A multitude of white nationalists today, in seeking to increase their people’s birthrate and the overall influence and autonomy of European peoples in the world today, grasp that one of the clear and present dangers to our racial group stems from Jewish hegemony in the West. It is not a coincidence, they realize, that names like Bernanke, Blankfein, Goldstein, Ovitz, Rosenberg, Sulzberger, Weinstein, and Zuckerman belong to men in positions of power and authority, and that the country is startlingly pro-Israel and morally decadent. None other than a Stein even admits that his people run Hollywood.1 Naturally, white nationalists find this problematic, as should anyone else who understands the curse and effects of foreign usurpation and domination (Deut. 28:43).
But these same white nationalists fall into error when they suppose that Christianity—rather than Judeo-Christianity, as is the current mutilated title—is a Jewish deception, used for the same ends of psychological and sociological coercion as other ideologies the media and public schools disseminate. They might take the otherwise mindless anti-racist retort, “Jesus was a Jew,” holding it as genuine grounds to reject Christianity. Or they might have a more sophisticated articulation of how the universality of Christian love logically leads to the same egalitarian and suicidal altruism which is accepted by whites and promulgated, albeit hypocritically, by Jewish-controlled and Jewish-influenced institutions. Whatever their peculiar reasoning, it would be helpful for them to understand the historic anti-Judaism of the Christian Church and follow the King of kings as “he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God” (Rev. 19:15).
This article will be different from the other three guiding white nationalists to Christ. The other three are about broader theological or philosophical principles, seeking to demonstrate the truthfulness of theism as well as its necessity unto the meaningfulness of white nationalist goals. They aim to demonstrate and support theism, which indirectly supports Christianity as the rational option given the theistic alternatives. This article, by contrast, will concern itself chiefly with historical data and specifics of the Christian religion. While the other three should lend support to Christianity by supporting theism, this one directly and explicitly supports Christianity from the premise of anti-Judaism.
Second, any comprehensive discussions of Jewish people would need to include not only their religion, but also their ethnic composition. Jewishness is generally emphasized as an ethno-religious identity, and therefore understanding the competing claims to true Hebrew identity2 and identifying the genuine descendants of Jacob are vital areas of study. However, since I lack the time, space, and acumen to dissect that matter appropriately, and since the topic has been covered elsewhere, I will simply refer to those whom we commonly identify as Jews today, including their support for Judaism and/or Israel and their self-identification as a definitively demarcated and cohesive ethnic group.
Modern Senselessness Notwithstanding
The central impetus driving unbelieving white nationalists to identify Christianity as foundationally Jewish, no doubt, is the asininity of the modern Christian “church” with its worship of Israel and its betrayal of white Gentile interests. Too many Christians are mindless zombies in their obedience to a falsely constructed anti-biblical ethic of egalitarianism and pietism. Genuflecting toward all other racial groups, but having no pride in their own people, modern believers are an embarrassment to anyone with a modicum of awareness of the zeitgeist. These Christians, rather than perceiving anti-Judaism in Christ’s censure of the Pharisees, treat any Christians who are willing to pray imprecatory prayers, or who care about stringently following God’s law and believing His doctrine, or who are just plain meanies, as the real Pharisees. Further sanctified Christians ought to be patient and loving in correcting these errant believers, to be sure, but nonetheless one can understand the moral ire which racial realists harbor towards them.
In any case, it should be evident to the honest non-Christian nationalist that these aberrations of biblical religion do not serve to refute the proper expression of it. If we apprehend the enormous extent to which so much of our society has been corrupted, we should not be surprised to learn that our churches are corrupt as well. But truth is eternal, and we should seek to identify those timeless principles which are themselves immune to corruption. Though the purification of the church is a tall order we Christians must undertake, for now we must realize that the present corruption of the church does not have evidentiary value in refuting Christianity. In sum: we are as indignant about the church as you are.
Old Testament Objections
The response that corrupted institutions do not nullify true religion might not convince the unbelieving nationalist who finds in Scripture principles which inevitably justify Jewish supremacy. He might cite the Old Testament passages permitting the Israelites to commit genocide in obliterating the nations of Canaan (e.g. Deut. 7:1-5; 20:16-18). Giving such a clear privilege to one nation, so clearly exalting them to the point that there apparently is no golden rule between them and other nations, is a perfect recipe for Jewish domination and ascendancy. If Jewish people are allowed to destroy nations which seem to be opposed to them, and if they do so backed by the authority of God Himself, then they are seemingly justified in doing whatever they want. Passages permitting genocide remove any barriers and inhibitions from any goal the Jewish people may seek for themselves, it is argued. If a Gentile gets in the way of these plans, so much the worse for him. Of course, the Bible-believer might try to say that genocide was permissible only in that context, but how can the universal and eternal principles of morality be so egregiously modified?
