Was the Christian 'psy-op' the work only of Jews, or of Jews plus ruling Romans?
© Raeto West 13 August 2023 Click to pass the next question to move down to my long earlier article Was early Christianity Hijacked by Jews ...?The best account of Jews independently arranged Christianity, the first possibility, known to me, is on christcuck.org which has no authorship or other information. Presumably it is his, her, or their copyright. In case it vanishes, I have a visually-identical but less complex version of christcuck's home page here.
'Steve H'’s examples of religions manipulated and weakened by Jews are: The Serapis cult, Gnosticism, Mithraism, Christianity, Manichaeanism, Valentinianism, Hermeticism, Buddhism, and about a dozen other pacifist slave-making religions... Christianity is repackaged Zoroastrianism with the Alexandrian psyop foundation and a jewish messiah so that tells you that that Philo was originally targetting his psyop towards the Aryan Parthians/Persians.
The second hypothesis, of joint action of Romans and Jews, appears here.
James J O'Meara replies with the idea that Roman elites themselves installed Christianity, to keep the masses down. He has a similar approach to modern people who see that Roman Catholicism and Jews are in symbiosis.
I think the problem here is knowing whether the two groups co-operated, or merely existed at arms' length, doing their own things, aware of the others, but not involving themselves. I'm uncertain!
The first possibility relies on information about what we'd call Jews in the ancient world, and such possibilities as Julius Caesar being assassinated for getting Rome in debt to Jews. Or something like that. The sources are given, needing some familiarity with ancient texts, and the general idea seems sound.
The second possibility relies on characteristics of Jews found in modern centuries, projected back in time. Here's a small extract:
One might also compare "Twelve Jews in the asshole of the world drew up a plan to conquer the world, and succeeded." with
"Seventeen Arabs in a cave drew up a plan to destroy the World Trade Center and succeeded."
The Colosseum as it is today. No Christians were ever thrown to lions there. Another propaganda untruth was the life of Nero: see here.
Email exchanges on 'Jesus' with 14 online people. I hope these may help confused people. Dated 2000.
Mediæval chess joke.
Brother Jews advising the kings of opposite sides; and religion split between nominal Christians and nominal Jews. As a result of the [Papal] permission, the Jews ranked with the knights and the feudatories who belonged to the upper strata of medieval society.
If you want to update chess to a more realistic modern version!
The title Nasi [I don't know the language(s)] originally meant "prince" in the Old Testament, and was given to the political ruler of Judea. The Romans later recognized the Nasi as the Patriarch of the Jews, which was a high rank in the official Roman political hierarchy. Thus, in the Middle Ages, the term came to signify any Jew who held prominent positions in the courts of non-Jewish rulers. ... from mileswmathis.com.
Simplified cartoon of 'Jews' inventing 'Christianity'. (The painting, bottom right, is by north American artist Thomas Cole, The Course of Empire - Destruction, 1836)
Frequency of the word 'Jew' in English printed material
Frequency of the expression 'Judeo-Christian' in American English. Assuming this is more-or-less right, note that it barely existed in remote times. It increased during the Second World War and when American Jews, so-called 'neo-cons', wanted war support from gullible Americans.
Was early Christianity Hijacked by Jews? And Islam Invented by Jews? Plus a Note on Jews and Blacks
© Rerevisionist 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2023 v. 22 February 2022, 28 December 2022, 1 February 2023, 26 Nov 2023
• Making People Pay to be Propagandised seems to be one of the most important 'contributions' of Jews. It struck me that the BBC has similar structure to the Church of England. In past days, the Church in effect had about 10% of GNP, plus donations and contributions, in exchange for supporting the Jewish corrupt monopoly on loans and debt. No wonder they fought for it!
• Critical Importance of the Mediterranean in World Geography see Jewish Parasitic Evolution which includes a section on the Mediterranean as unique in the world.
• Ancient World
Where Did All the Phoenicians Go? Very exciting paper by Miles Mathis, 15 March 2020, which links Hittites and the iron age and monopoly of iron, Troy and iron and silver in what's now Turkey, with Persia, the Odyssey, the Phoenician and later alphabets, Alexander of Macedon, Thucydides and other liar-historians, Sparta, and the likely-true histories of many more-or-less mythical names from the ancient Greeks. And rearrangements of wars and battles, deleting doubtful wars and reinterpreting changes in 'elites'.
My favorite Jewsus story? Starts at Matthew 15:25. A non-Hebrew mother begs for Jesus to heal her child. And Jesus’s response? “I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” Yet still the Gentile mother begs. He said “It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.” With Judaic ‘supremacy’, he compares a non-Jew to a dog when she asked him for help. The woman responds, “but even DOGS receive crumbs from their master‘s table.” So after sufficient groveling, (where have we seen this before?), Jewsus arrogantly responds, “O woman, great is your faith! Let it be to you as you desire.” Matthew 15:28.
Proof of the amazing power of mass mind control. I am continually astounded at supposed goy truthers‘ inability to figure out this ultimate psychological operation foisted upon them. And how willing they are to dismiss a fellow goy to promote stories written by Hebrews.
