and is numbered among the children of God. Should he die in these dispositions, he will assuredly attain heaven. It is true such acts could not possibly be elicited by one who was aware that God has commanded all to join the Church, and who nevertheless should willfully remain outside her fold. For love of God carries with it the practical desire to fulfill His commandments. But of those who die without visible communion with the Church, not all are guilty of willful disobedience to God’s commands. Many are kept from the Church by ignorance. Such may be the case of numbers among those who have been brought up in heresy. To others the external means of grace may be unattainable. Thus an excommunicated person may have no opportunity of seeking reconciliation at the last, and yet may repair his faults by inward acts of contrition and charity.

    It should be observed that those who are thus saved are not entirely outside the pale of the Church. The will to fulfill all God’s commandments is, and must be, present in all of them. Such a wish implicitly includes the desire for incorporation with the visible Church: for this, though they know it not, has been commanded by God. They thus belong to the Church by desire (voto). Moreover, there is a true sense in which they may be said to be saved through the Church. In the order of Divine Providence, salvation is given to man in the Church: membership in the Church Triumphant is given through membership in the Church Militant. Sanctifying grace, the title to salvation, is peculiarly the grace of those who are united to Christ in the Church: it is the birthright of the children of God. The primary purpose of those actual graces which God bestows upon those outside the Church is to draw them within the fold. Thus, even in the case in which God saves men apart from the Church, He does so through the Church’s graces. They are joined to the Church in spiritual communion, though not in visible and external communion. In the expression of theologians, they belong to the soul of the Church, though not to its body. Yet the possibility of salvation apart from visible communion with the Church must not blind us to the loss suffered by those who are thus situated. They are cut off from the sacraments God has given as the support of the soul.”

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  219. @AaronB

    The idea that there is no salvation outside Christ strips all non Christians of all value whatsoever.

    The strong point about Christianity is that it has a very rich intellectual history. There have been always many traditions, many points of view and many changes. Fundamentalist tendencies have also existed but I think that they led either to an individual turning to the self or to a concern about the own society where they live. In any case there are some main principles which contradict the view that you present above, the fact that Christianity is an inclusive religion, that it allowed a separation of the Church and the state already when the modern state appeared in Medieval times, that it demanded the love of others – even of your enemies. Christian authors spoke of the dignity of all men and not of the Catholics.

    Nowadys in any case, if we had to say who gives value to all men, it certainly is Christianity and not Judaism. For Judaism sometimes others seem to be like garbage. On the other hand, Judaism is not always necessarily monolitic. It exists in the middle of a Christian society and has been influenced by Christian and Western values. It has to find a way to coexist with them. So, religiously Judaism is nothing and has absolutely no influence about values, it turned a social project for Jews, not a very nice one, that’s why they are always thinking what’s good for Jews and not much more. You can ask Middle East people or read what you yourself say about the place of others in Judaism.

  220. @SolontoCroesus

    ‘How many non-Christians were there in Germany in the wars era?

    And what proportion of Americans were Christians when they were led by FDR to collaborate w/ Communist Russia to destroy Germany on behalf of Jews?’

    None of this refutes my claim.

    My point is not that being a Christian guarantees that you won’t do this or that; it is merely that absent the Christianity, the behavior wouldn’t improve, and often becomes worse still.

    The anecdote about the famously abrasive Evelyn Waugh sums it up:

    ‘Once, when he had behaved with particular rudeness to a young French intellectual at a dinner party in Paris at the home of Nancy Mitford, Miss Mitford, angry at his social brutality, asked him how he could behave so meanly and yet consider himself a believing and practicing Catholic.

    “You have no idea,” Waugh returned, “how much nastier I would be if I was not a Catholic. Without supernatural aid I would hardly be a human being.”

  221. @EliteCommInc.

    One cannot “follow” Christ is he refuses to be a member of the One Church He established

  222. alba says:
    @AaronB

    the next time there wont be mercy we will exterminate your kind from the face of the earth

    • Replies: @Anon
  223. Seraphim says:
    @AaronB

    If Christianity was dead, why the incessant ‘flogging of a dead horse’? Why the incessant stream of ‘debunking’ the ‘myth’ of Christ? Why the need to groom at every generation of ‘religious scholars’ (all PhDs, of course) propagandists like Bart Ehrman or this nincompoop Richard Carrier to regurgitate ad nauseam the message that “God is dead”, “Jesus never existed”, if nobody believes anymore that he did exist after all? Why the urge to denounce non-stop the past ‘crimes of the Church’ (intolerance, Inquisition, and of course anti-Semitism)? Why the urge to extol the virtues of Judaism and Islam in comparison with the sins of Christianity? Why the need to continue to vandalize and burn churches and kill Christians?

  224. @AaronB

    ‘…the worst thing that can be said about Judaism is that it is elitist. It does not radically devalue the other…’

    ! You have an amazing ability to utter the most obvious falsehoods as if they were perfectly true.

  225. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Durruti

    You don’t seem to be aware this not a socialist communist revolutionary site. There’s Socialist Alternative, Young Socialist League and numerous organizations who think as you do.
    Why do you comment here?

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  226. Bill P says:
    @AaronB

    You’re thinking of Manichaeism. Christianity is not dualistic, but rather trinitarian. It’s a very important metaphysical distinction.

    It isn’t an easy concept, but Jung gives a pretty good introduction to it:

    http://www.cgjungpage.org/learn/articles/analytical-psychology/184-on-the-psychology-of-the-concept-of-the-trinity

  227. Judeo-christian is an oxymoron. Jews hate Christ, upon whom all of Christianity rests. How then can they be compatible? It’s like calling someone a Christian satanist or a pacifist hitman.

  228. “Well, I’m not so much talking about Christianity today. It is a defunct religion, now.
    Its pretty uncontroversial that Christianity does not believe there is any salvation outside Christ. This is an aggressive stance, and led to inquisitions, burnings of heretics, attempts to destroy foreign cultures, and missionary efforts on a vast scale.”

    Laughing.

    I am sure you are merely being provocative as nothing supports the claim that christianity is “defunct”. It is as vibrant as it ever was, though it may take some hits, but it remains a force for both spiritual and material benefit in the world.

    Well, you have to be familiar with scripture to grasp some nuance. Because there was the question about those who never hear or experience the gospel — what of them, is referenced in scripture and the answer if that the truth is written on their beings and by that measure as accorded them – they will be accounted.
    ————————————————–

    As for the nonsense of Christ being myth because there is no historical accounting. The record is spelled out quite literally by the apostles. And it is oft suggests that if jesus was such a big deal, why don’t the records reflect as much. The Jewish record is slight and of course challenged by jews and some others

    http://www.josephus.org/testimonium.htm

    But the Gospels and EPistles make it very cler that jess the man existed.

    As for the Romans, un less their issues were impactful on Roman society, as in Jewish rebellion, they didn’t much care about Jews or any other religious sects as they all had their leaders, and those claiming some unique this or that. And while the crucifiction would be a major ordeal for the followers of Christ, for the Romans — not so much.

