I wouldn’t go so far as to call the current US-American state religion “pagan.” A post-Christian society is something else entirely. In the words of C. S. Lewis, “a post-Christian man is not a Pagan; you might as well think that a married woman recovers her virginity by divorce. The post-Christian is cut off from the Christian past and therefore doubly from the Pagan past.”

Assuming you’re talking about the Jewish writer, that’s Marcus Eli Ravage.

Aha, that is true, the New Testament would make no sense unless the Old Testament was true. You can not need salvation unless their is Original Sin and fall from grace. No one needs to be saved unless
[…]
You can not defeat Jewry when you believe in their book. To beat Jews you must take your mind out of the crazy stories of their holy book, become fully rational, and declare them crazy. No god chose them, that is only a false claim in a book they wrote.

This argument is founded on an assumption that itself validates Judaism: that the Old Testament is a Jewish book. To call the Bible a “Jewish book” is to say the Jews have carried unbroken an ancient tradition that started at least (to the Biblical Minimalist) to Josiah, and at most (to the Biblical Maximalist) to Moses.

Now, I could split hairs about the precise difference between an Israelite, a Judahite, and a Jew, but I think you could see the difference by looking at the Talmud. In the Talmud, various rabbis try to find as many loopholes in the Pentateuch (what the Jews call the Torah) as possible. It’s interesting to note that in one part of the Talmud (I believe it’s Menachot 25b), there’s a story about Moses having a vision of Talmudic rabbis and having absolutely no clue what he’s even looking at. It’s also interesting to note that, in the 1st century AD, most Second Temple “Jews” had a binitarian (maybe even trinitarian) view of the divine; most present-day Jews would find such a thing blasphemous, but Christians might find it oddly familiar.

Judaism says the Israelite Prophets were all Jews; (traditional) Christianity says they were all Christians; Islam says they were all Muslims. Non-Christians and non-Muslims laugh at the last two claims, but for some odd reason, the first one is taken completely serious by many non-Jews.

Western civilization has accepted everything written in this book written by the Jews: jealous God, chosen people, promised land, divine right to genocide, and so on. […] Let’s put it this way: The Jews wrote a book that says God chose the Jews.

And here is my point of contention: does the Bible, the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament specifically, actually endorse the Jewish supremacism we see today? I would argue it doesn’t.

Sure, you can find passages that seemingly support Jewish supremacy; e.g. the term “chosen people” is a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 7:6. But later in Deuteronomy 9, we read some harsh words for Israel: “the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness, for you are a stubborn people” (v. 9), “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stubborn people” (v. 13), “You have been rebellious against the Lord from the day that I knew you.” (v. 24). All throughout the Old Testament — from the Pentateuch, to Judges, to the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and numerous others — we hear Yahweh remind Israel that the covenant has conditions. Yahweh may have “chose” Israel, but Amos 9:7 says he “chose” the Ethiopians, the Philistines, and the Arameans too at various points as well. They were “chosen” for a task, not because they’re so great.

When Paul said Yahweh is “[God] of the Gentiles also” (Rom. 3:29), he wasn’t pulling it from thin air. If you want to hear Christians say to Jews, “you are not the chosen people,” then you need not ask them to discard the Old Testament.

One point that needs to be considered is that Judaism and Jewishness would have disappeared long ago without Christianity. That is pretty clear: Jews needed Christianity as a Nemesis, because everything is dialectical.

Judaism already had it’s nemesis without Christianity: the pagan Roman Empire. The Jewish rabbis already considered Rome to be “Esau” in the Amoraic period. “Esau” only became Christendom when Rome became Christendom.

Not only that, but the Christian policy of tolerating a ghettoized Jewish religion began with pagan Rome. The Romans classed Judaism as a religio licita, and Yahweh as a true god.

That’s a nice Bible quote. When was the last time you heard Netanyahu or any other Israeli quote it? That is my point.

Are the Bible’s contents dependent on Zionists’ recognition of them?
This “anti-Yahweh” subset of anti-Zionism seemingly prioritizes the Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible as the “real” one.

a couple of Bible verses saying that Israelites should care for the stranger does not change the overall ethnocentricity and violence of the Hebrew Bible.

I could easily turn this around and say: “a couple of Bible verses saying that Yahweh chose Israel does not change the overall humbling of Israel by Yahweh in the Hebrew Bible.”