• Intermission: What were 'pagans' or 'heathens'? Was 'paganism' a religion? Those words are etymologically related to expressions on the countryside. As 'civilization' relates to towns. I'd suggest 'organised religion' is related to bureaucracy, writing, laws, and money. Early religions no doubt had 'holy' or 'sacred' sites, sites with 'genius loci'. Holy wells with fresh or other water, ancient trees, stone circles of great antiquity, objects visible for miles, trackways and paths, Delphi with its Oracle, sites of great wars, burial chambers, perhaps illustrate the sort of thing. But they were, presumably, fragmentary and scattered.
• Intermission: Edomites, Essenes, other tribes, Khazars; do they matter? There's a school that believes what have been called 'Jews' for a few hundred years ought to be Edomites. The 'Synagogue of Satan' school believes there is something they call 'Satan', and the someone called 'Yeshua' hated 'Jews' or 'Edomites'. And generally that they differ permanently.
Note that as Jews voyaged around, looking for opportunities to impose their moneymaking absurdities, they would have collaborated in secret with local groups, probably either dominant in some way, or hoping to be dominant. In effect, archbishops, bishops, and the rest of it would be analogous to Freemasons later. Very likely there would have been grades, as with Freemasons, in which only the top levels would be privy to the money arrangements, including tithes and other systems of taxation. The equivalent of vicars would get something like a minimum wage. ['Tithes' seem to have been adopted by the founder of Mormons].
• About a century later, Augustine's City of God was published. I've seen it suggested plausibly that the book was aimed at non-Jew populations, to try to reconcile them to Jewish taxation, ruin, opening of gates, and imposition of Christianity. Perhaps analogously to later 'Puritanism' and vernacular Bible translations, at a time when Jews had control of some central banks and were impoverishing Anglo-Saxons.
• Early forms of the Bible, as the Canons were slowly shaped by local disputes. The propaganda purposes were probably hidden or misdirected (like modern Jewish news and films). I can't remember ever seeing a straightforward account of the aims of the various books.
Since about 1920, radio and TV allowed far more efficient broadcasting than 30,000 or so vicars preaching once a week. But people have to pay.
Quick Summary of this Article's 2000-Year Span:–
• Modern-day unremitting pushing by Jews worldwide for the fraud of 'Holocaustianity' suggests the same process may have been used in ancient times to push another Jewish fraud, 'Christianity'. (Whether 'Jews' now, and Jews back then, were the same people, need not concern us).
• Post-0 AD Christianity involved a great amount of forgery and lying—techniques used and perhaps invented by Jews. Some info in Forgery in Christianity. Chapter 1 by Wheless, who took info from W E H Lecky on European morals.
The Hebrew Jesus said: “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” Luke 14:26
And: “I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” Matthew 10:36
Whilst simultaneously preaching: “But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Matthew 5:44
On the deeply litigious Jews in their Talmudic love of minutiae: “If any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.” Matthew 5:40
Oh, and remember! Don’t resist evil, you foolish goy: “I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” Matthew 5:39
And don’t worry about tomorrow, goy. The great psychopath Yahweh (“do not leave anything alive that breathes” Deuteronomy 20:16) will take care of everything.—Don’t resist evil, just let it happen. It’s prophesied in your unholy Jew book.
[bumpercrop May 2020 Occidental Observer. Edited down]
'Turning the other cheek' may be a workable strategy; or it may not. It's obvious that it can be used to enfeeble defensive (or aggressive) reactions. The same is true of the advice to give away 'all you have' to the poor—probably meaning poor Jews. Many people have never commanded armies, run teams of 'thugs', or been in possession of large assets; possibly such advice would affect marginal people.
• It must be understood that 'Christianity' originally was a Greek expression, probably NOTHING to do with the Jewish 'Yeshua' fiction. Most of the documents relating to the period were destroyed; critics attributed the destruction to Christians, but destruction is a Jewish modus operandi.
• Here's an opinion on what happened after Alexander the Great. The Middle East was ruined by wars between Alexander and the Persians. Then the Samaritans struggled to rebuild themselves, and made a nationalist propaganda piece called the Torah, first written in Greek and deposited in the Library of Alexandria. 'Jews' did not exist until Ptolemy II financed them. There was no temple of Solomon; the Second Temple of Solomon was really The Temple of Herod the Great which was built in about 63 BC.
Hebrew did not appear until the Babylonian Talmud, and it is a form of Aramaic.
All Abrahamic religions are made up. They include Christianity, created by Saul of Tarsus, probably the same man as Josephus. Byzantine Christianity followed. Islam was made up later, followed by Khazar Judaism. Protestants, Quakers, Jesuits, Mormons are later examples. All based on lies.
• Palestine is geographically near Greece, and Greek colonies in Asia Minor (now Turkey).
• The attempt to insert crude Jewish literary junk into Greek areas, civilised for centuries, failed.
• Whenever possible (Egypt; Babylon; some aspects of Rome; Europe; modern Germany, modern Iraq ...) Jews malign and destroy with complete disregard for truth. For this reason, serious historians must separate out the influence of Jews—for example, Nero vs rich Romans, Turkey (Google says '... cultural connections to ancient Greek, Persian, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman empires'—omitting Jews), the 'black legend' of Spain, the 'Glorious Revolution' in England, Napoleon moving east, Holland and Britain moving west, India, the opium wars, both world wars ... if they are to have any hope of understanding events.
• The forced conversion of Rome took centuries; helped by the fraud of the Donation of Constantine.