    The testimony of Jesus is the legacy of christians left by his early followers.

    Jesus was not a Spartacus.

  229. But the Gospels and Epistles make it very clear that jesus the man existed.

    As for the Romans, unless their issues were impactful on Roman society, as in Jewish rebellion, they didn’t much care about Jews or any other religious sects as they all had their leaders, and those claiming some unique this or that. And while the crucifiction would be a major ordeal for the followers of Christ, for the Romans — not so much. We don’t have the records of most people placed on trial, sent into the arena, or crucified.

    The testimony of Jesus is the legacy of christians left by his early followers.

    Jesus was not a Spartacus.

  230. Anon[198] • Disclaimer says:
    @alba

    Relax and you will learn to love your slavery

  231. Poco says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    If the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple they would have been much more explicit in writing about it than the story of the fig tree. The temple jews and Jesus’s opposition to them is a central fact of the Gospels. If it had already been destroyed when the Gospels were written the Gospels would have played up this fact. They would have said, “look, see what happened to the temple because of your unbelief.” This is a weakness in Carrier’s argument not a strength. He’s being dishonest about the timeline of when the Gospels were written.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  232. Seraphim says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    America should move on to the religion of the ‘Dick’.

  233. tac says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    @S2C:

    sure would be great to move away from Trump-bashing, Nazi-analogies, and Jew castigating and into a sense of what does form the connecting tissue of American culture

    That is thrust of my argument–which you seem all to easily to be willing to shed to the side! You have to contextualize history in a series of epochs and re-frame them with the reality of what is being done to us at the present time (the bolded section is what you somehow leave aside without connecting the dots in the historical sense and with the way animals in nature (species and sub-species) compete in real life. Simply examine the animal kingdom in terms of how and to what ends different species and sub-species compete–think very long and hard what this single word: ‘compete’ means in the context of the animal kingdom encompasses and you might just have a partial insight to what is meant with that–and then simply take a fundamental inquiry into the present situation at hand and what is being promoted, and thereby the ultimate goal. That is to say who and what kind of a class of individual is constantly and therefore by design being targeted non-stop in the media, social-media, academia, workplace, education, history, et al. And having necessarily answered this prerequisite question then try to connect who and what kind of a class is clearly working quite cohesively to that end; then, and only then, will you find the true answer, thereby making–what appears to uninterested/semi-interested groups of readers here as some kind of non-sequitur or otherwise somehow incoherent ramblings of some sort of “madman”, as it appears to some here, seem, someway, somehow, perhaps making sense that there is no there there.

    What is undeniable, is in plain view: White-man-bad! Work that out. Perhaps the plan to dominate the world, as envisioned by (((some elites))), was always baked in the cake and ‘religion’–as opposed to their own chosen status by way of seed (race) along with (((religion))) was a way to this end: race for (((us))) BUT NOT FOR YOU, then proselytize (crucially excluding race) with universal general terms in order to gather and then to control the masses into this same self-defeating point of view (Christianity and to some extent Islam) and so two thousand years of History unveils this concerted goal of self-preservation–by a minority against the majority! Think like they do, and maybe you’ll finally see the purpose. Castigating?, when the historical account is accounted for then: guilty as charged!

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  234. @Poco

    ‘If the Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple they would have been much more explicit in writing about it…’

    That’s a good point.

    • Replies: @Poco
  235. Anon[104] • Disclaimer says:
    @SharkSale

    The term ‘racism’ can, of course, be misused and often is.

    The term ‘racism’ is fake and is always misused. It is anti-Christian and helps those who hate Christianity and would like to see it destroy.. Anyone who takes “racism” seriously is either stupid or deluded or both.

    judging that a person lacks ineliminable human dignity on account on account of certain racial characteristics, then that does seem to be an evil incompatible with a Christian worldview.

    Would that “Christian worldview” you speak of be the same one that existed during the many centuries that Christians enslaved blacks, executed homosexuals and burned people alive for heresy, etc? If so, would you agree, as a 21st-century Christian, that those things were “evils incompatible with a Christian worldview”? If so, would you agree that you are talking out of your fundament?

    Terms like “ineliminable human dignity” are smarmy, progressive rhetoric and remind me of the last few Popes, all of whom were un-Christian.

    • Replies: @SharkSale
  236. SharkSale says:
    @Anon

    You haven’t defined ‘racism’ – I linked to a pre Vatican II Church document that specifically addressed certain kinds of racial ideologies and condemned them in term of traditional Christian teaching. I can’t think a single Pope or Chruch father etc. who would not have condemned Nazi racial ideology as incompatible with ideas of the imago dei etc. And its there in the document you can’t have read with any care.
    Execution not necessarily incompatible with human dignity and was never held to be in the past.

    The intemperateness of your language suggests that further debate will be fruitless, but do read the document if you have time/inclination.

    • Replies: @Anon
  237. @Observator

    And if the old Thomas Paine was right then the god of the bible is a demon and those who worship that demon are in fact themselves demons …

    • Replies: @Gleimhart Mantooso
  238. @Intelligent Dasein

    You are correct. The view that “the God of the OT” is not “the God of the NT” reflects a simpleton’s superficial view of Holy Scripture. The Christ and His Gospel are found referenced and foreshadowed throughout the OT, beginning at The Fall. The Christ and His Gospel are the sum total of the Bible—OT and NT. Those who cannot understand this have no business weighing in on the subject of Holy Scripture.

  239. @Really No Shit

    It’s cute that Thomas Paine believed in demons but not in his own fallen and eternally damned nature. He underwent an epic wakeup call upon his death, as do all who arrogantly fancy themselves to be more moral than God Almighty. Those demons he spoke of now laugh in his face for eternity. The “great Thomas Paine,” hahahahaha……

  240. @Intelligent Dasein

    I agree, of course, and like to boil down what it means (practically speaking) to the immortal words of Papal Legate Arnaud, apocryphal though they may be: “Kill them all, for God will know His own”.

  241. @tac

    you lost me at this very poorly articulated statement:
    “which you seem all to easily to be willing to shed to the side!”

    rots a ruck, pal.
    I’m outa here.

    • Replies: @tac
  242. Seraphim says:
    @G. Poulin

    Well, Jesus did not come to coddle the sodomites, the whores, the thieves, the blasphemers, the killers.

  243. Poco says:
    @Colin Wright

    Something else struck a discordant note to me in Carrier’s presentation. He used many examples of forgeries within the non-canonical books as evidence that the canon were also forgeries. This is non-sensical.

    These non-canonical forgeries were not included in the canon. So the people at the time recognized them as forgeries.

    He also did a lot of hand waving saying “all” scholars recognize this or that epistle as not validly written by Paul with no evidence. It seemed a political presentation to me rather than a search for truth. Of course it may sell him some books.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  244. Seraphim says:
    @Poco

    There is a huge market for them. Do you think that their sitcoms are gratis? Who organize them anyway?

