Sunday, January 21, 2018

Christianity: Suckering Whiteskins for 2000 Years and Counting

[i will be updating this thread as i see fit. i include letters from someone i'm calling Gruno Felton, an educated commentator on these matters, with more specific knowledge than i have]


GF says:
This biblehub page gives all of the similar passages. Just like the communists, the Christian literature is all about breaking down distinctions amongst the Goyim.
"Call no man upon earth your father." Jesus Christ. So there is no father or son in Christ, either. The Jews, in contrast, believe in three fathers: biological father, priest/rabbi, God. They don't agree with Christ that an earthly patriarchy is in competition with God... au contraire, it is God's purest reflection.
Jews, again, keep the good doctrines for themselves and give the rotten doctrines to the Goyim.
The Catholic Church, of course, ignores this insane statement, and is closer to the old testament belief: you call a priest "father" because he reflects the Father in Heaven.
Read the commentaries also: they state that the Greek word:

is masculine, or:
"one man".
Hence, because Christ is a man, the New Adam - Hebrew for Man - Christian women,  collectively, become "one and the same man" in Christ, further underscoring the transgenderism of this verse.

Carrier videos

[GF to X]

"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:" (KJV)
Robert Ingersoll called the Book of the Apocalypse:
"The most insane of all books."
Whenever Our Lord Jesus Christ introduces Himself to Saint John, he says that He holds the keys to Hell. Again, technically nothing wrong with this, theologically... but a weird way to introduce oneself.
In Corinthians Saint Paul says that one can eat whatever one wants from the butchers without sin... and yet Our Lord Jesus Christ says that He proscribes the eating of meat sacrificed to idols.
You bring up this point in your show. I am familiar with this verse, as "The Shambles" is a public house in Monaghan.
This chapter is unintelligible to me because I consider Saint Paul a psychotic.
He states assassin's creed:
"All things are lawful unto me but not everything expedient."(!)
What he seems to be saying, though, and I could be wrong, is that one can eat meat sacrificed to idols most of the time. If one were directly informed that the meat was sacrificed to idols then he could still eat it, employing mental reservation for the Lord's sake, because the Lord owns all things.

[GF to X]

Thanks for covering the topic of paedophilia in the Bible. As stated previously: I find the words "paîs" and "paidogogos" troubling... however, my Greek is practically non existent, however you taught Greek, so I am glad that you are troubled by these New Testament verses, also.
To what extent is Child Sacrifice practised in the old testament? As I understand it, the Second Commandment in the 2nd set of Commandments, the set contained in the Ark, demands the killing of ALL 1st-born offspring, including children... however, as with the case of a donkey, a child being a valuable animal - the alien tribal mindset! - one could redeem the child by sacrificing a lesser animal.
However, should one be too poor to afford pigeons - which were difficult to procure in the desert![1] - the child had to be holocausted. Is there a verse in the Old Testament where a prophet complains to Yahweh that too many Jews were simply slaughtering their first-borns instead of paying the redemption fee?
The image of the Old-Testament "Saints" killing, sprinkling the blood, and burning children on a horned altar is a silver bullet against biblical Christianity if this could be demonstrated. However, my knowledge of Scripture is not sufficient to do this, so I was wondering what your thoughts were?
[1] Roughly the population of Southern Ireland, or 3,000,000 people were supposedly in the desert with Moses. This equates to 300 births a day. That is an awful lot of pigeons to Sacrifice!

GF says:

Carrier only concedes the historical existence of Christ arguendo... for the sake of being able to argue AGAINST the resurrection.
He argues against it statistically: 100 billion people have died, and only one, supposedly, Jesus Christ, came back from the dead. That is a statistically improbable claim: 1/100,000,000,000 which is - more or less - a statistical improbability of zero.  The proof to verify such a claim must be in proportion to its statistical improbability... and there isn't any. All we have are contradictory accounts from 4 anonymous sources. And how many Marys were there? 
And what were they doing hanging about the tomb, anyway? As the mythicist, Kenneth Humphreys had pointed out: the body of Christ had already been annointed. Digging Him up 3 days later to re-annoint Him makes no sense: it is a Mc Guffin, a plot contrivance.
And then some of the witnesses didn't recognize the resurrected Christ? Was this an imposter going about pretending to be Him?
Kenneth Humphreys says that there was no such place as Emmaus in the 1st century. He has a hilarious video, 'Jesus in Wonderland' where he lists off the fictitious locales of the New Testament!
Even if Jesus Christ did raise from the dead, this is of no use to anyone - let alone the white race - 2,000 years after the fact.  White Nationalists need to get to the point where they no longer need their opinions validated by anyone, not even by God Himself.
I don't see this as a side issue: that book scrambles peoples brains. I can think a lot clearer now that I am no longer in a state of protective stupidity and trying to reconcile contradictorys. We need a lot more White Nationalists with their brains unscrambled. 

The Synoptic Gospels place this event at the end of Our Lord Jesus Christ's Ministry, whereas Saint John places it at the beginning of Christ's ministry. Steven Anderson, a Baptist preacher, inventively gets around this contradiction in Narratives by saying that Our Lord Jesus Christ cleansed the temple not once but twice!

I hate parroting stuff on the internet. I prefer to find things out by myself. However, Doctor Richard Carrier is a peer-reviewed historian, and so I trust him as a source.
He claims that the temple had a huge military garisson on hand. There was an inscribed piece of stone recovered from the second-temple site that effectively says that should anyone disturb the merchants that the Roman soldiers would kill them.
It would take a lot more than one religious zealot with a homemade whip to take on a Roman Garrison!
And let us, arguendo, grant that our Lord did indeed cleanse the temple with some mystic wonder-y woo, then this would have been unprecedented! Historians like Josephus would have covered it, and the Church would have preserved these writings for propaganda purposes.
Again, it brings me no pleasure, as someone who perseveres in pre-conciliar Catholic devotion, to throw rocks at the Bible. However, the truth does not fear investigation. Should the Bible be the inerrant word of God, dictated by God Himself, then it really ought to be able to stand up to my mild scrutinies.
According to the Holy Gospel of Saint John there were three Marys at the foot of the cross. The Blessed Virgin Mary had a sister, also called 'Mary' of Clopas. 
I remember that whenever I took the Bible literally, my protective stupidity would kick in at this point.
The Gospel is either sloppily written fiction, in which lazy writers use the character names 'Mary' 'Simon' and 'John' over and over again... or Our Lord Jesus Christ hung out with a bunch of people who had statistically improbable names.

GF to

Alex and Cesar, 
The point of that last email was to illustrate how mythology has been used by the enemies of the white race to demonize behaviour in accordance with nature. 
The first sin, in face-value preconciliar Catholicism is pride; is pride in natural superiority. Satan was naturally superior to Jesus and Mary in human form, and he refused to give that superiority up, and this was the first, greatest and worst sin. 
Can you see how the seeds of egalitarianism are contained within this legend? 






'in two,'

, and:





'I cut.'




is a nominal suffix.  Put these three Ancient-Greek roots together, and one obtains the English word, 'dichotomy.'

In Logic, a dichotomy is the division of a class into two disjunct subsets that are comprehensive.

The set of colors, for instance, can be divided into the set of primary colors and non-primary colors. There is no intersection or overlap between these two disjunct subsets.

Similarly, Judaism can be divided into the disjunct subsets of Talmudism, and non-talmudism.

Talmudism is Rabbinical Judaism, and Non-Talmudism would be Biblical Christianity, and Christian-Identitarians maintain that there is no intersection or overlap between these distinct subsets.

"We are the real Hebrews/Sethians/Semites/Judah-ites etc."

I hypothesise that this is a false dichotomy. One cannot subdivide Judaism - which was rotten to begin with - into "good Judaism" and "bad Judaism".

I actually maintain that the Talmud is less evil than the Old Testament.

I write so passionately upon this topic because I used to believe this stuff myself.

Sunday, January 7, 2018

Refocusing on Christianity and Race

Race and Christianity will be the focus of this blog in 2018 and beyond. I have come to believe this is the most important area not properly addressed by current white nationalists, and I will rectify that, with the mission of explaining why white people won't defend themselves.

Alex Linder
7 January 2018