• In the words of Bertrand Russell; '... the most important of Christian doctrines was ‘we ought to obey God rather than man.’ ... a precept to which nothing analogous had previously existed, except among the Jews.' This introduces the contrast between individual conscience, and the medium of the Church. Obviously, if Jews can persuade people they are official experts on God, they can infiltrate their own beliefs and manipulations.
• 'God' in Jewish writings is an irascible superior doing his circuits, and turning up unexpectedly. Maybe the word is mistranslated, and ought to be more like 'Lord'. The story of 'God', knocking up a 13-year old Jewish virgin, whose offspring is claimed to be the 'son of God', makes more sense than the absurd miraculous account.
Organised religion involves money, though the tradition has been to ignore and suppress this fact almost completely. But not entirely. Here's J R H Moorman's A History of the Church in England, writing on the thirteenth century: ‘.. A few rectors ... were the wealthy pluralists, mostly scions of illustrious families, who regarded their benefices simply as sources of income, and hired stipendiary priests to do the work. ... Some of these pluralists became immensely rich... The values of livings [paid to vicars] varied enormously in the Middle Ages and for long after. ...’
England is divided into dioceses, each with its town and a bishop, and peripheral staff, but this is the end-point of a long set of processes. And this may well have been the work of Jews and their collaborators, though the compromises and forced rents and Jewish areas near Cathedrals must have been largely secret. Science and travel and printing have weakened all the foundation, so that, now, the existence of 'Jesus Christ' has been referred to as ‘moonshine’. Ironically, the services actually performed by the Church have remained unanalysed. They include propaganda, like the BBC but before broadcasting was invented.
If two groups consider themselves enemies, there's no general solution to the question of whether they have links. If there's a practical difference, for example one group opposes vaccination and the other likes it, then they are incompatible—but this is not likely if they agree on the science of vaccination. If one group is vegetarian and the other group isn't, they are incompatible—unless they change their basic outlooks. If there is a new heresy, the groups may be permanently incompatible, and if there is a practical difference, such as a lifetime income and status which may be gained or lost by either group, there may well be bitter fights.
If there's a heresy, a small change in creeds and nominal beliefs, where both groups agree on most aspects of their system, it seems correct to say they are both part of, and dependent on, the older, previous system. So it seems clear enough that Christians are just a splinter group from what are called 'Jews', and rely on the writings of 'Jews', remaining tied to their leading strings, and dependent on them—as is shown by the inclusion of the otherwise outdated 'Old Testament'. (The secret and unacknowledged Talmud of course means Christians don't follow talmudic stuff, and usually don't know it exists).
In the same way, Shi'ite and Sunni Muslims from the viewpoint of anyone who rejects or hasn't heard of the Quran, are two sides of the same coin, unless they need to be identified for some practical purpose.
Much later, the system became established and conventionalised. See for example my review of Mrs Sherwood's book The Fairchild Family. The Church of England owned the land; Vicars were only the tenants for life (or expulsion if they said or did the wrong things). By the mid-19th century, about half the entire output of Oxbridge went into the Church of England.
• One might speculate that Cohen, Kahan, Khan, Kuhn... were opposed to Caesars, Kaisers, Tsars...
• Islam appears to have been invented by Jews, who by then were at their last gasp, having sucked Rome dry. (A theory that Catholics invented Islam, was pushed by 'Alberto Rivera Romano'; I'd guess a crypto-Jew in Spain misdirecting).
• Islam was probably designed to convert indolent Arab masses into a force of thugs. Jews used them and manipulated them to suck parts of the Roman empire (such as Spain) and also to attack east, though there were geographical obstacles.
• Particularly for US readers, Will Durant (next generation after Wells' Outline of History), was interested in Jews and Islam, and their invasions and damage, notably massacres in the 'Hindu Kush', which is still censored by Moslems.
• It's a possibility that Islam from the start was manufactured (by making secret promises to both sides) as two rival groups, Sunni and Shi-ite, for divide-and-rule purposes. Offering support to one or other depending on the situation later and their attitudes to Jews.
• Khazaria seems to have been targetted by colonisation, or conversion, or both, for Jew alliances.
Example: I've read that the Book of Daniel was aimed against the ancient Greeks, and Revelations against Rome and its Empire. Both were stories to encourage rebellions, and used 'end times' slogans and phrases and alarms. It's obvious they could have been direct threats and demands. Or poetical and encoded and unclear and deniable. And that later translations were likely to be written in evasive and unreal styles.
Another example: Joshua and Deuteronomy are something like 'Great War' propaganda in 1914 and later, both in Germany and in Britain, and in the USA when Jews wanted to push the USA into war.
• The Roman Church was heavily Jew-influenced and Symbiotic with Jews—both were largely parasitic, and had analogous parasitic attitudes. Jews called all whites 'Christians' until very recently. Probably–
(1) the idea of Jews hating Yeshua was inserted to pretend the Church was a defence against Jews;
(2) the supposed attack on usury was probably joint action by Church and Jews to keep the monopoly in lending to Jews, and away from Christians;
(3) burnings of the Talmud, reported fairly often, were probably designed to remove the Talmud from inspection;
(4) the Church propagandised poor people to damp down criticism of Jews;
(5) the Church often aided Jews—possibly the reason Jews in the USA propagandise 'sanctuaries';
(6) it's possible the insistence on priestly celibacy was intended to keep out intelligence from priests—perhaps based on observation;
(7) the Roman Church was far harsher and cruel than many people can easily understand now;
(8) the belief in, or hope for, a messiah or 'Moschiach' reappears in Christianity as a 'Savior' or 'Saviour'; though the stress is on individual persons and selfishness rather than a group or race event. So much of Christianity is alien to Europe that only intense propaganda could conceal this fact.