  245. Anon[104] • Disclaimer says:
    @SharkSale

    You haven’t defined ‘racism’

    It has several slippery and tendentious meanings, and you will note that it is not used in the Vatican documents to which you refer, let alone in traditional Christian teaching. IOW, it is not a Christian term and should not be used by Christians or accepted by them as valid.

    Execution not necessarily incompatible with human dignity and was never held to be in the past.

    I fully agree. But is execution by fire after torture and unfair trial compatible with human dignity? Is slavery compatible? Is execution for sexual orientation compatible? And is “human dignity” a Christian or secularist concept?

    The intemperateness of your language suggests that further debate will be fruitless, but do read the document if you have time/inclination.

    I’m already familiar with the documents, thank you. Again, I fully agree that Nazi ideology was not Christian. This does not mean that Nazi ideology was wrong because it was “racist”. It was wrong for the same reasons that communist ideology was wrong: because it treated some groups cruelly and unjustly, not because it recognized the existence of different groups. And of course, Christianity has treated some groups cruelly and unjustly. Or so modern secularized Catholics et al now accept..

    • Replies: @SharkSale
  246. SharkSale says:
    @Anon

    “8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.”

    • Replies: @Anon
  247. ” . . . whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.”

    Sure. God first in all things.

    By way of example, However, this business of the Catholic Church and others who follow suit that claim that they can dance willy nilly over state boundaries as though they don’t exist in the name of God are not only wrong, such advocates are lying.

    In other words those who use the divine to break laws in keeping with God’s plan and design are violating as hypocrites the divine in full.

    National boundaries have existed for some time and in fact, were established by the creator himself for the state if Israel. God not only recognizes national entities, and corresponding boundaries, he is know to have set the standard.

    Nothing unGodly about a wall to reinforce God’s principle of borders between nation.

  248. DinoN says:
    @anonynous

    How do you know what is going on in Saudi Arabia and not what is going on in Israel?

  249. Agonistes says:
    @Dr. X

    Some corrections:

    1. Queen Esther was effectively a sex-trafficked woman; the biblical narrative shows no initiative on her part to become the king’s concubine.

    2. The God of the Jews is the father of Jesus Christ – that’s how the whole trinity stuff (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) works. The “Old Testament God bad, New Testament God good” is gnosticism rather than Christianity.

  250. tac says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    S2C:

    The original phrase that you responded to seemed all to bit concerned with simply the historical portion of the argument, but not in the context who and what oppresses us in the modern times–as viewed with the angle of the most recent examples, namely: Russian Revolution and the Weimar Republic.

    If I have offended you in some sense, that was not my intention, in the least. The larger point was for you to also take account the patterns–by way of design (however way you want to portray them, poorly phrases or the opposite) and to the detriment of a competing species. I see that upset you, and you are free to feel as such, if you like. We all should, however, appreciate honest dialogue and SOMETIMES competing arguments, not simply because of ego (although a case can be made quite easily for some posters here for this very idea), but to offer, often times many contrarian and repressed ideas not available in the rapidly censored ‘alternative media’ (much like in the inquisition era). Will people be more ‘comfortable’ in these times as a result?

    We are all diverse and we should never at all agree on every point, but to castigate one for some unpopular belief, held in opposition to your own, seems a little short sighted to me. I fully expect many people to disagree with my own or anyone else’s beliefs at times–sometimes more often than others–but I will respect theirs’ (right or wrong) assuming made in good faith (unless an obvious troll or agent working for deceit).

    I apologize to the extent that you may have taken me the wrong way, but, even with family members we inevitably find cases for argument over certain issues. That is normal, and hopefully forgivable, if you can use such a euphemism. How you go on to ‘deal’ with my statements, which I stand by wholeheartedly, is up to you going forward. I can only hope you’ll take it in good faith….

    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
  251. Anon[104] • Disclaimer says:
    @SharkSale

    Thanks, SharkSale. You’re a typically dishonest Catholic of the kind I’ve encountered many times before. Here’s a new question for you:

    * Where is the word “racism” used in the Church’s condemnation of Nazism?

    (Hint: nowhere. Because it’s not a Christian concept and anyone who uses it is, knowingly or unknowingly, anti-Christian.)

    And here are the questions you’ve not answered:

    * Is execution by fire after torture and unfair trial compatible with human dignity?
    * Is slavery compatible?
    * Is execution for sexual orientation compatible?
    * And is “human dignity” a Christian or secularist concept?

    I’d really like to have answers, but don’t worry: I understand perfectly why you can’t supply them. You would need to be honest and have intellectual integrity first. And you aren’t and don’t.

  252. Anon[135] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    Usng diff comp hence diff handle.
    Racial idolatry is clearly referred to in cited document. You claimed race had nothing to do with the condemnation of Nazism etc. which is plainly false.

    Unfair trials etc. are clearly incompatible with human dignity etc as are any unjust executions (including for mere ‘orentation’ as opposed to culpable acts). That is at least part of what makes them unjust! What an odd questiont to ask.

    Human dignity is clearly a Christian concept (expressed in various ways – Imago Dei etc.) as used in the documents referred to and elsewhere, although, of course, secularists may use the term in some more or less limited way, which may amount ot a distortion of the meaning as used in Church documents.

    Some preliminary reading on Aquinas on dignity can be found here: https://philpapers.org/rec/BROIUA sci hub can probably help with access.

    Slavery is diffiuclt one (depends – are we talking about punishment or ideas such as people being ‘born as slaves’). Such matters require careful thought and reading – not blanket statements and unjust and pre-emptive accusations.

    Intemperate comments like yours are not really deserving of a response, nor are people who think that ‘racial ideology’ as condemned has no overlapping meaning with the term ‘racism’ (the latter is, of course, often misused, as I already stated more than once).

    Goodbye.
    SharkSale

    • Replies: @Anon
  253. @Ted Heath

    Years ago, as a merchant naval engineering officer, I was assigned to a Maersk ship. The Chief Engineer had been on that ship since it was launched. A well read, thoughtful man, he solved a dilemma and problem that plagued the fleet of this class of vessels.

    The problem was that the Company had ordered Yanmar diesel generators for these ships. Although the Yanmar Company made solid smaller diesels, its advent into large medium speed black oil engines was a disaster. The machines were hurriedly designed, poorly conceived with inadequate materials and components. Over and over, revisions and upgrades were attempted to create a stable platform, by “geniuses” with advanced educational credentials.

    Finally, this Chief told the top management that nothing they could ever do would bridge the design gap. Nothing. This was a crestfallen moment for the committee and lead personnel who made the decision to got with cheap. A lot of money was being lost.

    New, proven, Burmeister and Wain diesel generators were installed. These had proven themselves over decades in this service. They are built like panzers and brick shithouses. They run and run and run. Working with them, and gazing at the inner components, one sees that everything is over-built, thought out, and beautifully machined.

    Christianity is the Yanmar diesel. Fatally flawed from its outset, full of internal inadequacies and contradictions, a Middle East import that has had the ineluctable effect of low doses of arsenic on the Indo-European peoples aka Whites, Buh-lacks and any other duped group. Childish.