Indeed, as Marx saw it, capitalism was basically the necessary precursor to communism, which prepared the way for ‘the revolution’ by destroying all culture and tradition:

The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind. – The Communist Manifesto

Therefore, supporting capitalism, as opposed to supporting tradition, is just another form of accelerationism — possibly the most effective form of all. The beauty of this approach is that once tradition is gone, there’s nothing left at all to stand in the path of communism, apart, perhaps, from a little individual obstinacy here and there.

Jews like Soros aren’t big Zionists. Some rich Zionist Jews might be throwing a fit by withholding money, but for the Marxist ones it will be business as usual with their financial support for progresssive issues. Who knows maybe Marxists ones are backing the current anti Israel protests. . \

Marxists are “anti-Zionist” because they oppose the whole idea of nationalism, which is why their behavior looks weird to European nationalists. The Soviet Union was the first country to formally recognize Israel in 1948. Stalin did so because he thought it would help dismantle the British Empire. Had Israel been a socialist state, I bet that left-wing anti-Zionism would have a shorter history. Meanwhile, Israel seems to flip-flop on white colonies. In the 1960s, it opposed South Africa and Rhodesia; but in the 1970s, it helped them fight (anti-Zionist) socialists; and then in the 1980s, it boycotted South Africa again. So “decolonization,” until the “decolonizers” come for you.

Today, Zionist groups like the ADL and AJC like to say Jews are “indigenous” to Palestine, probably in an attempt to use left-wing decolonization rhetoric as a justification for Zionism. It seems like Zionism wishes it could be a left-wing, “anti-colonial” movement, and that Israel can be the exception to the rule of internationalism. I think this situation sits at the core of the weird relationship between Jewish activists and the left: Zionism wants to be part of the great left-wing “world revolution,” even though it sticks out like a sore thumb.

When I started reading this article, I expected Guyenot to keep talking about the medieval Roman Church we know of from history. Which is why I was surprised to see him throw doubt the entire 1st millennium AD instead. I don’t think I’m qualified to address everything he posits in a humble comment, but there are a few statements here I’d like to contest:

Outside Eusebius’s prose, there is not a single piece of evidence that Constantine was a Christian, or even favorable to Christianity.

What about Lactantius, who described Constantine as a Christian in his book De mortibus persecutorum? Or what about some of the decrees attributed to Constantine in the Codex Theodosianus that make mention of his policy towards the church? Or what about the Origo Constantini that calls him the first Christian emperor?

By the way, Theodosius was of Phoenician origin, and Phoenicians were indistinguishable from Jews (many, if not most, became Jews after the fall of Carthage).

I believe Theodosius I was born in Spain, and I can’t find much about where his father Count Theodosius the Elder was born. I can’t find anything that implies Count Theodosius was of Phoenician origin, other than him dying in Carthage, but he was a general who travelled all over the western empire so that alone wouldn’t suggest much about his origins.

But Eusebius himself also tells us that Constantine later favored Arianism and was baptized into this “heresy” by his relative Eusebius of Nicomedia, an Arianist that he had made patriarch of Constantinople.

Where does Eusebius say this? I have a version of Eusebius’ Vita Constantini open in another tab, and I can’t find any mention of this. I know that Constantine was baptized by the Arian Eusebius of Nicomedia (even if Eusebius of Casesarea doesn’t mention it), but the Arian Eusebius was only appointed bishop of Constantinople after Constantine had passed away!

I think this debate shows how much the dissident right keeps falling into the trap of thinking in negative terms: “We must be against Zionism” vs “We must be against Marxism.” Such stances are defined by what they are against.

It would be better to think in positive terms. I think “pro-White” is a positive stance that much of the dissident right would agree with, so I will go with that one as an example. Under this stance, whether we oppose Israel or oppose “Third Worldism” is conditional.

On “Third Worldism” in particular, the Third World is not inherently our ally. The Arab’s resistance to bombing campaigns, the African’s resistance to multinational corporations, and the European’s resistance to the dissolution of his/her culture are not essentially the same struggle. We may have overlapping enemies, but that’s it. If the world is freed from the Globalist Empire, who is to say that the Arabs and Africans will be our allies without a common enemy? We can make agreements with Third World nations, but do not let those agreements define us.

Meanwhile, on the Zionist question, Whites simply have little (if anything) to gain from siding with Israel. The Israelis (contrary to what Zionist propagandists might tell you) are not holding back massive numbers of Arabs from swarming the West. They aren’t a very strategically helpful ally, and they clearly value their own interests more than those of some greater “Western” alliance. Joining up with Israel to “own the browns” does not meaningfully advance our interests.