• King James Version. English translation of the Bible. It's traditional to praise the rich, flowing orotundity and profound spiritual influence of this translation. The truth would appear to be nearer the view that it was part of the propaganda push which resulted in the Bank of England and centuries of Jewish lies. Read Gerry (jan 2019) The Hidden Hand of Spookery and note the multiple puns, on debt, loans, tenancy etc, in such languages as Aramaic and Hebrew, on (for example) the name Joseph. The main purpose of the supposedly learned translators must have been, not to translate accurately, but to obscure if not erase the meaning—a tradition Oxford University retains today.
The Old Testament may have been included as propaganda. If you have a new religion, why bother with superseded stuff? The Torah or first five books of the Old Testament (entitled in the KJV Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) contain similar material to the Talmud, including instructions on mass killings and rape etc. I think Christians found this embarrassing; many of them play this down, and I think the emphasis on the more-or-less secret Talmud is something of a distraction.
• Race. One policy of 'Jews' was to mingle with local bosses, and with local thugs, and on a larger scale with groups of people in ship or road contact, e.g. China, Venice. This of course must make claims of 'racial purity' largely absurd. I suspect the many photos showing bearded freaks in hats are propaganda for supposed racial unity.
• Jews probably had a centuries-old hatred for Byzantine Christianity, culminating in its invasion and massacres by Muslim thugs. Much of the manoeuvring of alliances, weapons, and so on must be viewed as Jew-controlled.
• Lorenzo Valla 'On the Donation of Constantine' (15th century) is usually treated simply as a discoverer of a fake, but it could well be that the time was considered ripe for an attack, and other material resurfaced. Many debunkings occur when vested interests shift.
• The word 'Jews' in Britain is relatively recent, coinciding more or less with the invention of printing in England. Probably much the same remark applies in other languages.
• 19th-20th century westerners were influenced to an almost infantile level by Biblical Jewish nonsense, leading to disasters such as the US Civil War, and the World Wars in Europe and elsewhere.
• Despite perpetual 'Jewish' lies, large numbers of people know by now that 'Communism' as installed in Russia in the Jewish Coup was 'Jewish'.
• Many 19th-20th century writers, not understanding Jews, believed tolerance of Jews to be a mark of enlightenment, which is why they were unable to understand the threat of Islam. They thought Islam was a tolerant religion, because it was thought to be fairly kind to Jews—without understanding that Islam had been set up by Jews, with the Quran as a military-style manual.
• New to me is the idea that 'Chinese Communism' was yet another Jew fix-up. I'm not sure I would have noticed if they'd chosen a Chinese name; however, rereading some of Joan Robinson, an economics professor at Cambridge of complete unintelligence and unoriginality, made it obvious enough. See Chronology of Jews (scroll down to sidebar)
Below: Importance of the Greeks as Target
Below: Consequences, including Islam.
Below: Variations on the theme - Joseph Atwill and Rome. And Greece.
Below: Extreme Slowness of Spread of Christianity
Below: Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Aristocracies
Below: United Nations as A Jew 'Religion'
This is an idea new to me, and perhaps genuinely new.
Here are a few starting-point puzzles –
- Why did the Bible, when it was finally printed, include the 'Old Testament'? Why not just have Christian material? (I'm agnostic about the Latin (Roman Catholic) and presumably Greek (Byzantine) versions; for all I know the 'Old Testament' might have been treated as inferior, or consisted of different books).
- Early Christianity seems to have been named after the Greek word meaning 'illuminated' or 'golden', in a similar sense to 'the light of the world' or 'bright spirit'. It may also mean 'anointed' or treated with 'holy oil'—as in chrism, sometimes modified to 'charisma'. The chi-rho and fish symbol is supposed to symbolise 'chr'.
- The importance of the Greek Empire in early Christianity
- The Romans appear to have had the idea of amalgamating and collecting together parts of extant religions from their part of the world, with the intention of psychologically unifying their unstable empire. Sensible enough, and perhaps a precursor to the idea of 'conversion', which must have seemed a new outlook to tribal peoples.
- Constantine's genuine or supposed conversion in 312 A.D. is of course about three centuries after the supposed birth of 'Jesus Christ'
- Evidence of such things as the faked 'Holocaust' and faked attribution of the 9/11 demolitions is impressive proof that Jews are persistent liars; they will never stop lying.
- Evidence shows Jews have no scruples in manufacturing or destroying evidence.
- Evidence shows Jews may claim to have invented or originated anything considered desirable. Modern evidence shows Jews, if they lied to claim to have taken part in establishing Christianity, will lie more, claiming progressively more influence over the past.
- Whether ancient 'Jews' are related to modern 'Jews' is a controversial question; but the same written 'laws' and stories can reasonably be supposed to affect populations subject to them in similar ways. Ancient 'Jews' must therefore be suspected of being persistent liars, too.