    Buddhism is thoroughness, inner based, consistent, and incorruptible in canon and ideal. The Chosen will never be able to obtain purchase or traction among people who practice the Teachings of The Buddha Gautama. The most parsimonious explanation for this is that substitutions inside the person are not allowed to supplant Buddhism.

  254. I’d really like to have answers, but don’t worry: I understand perfectly why you can’t supply them. You would need to be honest and have intellectual integrity first. And you aren’t and don’t

    Hahaha

    That’s funny. You are having an exchange with one you identify as dishonest and free of intellectual integrity.

    Do you play Texas Hold ’em with two year olds?

    • Replies: @Anon
  255. @Anon

    Mit Brennender Sorge

    8. Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community – however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things – whoever raises these notions above their standard value and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.

    [MORE]

    9. Beware, Venerable Brethren, of that growing abuse, in speech as in writing, of the name of God as though it were a meaningless label, to be affixed to any creation, more or less arbitrary, of human speculation. Use your influence on the Faithful, that they refuse to yield to this aberration. Our God is the Personal God, supernatural, omnipotent, infinitely perfect, one in the Trinity of Persons, tri-personal in the unity of divine essence, the Creator of all existence. Lord, King and ultimate Consummator of the history of the world, who will not, and cannot, tolerate a rival God by His side.

    10. This God, this Sovereign Master, has issued commandments whose value is independent of time and space, country and race. As God’s sun shines on every human face so His law knows neither privilege nor exception. Rulers and subjects, crowned and uncrowned, rich and poor are equally subject to His word. From the fullness of the Creators’ right there naturally arises the fullness of His right to be obeyed by individuals and communities, whoever they are. This obedience permeates all branches of activity in which moral values claim harmony with the law of God, and pervades all integration of the ever-changing laws of man into the immutable laws of God.

    11. None but superficial minds could stumble into concepts of a national God, of a national religion; or attempt to lock within the frontiers of a single people, within the narrow limits of a single race, God, the Creator of the universe, King and Legislator of all nations before whose immensity they are “as a drop of a bucket” (Isaiah xI, 15).

    12. The Bishops of the Church of Christ, “ordained in the things that appertain to God (Heb. v, 1) must watch that pernicious errors of this sort, and consequent practices more pernicious still, shall not gain a footing among their flock. It is part of their sacred obligations to do whatever is in their power to enforce respect for, and obedience to, the commandments of God, as these are the necessary foundation of all private life and public morality; to see that the rights of His Divine Majesty, His name and His word be not profaned; to put a stop to the blasphemies, which, in words and pictures, are multiplying like the sands of the desert; to encounter the obstinacy and provocations of those who deny, despise and hate God, by the never-failing reparatory prayers of the Faithful, hourly rising like incense to the All-Highest and staying His vengeance.

    13. We thank you, Venerable Brethren, your priests and Faithful, who have persisted in their Christian duty and in the defense of God’s rights in the teeth of an aggressive paganism. Our gratitude, warmer still and admiring, goes out to those who, in fulfillment of their duty, have been deemed worthy of sacrifice and suffering for the love of God.

    14. No faith in God can for long survive pure and unalloyed without the support of faith in Christ. “No one knoweth who the Son is, but the Father: and who the Father is, but the Son and to whom the Son will reveal Him” (Luke x. 22). “Now this is eternal life: That they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent” (John xvii. 3). Nobody, therefore, can say: “I believe in God, and that is enough religion for me,” for the Savior’s words brook no evasion: “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son hath the Father also” (1 John ii. 23).

    15. In Jesus Christ, Son of God made Man, there shone the plentitude of divine revelation. “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners, spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets last of all, in these days hath spoken to us by His Son” (Heb. i. 1). The sacred books of the Old Testament are exclusively the word of God, and constitute a substantial part of his revelation; they are penetrated by a subdued light, harmonizing with the slow development of revelation, the dawn of the bright day of the redemption. As should be expected in historical and didactic books, they reflect in many particulars the imperfection, the weakness and sinfulness of man. But side by side with innumerable touches of greatness and nobleness, they also record the story of the chosen people, bearers of the Revelation and the Promise, repeatedly straying from God and turning to the world. Eyes not blinded by prejudice or passion will see in this prevarication, as reported by the Biblical history, the luminous splendor of the divine light revealing the saving plan which finally triumphs over every fault and sin. It is precisely in the twilight of this background that one perceives the striking perspective of the divine tutorship of salvation, as it warms, admonishes, strikes, raises and beautifies its elect. Nothing but ignorance and pride could blind one to the treasures hoarded in the Old Testament.

    16. Whoever wishes to see banished from church and school the Biblical history and the wise doctrines of the Old Testament, blasphemes the name of God, blasphemes the Almighty’s plan of salvation, and makes limited and narrow human thought the judge of God’s designs over the history of the world: he denies his faith in the true Christ, such as He appeared in the flesh, the Christ who took His human nature from a people that was to crucify Him; and he understands nothing of that universal tragedy of the Son of God who to His torturer’s sacrilege opposed the divine and priestly sacrifice of His redeeming death, and made the new alliance the goal of the old alliance, its realization and its crown.

    17. The peak of the revelation as reached in the Gospel of Christ is final and permanent. It knows no retouches by human hand; it admits no substitutes or arbitrary alternatives such as certain leaders pretend to draw from the so-called myth of race and blood. Since Christ, the Lord’s Anointed, finished the task of Redemption, and by breaking up the reign of sin deserved for us the grace of being the children God, since that day no other name under heaven has been given to men, whereby we must be saved (Acts iv. 12). No man, were every science, power and worldly strength incarnated in him, can lay any other foundation but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus (1 Cor. iii 11). Should any man dare, in sacrilegious disregard of the essential differences between God and His creature, between the God-man and the children of man, to place a mortal, were he the greatest of all times, by the side of, or over, or against, Christ, he would deserve to be called prophet of nothingness, to whom the terrifying words of Scripture would be applicable: “He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them” (Psalms ii. 3).

    18. Faith in Christ cannot maintain itself pure and unalloyed without the support of faith in the Church, “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. iii. 15); for Christ Himself, God eternally blessed, raised this pillar of the Faith. His command to hear the Church (Matt. xviii. 15), to welcome in the words and commands of the Church His own words and His own commands (Luke x. 16), is addressed to all men, of all times and of all countries. The Church founded by the Redeemer is one, the same for all races and all nations. Beneath her dome, as beneath the vault of heaven, there is but one country for all nations and tongues; there is room for the development of every quality, advantage, task and vocation which God the Creator and Savior has allotted to individuals as well as to ethnical communities. The Church’s maternal heart is big enough to see in the God-appointed development of individual characteristics and gifts, more than a mere danger of divergency. She rejoices at the spiritual superiorities among individuals and nations. In their successes she sees with maternal joy and pride fruits of education and progress, which she can only bless and encourage, whenever she can conscientiously do so. But she also knows that to this freedom limits have been set by the majesty of the divine command, which founded that Church one and indivisible. Whoever tampers with that unity and that indivisibility wrenches from the Spouse of Christ one of the diadems with which God Himself crowned her; he subjects a divine structure, which stands on eternal foundations, to criticism and transformation by architects whom the Father of Heaven never authorized to interfere.

    19. The Church, whose work lies among men and operates through men, may see her divine mission obscured by human, too human, combination, persistently growing and developing like the cockle among the wheat of the Kingdom of God. Those who know the Savior’s words on scandal and the giver of scandals, know, too, the judgment which the Church and all her sons must pronounce on what was and what is sin. But if, besides these reprehensible discrepancies be between faith and life, acts and words, exterior conduct and interior feelings, however numerous they be, anyone overlooks the overwhelming sum of authentic virtues, of spirit of sacrifice, fraternal love, heroic efforts of sanctity, he gives evidence of deplorable blindness and injustice. If later he forgets to apply the standard of severity, by which he measures the Church he hates, to other organizations in which he happens to be interested, then his appeal to an offended sense of purity identifies him with those who, for seeing the mote in their brother’s eye, according to the Savior’s incisive words, cannot see the beam in their own. But however suspicious the intention of those who make it their task, nay their vile profession, to scrutinize what is human in the Church, and although the priestly powers conferred by God are independent of the priest’s human value, it yet remains true that at no moment of history, no individual, in no organization can dispense himself from the duty of loyally examining his conscience, of mercilessly purifying himself, and energetically renewing himself in spirit and in action. In Our Encyclical on the priesthood We have urged attention to the sacred duty of all those who belong to the Church, chiefly the members of the priestly and religious profession and of the lay apostolate, to square their faith and their conduct with the claims of the law of God and of the Church. And today we again repeat with all the insistency We can command: it is not enough to be a member of the Church of Christ, one needs to be a living member, in spirit and in truth, i.e., living in the state of grace and in the presence of God, either in innocence or in sincere repentance. If the Apostle of the nations, the vase of election, chastised his body and brought it into subjection: lest perhaps, when he had preached to others, he himself should become a castaway (1 Cor. ix. 27), could anybody responsible for the extension of the Kingdom of God claim any other method but personal sanctification? Only thus can we show to the present generation, and to the critics of the Church that “the salt of the earth,” the leaven of Christianity has not decayed, but is ready to give the men of today – prisoners of doubt and error, victims of indifference, tired of their Faith and straying from God – the spiritual renewal they so much need. A Christianity which keeps a grip on itself, refuses every compromise with the world, takes the commands of God and the Church seriously, preserves its love of God and of men in all its freshness, such a Christianity can be, and will be, a model and a guide to a world which is sick to death and clamors for directions, unless it be condemned to a catastrophe that would baffle the imagination.

    20. Every true and lasting reform has ultimately sprung from the sanctity of men who were driven by the love of God and of men. Generous, ready to stand to attention to any call from God, yet confident in themselves because confident in their vocation, they grew to the size of beacons and reformers. On the other hand, any reformatory zeal, which instead of springing from personal purity, flashes out of passion, has produced unrest instead of light, destruction instead of construction, and more than once set up evils worse than those it was out to remedy. No doubt “the Spirit breatheth where he will” (John iii. 8): “of stones He is able to raise men to prepare the way to his designs” (Matt. iii. 9). He chooses the instruments of His will according to His own plans, not those of men. But the Founder of the Church, who breathed her into existence at Pentecost, cannot disown the foundations as He laid them. Whoever is moved by the spirit of God, spontaneously adopts both outwardly and inwardly, the true attitude toward the Church, this sacred fruit from the tree of the cross, this gift from the Spirit of God, bestowed on Pentecost day to an erratic world.

    21. In your country, Venerable Brethren, voices are swelling into a chorus urging people to leave the Church, and among the leaders there is more than one whose official position is intended to create the impression that this infidelity to Christ the King constitutes a signal and meritorious act of loyalty to the modern State. Secret and open measures of intimidation, the threat of economic and civic disabilities, bear on the loyalty of certain classes of Catholic functionaries, a pressure which violates every human right and dignity. Our wholehearted paternal sympathy goes out to those who must pay so dearly for their loyalty to Christ and the Church; but directly the highest interests are at stake, with the alternative of spiritual loss, there is but one alternative left, that of heroism. If the oppressor offers one the Judas bargain of apostasy he can only, at the cost of every worldly sacrifice, answer with Our Lord: “Begone, Satan! For it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve” (Matt. iv. 10). And turning to the Church, he shall say: “Thou, my mother since my infancy, the solace of my life and advocate at my death, may my tongue cleave to my palate if, yielding to worldly promises or threats, I betray the vows of my baptism.” As to those who imagine that they can reconcile exterior infidelity to one and the same Church, let them hear Our Lord’s warning: – “He that shall deny me before men shall be denied before the angels of God” (Luke xii. 9).

    22. Faith in the Church cannot stand pure and true without the support of faith in the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. The same moment when Peter, in the presence of all the Apostles and disciples, confesses his faith in Christ, Son of the Living God, the answer he received in reward for his faith and his confession was the word that built the Church, the only Church of Christ, on the rock of Peter (Matt. xvi. 18). Thus was sealed the connection between the faith in Christ, the Church and the Primacy. True and lawful authority is invariably a bond of unity, a source of strength, a guarantee against division and ruin, a pledge for the future: and this is verified in the deepest and sublimest sense, when that authority, as in the case of the Church, and the Church alone, is sealed by the promise and the guidance of the Holy Ghost and His irresistible support. Should men, who are not even united by faith in Christ, come and offer you the seduction of a national German Church, be convinced that it is nothing but a denial of the one Church of Christ and the evident betrayal of that universal evangelical mission, for which a world Church alone is qualified and competent. The live history of other national churches with their paralysis, their domestication and subjection to worldly powers, is sufficient evidence of the sterility to which is condemned every branch that is severed from the trunk of the living Church. Whoever counters these erroneous developments with an uncompromising No from the very outset, not only serves the purity of his faith in Christ, but also the welfare and the vitality of his own people.

    ++++++++++++++++=

  256. @Mulegino1

    Truths so concentrated numerous gems are worthy of contemplation separately:

    Talmudic Judaism has never built any appreciable culture or civilization, and has none but a superficial continuity with the religious tradition it claims to be the heir to. It is the husk of an already superseded covenant.

    Exactly why this subtlety from the author is so powerfully necessary:

    Without recognising these truths, Shapiro’s true statements about monotheism and progress become dangerous, for that which is promised in the Old Testament is distorted and becomes a toxic messianism cut off from its natural trajectory, something no longer living in any healthy way but rather in rebellion against its great fulfilment.

    This says it all, consistent with God Incarnate Jesus’ words at John 8:44:

    There can be no affinity between the Church of Christ and the Synagogue of Satan.