I'd like to suggest there may have been a process, over several centuries, in which Jews made up their own stories about 'Yeshua', also known as 'the Christ', or 'Jesus Christ', and insisted upon them in their Jewish group way, redefining 0 A.D. as a starting-point for their own purposes. Three centuries is about the length of time taken for Jews to take over England, then the USA, and invent and promote bogus histories, so the time scale seems plausible enough.
In short, I suspect the 'Old Testament' progressively was forced into Christianity, despite having no connection whatever with the origins of Christianity. And the 'New Testament' itself was Judaised, replacing genuine early Christian works.
The idea is reinforced by plenty of examples of bogus religions fostered by Jews, including many aspects of the Reformation, Quakers, Mormonism, and Christian Science.
It's important to understand that early Jewish efforts seems to have been directed to Greece, not Rome. Latin Christianity was accidental, dependant on Constantine's victory. Consider that:
- The 'Christos' idea, 'ichthyos' etc are Greek words. 'Episkopi' (bishops) are overseers in Greek. 'Peter' is a Greek word, for 'rock' And so on.
- The Gospels were written in Greek; not Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew.
- The Greek Testament is the original form of the books that make up the New Testament as they appeared in Koine [i.e. popular] Greek. To quote Wikipedia.
- For two or three centuries, Greek was the language of the Roman church.
- Greek (or 'Attic') cities dotted the coastline and interior in all the areas north and northwest of Palestine, including in what the Greeks called 'Asia Minor' (now Turkey). (See map). In other words, the area would be relatively familiar to them. Thessalonians were in a region of Greece. Corinth was a Greek city.
- Greek cities in Asia Minor (what's now Turkey) continued to be important to Christianity: Nicaea, for example, Ephesus, and of course Byzantium. Note that there is some confusion over names: there are several of Alexandria; several Antiocheia (one of these being Tarsus).
- Greek was the official language of the Roman Church during the first two or three centuries.
- Alexander is/was spoken of as Hellenizing the east, by his campaigns, down to parts of India. Note that the reverse process, of importing writings into Europe, seems to have taken place. See evidence of Buddhist writings having influenced, perhaps contributing much of, the 'New Testament'.
- 1977: ‘The main Buddhist source of the New Testament gospels is the bulky Sanskrit text of the Mulasarvastivadavinaya (MSV). ... Comparing the two sources carefully word for word, sentence for sentence, motive for motive, for some years, I came to the firm conclusion that the New Testament gospels could be well described as 'pirate copies' of the MSV. ... other Buddhist texts had also been used by the otherwise unknown authors of the New Testament gospels. The most important source apart from the MSV ... is the famous Lotus Sutra, known in Sanskrit as the Saddharmapundarikasutram.’
The Ancient-Spooks website suggests to me that 'Sutra' means a secret or hidden document.
—Greek influence in about 1 BC.—
Black dots = Greek cities founded <336 BC
Green dots: Greek cities founded 336-1BC
Yellow dots: Non-Greek Hellenised cities
—Greek influence: Byzantine Empire about 1000— AD.
Blue: Greek Orthodox
Green: Slavonic Orthodox
Grey: Georgian Orthodox
Red: Latin Christendom.
REPRISE... same idea, different wording
After a few tests, I realise many people can't understand the new view of the New Testament I'm making. So I'll retry...
[1] Bear in mind that Jesus NEVER EXISTED; see abundant material on this point. The 'Acts' are not a historical record. The 'Gospels' are self-contradictory and ridiculous.
Put this together with
[2] Jews, today, TELL LIES ALL THE TIME. These are joint, collective lies, which persist over long stretches of time. And clearly have intention behind them. Modern motives include promoting wars, getting the Federal Reserve for Jews, changing propaganda schemes to face new enemies or to work for new wars for Jews, hiding such events as opium wars and invasion of Vietnam, continual statistical lies on e.g. black crime, retrospective lies for example on the history of the Soviet Union, and the history of science, with a view towards skewing things to what they evidently think are Jewish interests.
So we have this hypothesis
[3] I'm saying the NT was just another set of Jewish lies. Not stories, not history, not an honest attempt at a record. But purely for Jewish aim(s). Perhaps heading off an early religion in the Roman Empire, which looked likely to form a new composite religion. I won't name it, as that will confuse people. Jews may have seen this, and thought "Oy vey, we can make money from this" or "Oy veh, God chose us to lead these stupid goyim" or "Oh vey, papyrus is cheap these days & we'll hire Greek scribes to write out our stories" or "We are the experts in official religion, so we're entitled to tell lies" or all four. So they wrote a whole set of stories, based around 'Yeshua', almost as Spielberg composed his absurd films, Weisel orated his lies for a lifetime, or Jewish 'historians' of the holohoax orchestrate and embroider their lies. The main point was to get them out, published, available to be forced onto people; further detail could come after. After a few centuries of intimidation and/or repetition and/or bribery and/or selection of fake leaders, they added the OT to the NT to reinforce their claims. This time frame is similar to e.g. forcing Jewish history over whites for the last four centuries or so.
I've seen the argument that US Jewish-controlled 'Universities' now all accept the Bible as reliable 'proof'—since even Marxists accept this! But of course if the whole thing was just a Jewish set of stories, like the 'mainstream media', Marxists would be likely to support it, whatever the evidence, just as Jews would.