    Exactly why they want to kill us for reading them, because then we’ll realize and spread this truth:

    Judaism’s set of authoritative “holy” books (the Babylonian Talmud)…are in all actuality the vade mecum for the nomadic and criminal navigation of goy society under the mistaken presumption of being the chosen.

    Indeed important to emphasize the lethal betrayal shabbos goyim are inflicting on us who are their fellows of Euro descent:

    As has been pointed out above, the term Judeo-Christian reeks of Deistic Freemasonry, which has become, over the centuries, a shabbos goy front for the advancement of international Jewry.

    And this begs the question whether German or any other form of Protestantism is any less viral in its perversion of the message of Jesus and its aiding and comforting of His enemies the devil’s children:

    English Protestantism and world freemasonry became the two goy instruments for the ascendance of the Jews in Europe and in the New World, perfectly suited for the age of the predominance of the money changers and haute finance.

  257. Sya says:
    @anonymous

    KKK aka “white” “Christians” an Israeli American product

    Abbreviations and psychotic ideologies

    Jihadi Burka Neo Nazi Feminist

    Rules for radicals

    Endless war on one of the above

  258. Sya says:

    This isn’t anti religion it’s anti freedom (of religion)

  259. @tac

    tac,
    apologies, I simply did not read that far into your comment.
    I notice you mentioned animal species — sorry, I just did not have the patience or interest to try to understand the connection.
    I know I get outrageously long-winded and make connections to everything under the sun. It’s bad writing on my part, and I’m trying to improve.

    The videos about non-existence of Jesus were interesting; I appreciated that you introduced them to the Forum.

    Frankly, tac, I was going to respond to your post that included several of Germar Rudolf’s videos, with a great big Thank You.
    I’d been looking for the one with Jim Rizoli, that Rudolf concludes by explaining how he’d like to lead an effort to develop an extra-governmental means of guaranteeing defense of civil rights and human rights. He observes what should be obvious: the government that makes the laws that deny human rights is the same entity to which one is forced to resort to attempt to defend against infringing on human rights.

    It’s especially appreciated that you posted that Rudolf – Rizoli video HERE:
    https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/holocaust-training-for-american-police/#comment-3569378

    because the chosenites whose divine mission it is to “drag the world kicking and screaming into a moral and ethical life” has scrubbed Rudolf’s videos —

    https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhF8iZqs_MVOnU-rJ6qqRKYEMiZSqmd_G

    Meanwhile, Germar’s circle is only expanding: Rick Wiles is coming into his own:
    https://www.yahoo.com/news/youtube-removes-video-pastor-saying-163500633.html

    It’s Advent.

    People look East. (and West, South and North, and People, look especially to UnzForum)

    SING! Love, the Lord is On the Way!

    • Replies: @tac
  260. Johan says:

    For those who are not ignorant propagandists, read: journalists, politicians, writers and the masses, we have of course a Classical-Greece/Christian civilization. The latter having an ambiguous role, some ten centuries of dictatorship..
    Some right wing politician, Geert Wilders in The Netherlands, ingorantus as he is, even said that Israel is the basis of Western civilization, muhaha, what a mad theater of decline that we even have to listen to that nonsense and engage in attempts of correction..

    “It also had a role in the Holocaust”

    They cannot waste a good opportunity to bring that up again…..

  261. Seraphim says:
    @SharkSale

    The basic teaching about salvation is of course the words of Jesus Christ, before and after the Resurrection:

    “Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. 41 I receive not honour from men. 42 But I know you, that ye have not the love of God in you. 43 I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive” (John 5:39-43).
    “Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son” (John 3:18).
    “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. Whoever rejects the Son will not see life. Instead, the wrath of God remains on him.” (John 3:36).

    “Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen”. (Matthew 16:16-20)

    “Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen. 15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and announce the the Good News [‘Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand’] to every creature. 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. 17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; 18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. 19 So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God. 20 And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen” (Mark 16:14-20).

    And that is what the Apostles did:
    “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call. 40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls” (Acts 2:36-41).

  262. Davidcito says:

    Evangelical christians believe jesus returns and reigns from jerusalem for 1,000 years. They blieve its their responsibility to pray for and financially support Israel. Without evangelical christians, youll never have a conservative president voted into office. They didnt vote in 2008 or 2012 and look what hapoened.

  263. tac says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    For all those who wish to view Rick Wiles’ broadcast of the “Jew Coup” which you’ve referenced here is the link to do so:

    https://www.trunews.com/stream/jew-coup-seditious-jews-orchestrating-trump-impeachment-lynching

    With respect to the Jew lie that this group is ostensibly always capable of, in order to cheat the Shabbat goy (notice the lower-case word ‘goy’; this should tell you how the ‘non-chosen’ goyim are thought of by the supremacist jews), in time immemorial for their own group gain is somehow a surprise to most thinking people. Will you people ever see this contradiction of terms (Abraham, Moses, Christ, Black slavery, Holohoax, White-privilege, are just some of the most significant hoax lies made by the “chosen” ones throughout antiquity in order to enslave the goy[am] masses (by the minority) in a subservient state to the greatest liars humanity has ever known?

    More on the Jesus (Jew hoax) for the goyim:

    [MORE]

    If you want to follow Jim Rizoli’s work follow him at his channel here:

    https://www.bitchute.com/channel/httpswwwbitchutecomchannelkdhbe5v/

    Some of the most memorable clips to watch (Please take the time to watch them and decide for yourselves):



    https://www.bitchute.com/video/oAtsZahnhn9n/

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  264. Given the atrocities committed by Israel, land of the Chosen Ones, I see little western coincidence withe the Judaeo part. I’m not antisemitic, I’ve been married to a Jew for 35 years. Zionists on the other hand, believing themselves superior to the rest of us, have absolutely nothing to do with western culture, other than its destruction.

  265. “More on the Jesus (Jew hoax) for the goyim . . .”

    Aside from lacking any specific references, aside from buying his book – laugh, look you make some references.

    No kidding there were those who created tales around a ressurrected leader. Notice his sole reference here is Josephus who is a Jew that rejects Christ as savior. And sure there have been savior claimants before Christ and after.

    However, this shallow rendering makes any sense. The Josephus reference to Christ is not definitive, and not is it not definitive, as I referenced with a source previously in a discussion on this question — scholars are not settled. What this matter more than shallow is that the references to Christ are specific references to scripture — not the generic references made by the guest’s speaker.

    And further undermining the speaker’s case are his own references that the previous so called savior faiths don’t exist until after the death and ressurrection of Christ so rather than preceding Christ, they don’t mold themselves into the salvation motif — and none of those salvation’s are in keeping with the Jesus story in detail or even purpose.

    Baptism, is not a post christian practice, the cleansing by water is a common motif, but not as in the process undertaken by Christ.

    https://bibletalk.tv/the-history-of-baptism

    https://redeeminggod.com/history-of-baptism/

    And I cannot think of anything as bizarre as an analysis that the pertinent aspect of the stories is not the differences but the similarities — completely and totally false. Here’s there formula.

    You breath and I breath — ignoring all other aspects that makes our stories the same or more we as individuals the same. That is one of the worst forms of critical theory application.

    Laugh — uhhh, excuse me, its a vert strange critic to us scripture that predicts and indicates how the messiah will be known in the future to disavow the very individual to come.

    Of course there are pulling passages from old testament scripture — prophecy, for example.

    And clearly, there are a lot of assertions and speculative commentary to full in spaces they are uncomfortable with dealing in full. I won’t get into an indepth debate, but clearly the prima facie case by the speaker and his guest, but given the analytical errors up front – there’s hardly a case to reject the case of christ as messiah as described in scripture.

    ————————–

    They would have been better off calling Christ an alien.

    The understanding of the “blood sacrifice” is utterly incorrect.

  266. I suspect that the finance-related jews who were expelled from Kiev around 1113 soon decided that if you cant beat’em join’em. The eastern Christians had followed the biblical narrative about how Jesus turned the tables on the traders and moneychangers.
    And I have the habit of speculating that the establishment of the Knights Templars around 1119 was the result of that decision. The western christian noblemen who founded the KT may have been of jewish ethnicity or not but their operations make me believe that the KT was a judeochristian joint venture. The rapid rise of their financial power and reach of trade is unlike anything before them.
    Further by semisecretely collaborating with nominal jews they could assist in the event of an expulsion of those nominal jews to rescue the wealth. That circumstance of secretely teaming up would make sense even after the KT were forbidden. I suggest that is what characterises the Anglozionist empire.
    And that this has been a builtin feature since the 1500s.
    The Puritan character during Cromwells era wasnt just about deeply felt religious convictions.
    It was according to my view about preparing the US for just that Anglozionist business model.
    An important part of it that makes sense is that the involved parties should preferrably be professing ignorance about it. Be in denial.
    The internet is full of that denial, presenting a view of the world that renders the anglosaxons as a poor victimised group opressed by the jews, and upholding the belief that the jews imposed themselves on Britain.
    The phenomenon of British Israelism would then be something that those jews must have forced on the anglosaxons. Leading circles among the anglosaxons who claim that the celts and anglosaxons are the real jews with ancestry to the ten missing tribes of Israel, must in this interpretation have been blackmailed or bribed to say so.
    There is however a much simpler interpretation: Namely that it was a win-win configuration.
    Up rose the British empire. Portugal Spain and Holland who earlier had risen economically in collaboration with the jews ended up being second to Britain.
    Although the present article meant something else with the term ‘judeo-christian west’ I see it as appropriate for describing the business collaboration between jews and western christians eventually peaking with the anglozionist empire.

  267. More than a little clean up here:

    “More on the Jesus (Jew hoax) for the goyim . . .”

    Aside from lacking any specific references, except from buying his book – laugh, look you need to make some references.

    No kidding there were those who created tales around a ressurected leader. Notice his sole reference here is Josephus who is a Jew that rejects Christ as savior. And sure there have been savior claimants before Christ and after.

    However, this shallow rendering doesn’t make any sense. The Josephus reference to Christ is not definitive, and not only is it not definitive, as I referenced with a source previously in a discussion on this question — scholars are not settled. What makes this matter more than shallow is that the references made to Christ are specific references to scripture — not the generic references made by the guest’s speaker.

    And further undermining the speaker’s case are his own references that the previous so called savior faiths don’t exist until after the death and ressurrection of Christ so rather than preceding Christ, they don’t mold themselves into the salvation motif — and none of those salvation’s are in keeping with the Jesus story in detail or even purpose.

    Baptism, is not a post christian practice, the cleansing by water is a common motif, but not as in the process undertaken by Christ.

    https://bibletalk.tv/the-history-of-baptism

    https://redeeminggod.com/history-of-baptism/

    And I cannot think of anything as bizarre as an analysis that the pertinent aspect of the stories is not the differences but the similarities — completely and totally false. Here’s there formula.

    You breath and I breath — ignoring all other aspects that makes our stories unique or more different individuals. Let’s just focus on the fact that you and I breath making us the same or indistinguishable. That is one of the worst forms of critical theory application. Of course the differences matter.

    Laugh — uhhh, excuse me, its a very strange critic to use scripture that predicts and indicates how the messiah will be known in the future to disavow the very individual about whom the predictions are made. And therefore there must be no God.

    Of course they are pulling passages from old testament scripture — prophecy, for example.

    And clearly, there are a lot of assertions and speculative commentary to full in spaces they are uncomfortable with dealing in full. I won’t get into an indepth debate, but clearly the prima facie case by the speaker and his guest, but given the analytical errors up front – there’s hardly a case to reject the case of christ as messiah as described in scripture.

    I don’t get into arguments about God’s existence. But the methods here to get to the conclusion that Christ is fiction leaves more than a little to be desired by way of logic rational thinking.
    ————————–

    They would have been better off calling Christ an alien.

    The expressed understanding of the “blood sacrifice” is utterly incorrect

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  268. Anon[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon

    You claimed race had nothing to do with the condemnation of Nazism etc. which is plainly false.

    No, I did not. I claimed “racism” had nothing to do with the Church’s condemnation of Nazism. You’re being dishonest again.

    Slavery is diffiuclt one (depends – are we talking about punishment or ideas such as people being ‘born as slaves’).

    It’s a “difficult one” for dishonest people like you. I’m “talking about” slavery: the use of human beings as involuntary and unpaid workers. You know, slavery, as accepted by Christians for many centuries. Is it compatible with human dignity?

    My other questions were even more “difficult”, it appears.

    Such matters require careful thought and reading – not blanket statements and unjust and pre-emptive accusations.

    I see. Christians applied careful thought and reading, then accepted slavery, execution by fire, etc, for many centuries. Then Christians applied careful thought and reading again, and discovered that they had to agree with secularists.

    Intemperate comments like yours are not really deserving of a response, nor are people who think that ‘racial ideology’ as condemned has no overlapping meaning with the term ‘racism’ (the latter is, of course, often misused, as I already stated more than once).

    The Catholic church is dying because of people like you, who accept “racism” as a valid term. Is that intemperate enough for you?

    • Replies: @SharkSale
  269. Anon[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

    Do you play Texas Hold ’em with two year olds?

    I’m surprised someone as intelligent as you can’t see the difference between that and “having an exchange with one you identify as dishonest and free of intellectual integrity.” Tell me, can you think of any examples from history (or even scripture) of people who had “exchanges” with the invincibly dishonest, ignorant or sinful? If so, can you work out why they had those “exchanges”?

  270. SharkSale says:
    @Anon

    Definition of racism (Miriam-Webster)
    1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
    2a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
    b: a political or social system founded on racism
    3: racial prejudice or discrimination
    Now read and compare relevant quote from encyclical you claim to have read in relation to the relevant meaning above in the context of the condemnation of Nazism etc. It is you who are either grossly dishonest or stunningly ignorant/incapable of basic comprehension.