NOTE THAT it doesn't even matter if there was a genuine, new, morally original figure, for example Lucius Calpurnius Piso. All they had to do was put forward their own lies and—provided there was sufficient promotional push and destruction of opposition—Piso would be forgotten. Jews often do this; for example, the leading physicist over the last few centuries was Newton, so Einstein was manufactured as a Jewish substitute leader. To take a totally different example, the Beatles were one of the most influential music groups of the 20th century. If Jews started a promotional myth that 'The Bagels' were the best ever, with their famous 'Abbey Schul' and 'Light Blue Album' achievements, who can tell whether this would be accepted in 300 years' time?
NOTE ALSO that the Bible uses many techniques which show in Jewish films. For example, scene-setting and opinion-setting. Many Jewish films start with fictional stuff on how actress X is the most beautiful woman in the world, collecting her beauty award, and gasped at by big crowds. In the same way, the 'Jesus' figure is supported by miracles, impossible events, epigrams supposed to suggest wisdom, marvels, scatterings of enemies, etc etc. Rather oddly, this feature seems to be the basis of many people's reaction, which is that the Bible is full of reliable and accurate material—something like the opposite of the truth.
AND NOTE that the Catholic Church of course was fronted by non-Jews, most of the time, but they had their own views on what mattered, leading to interminable cryptic disputes. No doubt the Roman Empire's collapse was helped by such rented people diverting assets away from the state, and from ordinary people. A situation recognisably similar to the present day.
If you see my point, I'd welcome serious comments. I'd particularly welcome comment on Churches post- about 500 AD, and interactions between Jews and non-Jews, and on e.g. money - Gold? Silver? Paper money promotion? And the invention of Islam, and the Khazar issue. And of course promotion of wars and invasions, as parallels with modern times. Discoveries of new territories and the corresponding increases in ease of travel. Venice? Trade routes? William the Conqueror, Cromwell, Napoleon, the Reformation, Renaissance, Thirty Years War, 20th century .... Any insights, based on the idea that the Bible was a Jewish promo job; what were they trying to promote, in different eras? There may well be insights waiting to be seen and outed! [Added 21 Sept 2016)
ANOTHER NOTE: The New Testament does not mention Christianity at all—understandably, as the Church did not exist at the time. Only the fictional Jesus/Yeshua. So if some other religion (say, Mithraism, or Gnosticism, or RomanEmpirism, or Anythingism, or pan-Paganism, or revivedBabylonism) had emerged, the NT could be used against them, so Jews could muscle in. They may have prepared stories, later dropped, to plan for these eventualities—in the same way modern 'Jews' prepare media campaigns against Germans, Vietnamese, whites, Iraqis, Moslems etc. [Added 22 Sept 2016]
SECOND REPRISE... same ideas, reworded
Here's a review of a little-known but forceful small book on Jesus as a myth.
A longer and more detailed book is Prof. G A Wells' The Historical Evidence for Jesus (1982; published by Prometheus Books in the USA. George Albert Wells—1926-2017—was Professor of German in Birkbeck College, London. The blurb includes: “the earliest references to the historical Jesus are so vague that it is not necessary to hold that he ever existed; the rise of Christianity can, from the undoubted historical antecedents, be explained quite well without him...”). But neither of these authors, Robertson or Wells, has any concept of 'Kosher' forces which successfully agitated for, then imposed, 'Jesus Christ' on top of early Christianity, which, if it even existed as a genuine non-Jewish movement, had no place for a 'Yeshua'. Prometheus Books is an arm of the 'skeptics', US people funded by Jews; Wells would not have been published, had he been Jew-aware.
Review of Archibald Robertson: Jesus: Myth or History?Valuable, Condensed, Thorough, and Little-known Measured Criticism of 'Jesus' Considered as a Genuine Personage. Helps Pave the Way for Future Understanding. Review by Rerevisionist, Jan 7th, 2017
I have a copy of this book, in the original small-format red hardback of the 'Thinker's Library'. First printed 1946, second edition 1949. Most Thinker's Library volumes were bound in brown, with black printing, and with a one-colour on white dust-jacket in their Watts & Co. house style. There are other editions, some, I think, more or less pirated; or perhaps the copyright situation isn't clear. Whether these are accurate, I don't know; for interested readers I'd recommend an original copy, just in case.
The contents are more or less chronological, with Chapter 1 containing Christian writings, Chapter 2 writings by everyone else—with some overlap—and Chapter 3 leaping forward to post-Reformation times, no doubt because criticism of the Bible in the Middle Ages is difficult to find. I'd guess Robertson—British son of a theologian in Durham, and impeccably public-schooled and degreed—absorbed much of the material in his father's house. I haven't found any supposed texts showing the existence of Jesus, not found in Robertson. (The book has a fairly detailed helpful index).
My view is that, at the time of the various commentators, nobody influential appreciated the fact the Jews, who were, presumably, behind the Jesus promotion, seem to have a genetic tendency to lie—something which may go back to the days when language was still developing, in the remotest depths of time. Much as visual camouflage would not have evolved until sight had developed, modes of use of language could not predate speech. It's now clear that Jews have an exceptional tendency to lie—this may be compared to some creatures which lie [pun not really intended!] rather than fly, when in danger. Before the days of technological aids, such as writing, and, now, photographs and fingerprints and videos etc etc etc, convincing liars must have been hard to detect. It's now plausible that Jews made up the 'New Testament' as a Jewish fantasy, or film script, or advertisement, or promotion of a Jewish 'hero' aimed at gullible goyim. It's what they do. People who describe Christianity as a 'Jewish Trojan horse' are no doubt correct.