    I already directed you to Aquinas on dignity – you might also want to consult Newman on Development of Doctrine (all available online) and then look at later documents in the light of tradition on questions re torture etc. Reading and basic comprehension are required.
    On slavery see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14039a.htm
    You might learn something, if you actually desire to. You will also find a way to begin to come answers to your ill-defined questions.
    I suggest instead of replying you actually use your time to research issues you think, mistakenly, you know something about.
    Basta.

    • Replies: @Anon
  271. Seraphim says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Indeed Baptism is what makes all the difference. Christian Baptism is the Baptism of the Holy Ghost:

    “I [John the Forerunner] baptize you with water for repentance, but after me will come One more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Matthew 3: 11).

    “And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20 And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No. 22 Then said they unto him, Who art thou? that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest thou of thyself? 23 He said, I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Esaias. 24 And they which were sent were of the Pharisees. 25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? 26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; 27 He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. 28 These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing. 29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. 30 This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man which is preferred before me: for he was before me. 31 And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water. 32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. 33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God” (John 1:19-34).

    “There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: 2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. 3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. 4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? 5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. 8 The Spirit bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit. 9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be? 10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? 11 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. 12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things? 13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: 15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:1-21).

  272. “Indeed Baptism is what makes all the difference. Christian Baptism is the Baptism of the Holy Ghost:”

    I am not sure we disagree. I certainly don’t challenge baptism. However, Baptism by water is symbolic for believers in a way unknown in other ceremonies that were referenced concerning its indication that Jesus is a mythical character and christianity is based on the same.

    I make no arguments that baptism, uniquely that of the Holy Spirit is neither real or unimportant. I note that it existed as practice before Christ. But its meaning in relationship to Christ is drastically different in practice and meaning than other faiths including Judaic practice.

    So there is no disagreement from and the scriptures you reference. Surely baptism of the Holy Spirit and its meaning for transformation is simply unknown before John and Jesus.

    But one doesn’t need water for that transformation to occur. I am unclear what prompted your comments, but I have no issues with them or the referenced scripture. Without double checking them they appear correct in my view.

    • Replies: @Seraphim
  273. Seraphim says:
    @Mick Jagger gathers no Mosque

    Actually Pilate asked Jesus whether he was the ‘King of the Jews’, which was the false accusation brought by the Jews – he is a rebel against the Caesar. Jesus does not confirm that He was THAT king when He replied to Pilate: ‘You said that…’

    “Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? 34 Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? 35 Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? 36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice. 38 Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all. 39 But ye have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King of the Jews? 40 Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber” (John 18: 33-40).
    Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him. 2 And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe, 3 And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands. 4 Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him. 5 Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man! 6 When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him. 7 The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God. 8 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid; 9 And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer. 10 Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee? 11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin. 12 And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar. 13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. 14 And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! 15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. 17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: 18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. 19 And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. 21 Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews. 22 Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.” (John 19:1-22).
    Pilate was ‘more afraid’ when the Jews told him that Jesus made himself ‘Son of God’, because it was a stronger accusation suggesting that Jesus claimed the imperial title ‘Divi Filius’, a crime of lese-majesty to which the Jews threatened to associate Pilate.

  274. Seraphim says:
    @EliteCommInc.

    Of course we don’t disagree. I just wanted to reinforce your arguments (and mine @#269). All attacks on the Church a la Shapiro (and his ilk) are made without reference to Scriptures (actually to prevent people to read them), because they automatically nullify their premises. The historicity of Jesus is the stumbling block for Judaism, agnosticism, atheism, darwinism and all -isms.

  275. “Pilate was ‘more afraid’ when the Jews told him that Jesus made himself ‘Son of God’, because it was a stronger accusation suggesting that Jesus claimed the imperial title ‘Divi Filius’, a crime of lese-majesty to which the Jews threatened to associate Pilate.”

    Here are some familiar discussions why Pilate was afraid

    https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/26301/what-was-pilates-fear-based-on

    In short I think there are two presses that make sense here.

    1. Pilate understood in full that Jesus was innocent or at the very most harmless. In either state the charges were baseless. And the idea of putting an innocent man to death was objectionable to him. and

    2. the political implications of rioting that could have been easily settled with Christ’s death would be hard to justify in a Rome desiring effectively managing their varies ethnic groups and population and fear in this context is probably more akin to frustrated at his inability to quell the crowd regardless of the tactic used — no doubt even his indecisiveness would reflect poorly on his administrative ability

    the ball was in his court and he chose political expediency over justice.
    ———————————————–

    And there is no doubt his actions are reflective of our own leaders today. To stand up against mob rule or passionate opposition for the sake of truth —

    We in the US have not done a very effective job of honoring that level of integrity.

  276. “Of course we don’t disagree. I just wanted to reinforce your arguments . . .”

    Ah, excuse my confusion- defensiveness . . .

  277. Anon[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @SharkSale

    You might learn something, if you actually desire to. You will also find a way to begin to come answers to your ill-defined questions.

    Yes, thank you for enlightening me. The slavery accepted by Christians for centuries was compatible with human dignity, which is why the same kind of the slavery still exists today and is accepted by Christians such as yourself.

    I already directed you to Aquinas on dignity – you might also want to consult Newman on Development of Doctrine (all available online) and then look at later documents in the light of tradition on questions re torture etc.

    Again, when Christians tortured people into making confessions, then burnt them alive, this was clearly compatible with human dignity. And such torture and executions are still going on today. How could they not be? The great Christian thinker Aquinas accepted them, after spending much time and thought on these topics, so Christians today must still accept them.

    Or perhaps not. But if Christians today reject what Christians once accepted, this is, as the great Newman points out, an example of how doctrine “develops”, not of how doctrine is completely reversed under secularist influence.

    Btw, the Church today is accused of sexism and homophobia in its attitude to female priests and the practice of homosexuality. I assume you reject these nasty accusations as “misuse” of the valuable concepts of sexism and homophobia. However, the Church will sooner or later accept the accusations as valid, in which case you will reverse your present position. I’m sorry: you’ll “develop” your present position.

    As Aquinas said: “Oceania is at war with Eastasia. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.”

    • Troll: Seraphim
    • Replies: @222
  278. “Again, when Christians tortured people into making confessions, then burnt them alive, this was clearly compatible with human dignity. And such torture and executions are still going on today. How could they not be? The great Christian thinker Aquinas accepted them, after spending much time and thought on these topics, so Christians today must still accept them.’

    Fortunately,

    philosophers, scientists, priests, pastors, etc. are not the means of testing dignity or the treatment of one’s fellows based on christian faith and practice.

    That model is explained in the NT and the leadership of the holy spirit. Slightly above the paygrade of Aquinas or Popes

  279. 222 says:
    @Anon

    So, you can’t read and introduce extraneous issues to cover over your failure on race in relation to Church teaching. Such depth. Why listen to Aquinas and Newman and reflect on their writings (or papal encyclicals/ChurchFathers, discussions in Augustine on torture etc and levels of church teaching or what was posted to you re slavery) when we have ‘Anon’ – the non-reading internet troll to guide us.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Vernon Thorpe Comments via RSS