The idea that there was a ferment of religious ideas in the Roman Empire may also be untrue. It's now known that Jewish strategies include defaming and subverting and critiquing rival societies; it's entirely likely the supposed unease leading to religious change was a Jewish manufacture.
The remaining problem is how Jews could have done this; they didn't have the Federal Reserve to print them endless money. They may have had the ear of prominent Romans. They may have used unreliable, dysfunctional, disgruntled people to spread the world, much as non-Jewish 'Marxists' now, and in the past, often fit this description, and often co-operate in treachery which is mildly profitable to them.
A modern question which may occur to the reader is why a Jew-based publishing house should risk subverting their racial group with a serious presentation of the idea of the non-existence of 'Yeshua'. There have been alternations in self-images of Christians, and I'd guess their feeling was that Christians in 1945 were a bit too independent. The story of Jewish collaborators through the centuries hasn't begun to be described yet.
Very roughly (places & names change):
UA=Ukraine, AM=Armenia. R=Rome. C=Constantinople. J=Jerusalem. M=Medina.
Arabs occupied a large area, and were well positioned to take over the remains of the Roman Empire, much of it around the Mediterranean Sea.
Note: ‘The established presence of Islam in the region that now constitutes modern Turkey dates back to the latter half of the 11th century, when the Seljuks started expanding into eastern Anatolia’ says Wikipedia.
Note: a silk route between Europe and China went north of the Khazar enclave, marked K. The Khazars had mountain and water barriers to the south, and were well-positioned to act with (or against) Silk Route merchants—and Huns, and Mongols, and the Chinese. And the Kaifeng Jews, visually indistinguishable from Chinese as a result of interbreeding.
K: the Khazar area is often spoken of as a 'buffer', e.g. by Koestler. But it is NE of the Byzantine Empire, and N of Islam.
• ISLAM can convincingly be claimed to have been a Jewish invention. This is written up at Jews, Christianity, Abrahamic and I won't repeat it here, but it is entirely possible Islam was assembled, over a long time, by people who could write, and who wanted to marshal the bands of miscellaneous desert dwellers and traders into a violent unintelligent force, for theft, conquest, and subjugation. Hence the difference in style between Christian and Islamic writings—they were designed for different purposes, like romantic movies vs violent movies. Various Hadiths might be compared to Judaic commentaries and Gospels and Apocrypha—extra writings regarded as supplementing the 'holy' texts, and of course allowing insertion of later updates or changes or policies.
• Before Islam It was widely accepted the region was weakened by endless futile wars. As an example, here's H G Wells: ... the almost incessant, dreary and futile wars of Byzantine and Sassanids [i.e. Persians; the then-spelling] that devastated Asia Minor for three centuries ... suffer[ed] effacement by ... Islam. How much of this was due to Jews is not known to me, but it's a likely hypothesis that they were involved.
A Jewish motive for inventing and passing off a new religion to Semites would have been to take over what's now Turkey, using allies less clever than Greeks; see the notes above. This of course happened after Mohammed. At the present day, bear this in mind when looking at Russia (hated by Jews) and Islamic invasion.
Here are just a few suggestive comments on 'Islamic Revisionism', modified from a Wikipedia article—
• Islam did not rise among polytheistic pagans in the desert, but ... where Jewish and Christian texts were well-known.
• The connection of Muslims and Jews was very close in the early times of Islam. Also Jews were called "believers" and were part of the Umma. Antisemitic [sic] texts as e.g. the slaughtering of the Jewish tribe of the Banu Qurayza came into being long after Muhammad when Islam separated from Judaism.
The existence of Muhammad is debated, like the existence of Jesus. Note an important differences between Christianity and Islam: Islam was headed by families, in a way which didn't happen (or wasn't successful, or was not understood, or was national) with Christianity. Here's Jews and Muslims - Very Similar Violent Parasitical Tribal Cults though it was written before I understood the precedence of Jews.
On The Crusades note that for all this time Spain and Portugal were inhabited by Muslims and probably financially manipulated by Jews networking with their sea empires. To understand the Crusades it is necessary to understand Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
On historiography of Islam for about a century, in the English-speaking world:–
• 1844 perhaps worth knowing Baha'i seems to have been invented about this time, with no doubt fake roots in Palestine and Persia/Iran. It appears to be a tamed version of Islam, which was secretly encouraged by Britain.
• 1910/11 Encyclopædia Britannica 'Islam' refers immediately to Mahomet, article by David Samuel Margoliouth. Mahomet is regarded as a one-man founder, in the same manner as 'Jesus Christ' is regarded as a one-man founder. Mahomet's early history is presented as an impoverished man, accumulating followers secretly, while also marrying into Jewish money. Probably all this is an establishing myth, since there must have been organisation. Violence, rape and theft are not particularly deprecated. It's typical of most presentations of Islam (and Christianity, and Judaism) that there is no attempt to indicate whether the world would have been better without it.
• Wells' Outline of History 1920-25 is full-blooded 'Arabian Nights' description, 'great religion', 'brilliant campaigns' 'stoning in the street', 'favourite wife', largely taken from contemporary books. 'Islam prevailed because it was the best social and political order the times could offer. .. everywhere it found ... peoples robbed, oppressed, bullied, uneducated, and unorganized, and ... selfish and unsound governments ...' Well, maybe. Jews had considerable media power in Wells's time, and this attitude must have had Jewish approval at the time.
• Joseph McCabe's The Splendour of Moorish Spain 1935 must have been part of the Jewish propaganda push against Christianity, which it must have felt was displaying unseemly insight into Jews. McCabe's book seems unlikely, to me, to be accurate. From verbal testimonies, I'm fairly sure this book was regarded as a rediscovery of a past golden age. And as support for Jews in the so-called Spanish Civil War.
• William & Ariel Durant The Story of Civilization Volume IV 1950 shows a greater realism about Islam, including the little-known Muslim invasions of India. Possibly the experiences of two world wars, and of Jews in the USSR, prompted this angle on Islam; maybe the wars between India and the newly-invented Pakistan contributed.
• 1976 New Encyclopædia Britannica Islām, article by Fazlur Rahman of University of Chicago, and Islām, History of, by John Alden Williams, University of Texas, have little on early Islam—just as early Christianity is, or is made to seem, mysterious. There is also nothing much on the US and North Africa, Turkey and Jews, Indonesia and African penetration, Saudi Arabia, and all modern issues in general such as Fatwah. All this must be part of Jewish control over publications.
• Karen Armstrong's Islam 2000 in which several wheels have come full circle. Here's my review Karen Armstrong: Islam. There has been, under Jewish control, a whole school of similar competence to push Jewish publicity for supposed black invention and creativity.
[ A few notes from Durant's Story of Civilization Vol 1, Chapter 16, taken from Internet. His sources here were:
Mountstuart Elphinstone, History of India (2 vols, 1841)
V A Smith, Oxford History of India (Oxford, 1919) including a Moslem chronicler, Tabaqat-i-Nasiri; and extracts from Ibn Batuta
Ernest Binfield Havell, History of Aryan Rule in India, from the earliest times to the death of Akbar (1918). (Includes Buddha and Asoka).
It's worth quoting the Durants: The Mohammedan Conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precarious thing, whose delicate complex of order and liberty, culture and peace may at any time be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within. Mrs Durant seems to have been Jewish; so she had the motive to understand Jewish influences, on Muslims and Christians, and suppress them in Jewish fashion. Anyway; here are a few passages, not specifically on the Hindu Kush:–
Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslem rulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction. In 1186 the Ghuri, a Turkish tribe of Afghanistan, invaded India, captured the city of Delhi,destroyed its temples, confiscated its wealth, and settled down in its palaces to establish the Sultanate of Delhi—an alien despotism fastened upon northern India for three centuries, and checked only by assassination and revolt. The first of these bloody sultans, Kutb-ud-Din Aibak, was a normal specimen of his kind—fanatical, ferocious and merciless. His gifts, as the Mohammedan historian tells us, “were bestowed by hundreds of thousands, and his slaughters likewise were by hundreds of thousands. ”In one victory of this warrior (who had been purchased as a slave), “fifty thousand men came under the collar of slavery, and the plain became black as pitch with Hindus.”
Sultan Muhammad bin Tughlak acquired the throne by murdering his father, became a great scholar and an elegant writer, dabbled in mathematics, physics and Greek philosophy,surpassed his predecessors in bloodshed and brutality, fed the flesh of a rebel nephew to the rebel's wife and children, ruined the country with reckless inflation, and laid it waste with pillage and murder till the inhabitants fled to the jungle. He killed so many Hindus that, in the words of a Moslem historian, “there was constantly in front of his royal pavilion and his Civil Court a mound of dead bodies and a heap of corpses, while the sweepers and executioners were wearied out by their work of dragging” the victims “and putting them to death in crowds.”
The Moslem historians were almost as numerous as the generals, and yielded nothing to them in the enjoyment of bloodshed and war. The Sultans drew from the people every rupee of tribute that could be exacted by the ancient art of taxation, as well as by straightforward robbery; but they stayed in India, spent their spoils in India, and thereby turned them back into India's economic life. Nevertheless, their terrorism and exploitation advanced that weakening of Hindu physique and morale, which had been begun by an exhausting climate, an inadequate diet, political disunity, and pessimistic religions. The usual policy of the Sultans was clearly sketched by Ala-ud-din, who required his advisers to draw up “rules and regulations for grinding down the Hindus, and for depriving them of that wealth and property which fosters disaffection and rebellion.”
Half of the gross produce of the soil was collected by the government; native rulers had taken one-sixth. “No Hindu,” says a Moslem historian, “could hold up his head, and in their houses no sign of gold or silver... or of any superfluity was to be seen. ... Blows, confinement in the stocks, imprisonment and chains, were all employed to enforce payment.” When one of his own advisers protested against this policy, Ala-ud-din answered: “Oh, Doctor, thou art a learned man, but thou hast no experience; I am an unlettered man, but I have a great deal. Be assured, then, that the Hindus will never become submissive and obedient till they are reduced to poverty. I have therefore given orders that just sufficient shall be left to them from year to year of corn, milk and curds, but that they shall not be allowed to accumulate any property.” ]