The true answer is that such a circumstance-specific qualification would not be contrary to fundamental principles of morality. All proper minds can concede the basic premise that God, being Lord and Owner of all, can righteously take life entirely as He pleases. He is not obliged to preserve the lives of sinners, but could justly destroy every single man, woman, and child at any moment. In fact, for those without the covering of Christ’s righteousness, perdition is imminent and looming. But if we concede this premise, then we can also concede that, if He wanted, God could employ human means in bringing about any punishments He wanted. It is God’s prerogative to take life as He pleases, and it is likewise His prerogative to use humans to accomplish whatever ends He so pleases. This entails not that humans are ever permitted to murder, but merely that certain acts, which would be murderous in ordinary circumstances, are not murderous if one has supernaturally received extraordinary authority from God Himself. In other words, the moral law teaches that, by default (i.e. without having received any authority from God), a man may not kill another apart from self-defense or the execution of justice. Yet God can dispense authority to slay. This is what He did with Abraham when He commanded him to sacrifice Isaac, even though that was revoked in time to save Isaac’s life. This is also what God does in granting certain political rulers the authority to bear the sword for the punishment of evildoers (Rom. 13:4), as well as in granting citizens the right to rebel against tyrants.3 The delegation of authority to act in ways forbidden to those without authority is a perfectly intelligible concept; and it is easy to see that such authority-delegation is clearly limited for certain people to certain times and certain places. The same would apply to ancient Israel: they were given extraordinary authority to serve as instruments of God’s wrath in punishing Canaanites, but this assuredly does not entail some carte blanche for Jewish supremacy today over just any Gentile ethnic or racial group. God’s Word provides nothing resembling warrant for such a heresy.
Objections aside, a proper biblical understanding of Israel positively forbids any possibility of Jewish preeminence. St. Paul makes it clear that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, are under sin (Rom. 3:9ff.), emphasizing the need for “the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe” (Rom. 3:22). Even though he mentions his affinity for his Israelite kinsmen (Rom. 9:3), Paul nevertheless states this in the context of their status as unregenerate. Far from being especially privileged by God, Jews will be damned and trampled underfoot if they do not repent.
After concluding in Romans 9 that salvation comes not by blood but by God’s sovereign choice, and in Romans 10 that the sine qua non of salvation is the profession of Christ, Paul makes a bold comment in Romans 11 that “all Israel will be saved” (v. 26). Many Christians, including many great, orthodox Christians, have held that this passage foresees a great conversion of Jewish people to true biblical religion in the future. I dissent from this opinion, partly because I think there is great confusion on the true identity of the genetic descendants of Jacob, but mostly because I doubt the text supports the ethnic-Israel interpretation.4 Yet, whatever one believes about the fulfillment of Romans 11:26, Paul makes a key point in Romans 11 that is a bane to Jews: Israel was “cut off” from God’s covenant due to her unbelief (vv. 19-22). The grand fulfillment of this covenantal divorce came in A.D. 70, when Jesus Christ poured judgment upon Jerusalem, utilizing the pagan Roman army as His instrument.
Paul wrote at length of how he, as a Jewish man himself, should understand that God has apparently cut off the nation to whom He has made promises of everlasting love (e.g., Psalm 94:14). But in answering this objection, he at no point asserts that Jews retain any special privilege over Gentiles in God’s electing love. He asserts that Israel was indeed blessed by God as recipients of the ancient oracles of God and as the source of Jesus the Messiah (Romans 9:4-5), but he now affirms that the members of the church, a multinational (because worldwide) entity composed of all those who bend the knee of Lord Jesus, are, as those circumcised in heart and not necessarily in the flesh, the true Israel (Romans 2:28-29), that is, the true object of God’s affection and love. Modern-day Israel is not this true Israel, especially insofar as it continues to resist Jesus’s lordly claims, and as such it, on rudimentary Christian principles, Israel carries no special claim to God’s favor or privilege. On the contrary, while impenitent, they abide under His wrath.
Further Biblical Testimony
A proper understanding of covenant theology helps one to understand that the Jews have no special privilege before God, but need to repent and believe as all the rest. Yet a further perusal of Holy Writ can help us to see that, as a people, Jews are also to be viewed as especially dangerous and cruel. As mentioned earlier, Jesus’s words against the Pharisees are exceptionally well-known. He reserved nothing but the harshest of words for them; His verbal castigations fill Matthew 23 to the brim. In addition, we read in Matthew 27:25 that the Jews, in pursuing the Messiah’s murder, were even willing to affirm the guilt of their deed for their posterity. And from these preliminary passages, it must be asked: how ought Christians to deal with those who accept a religion which has amplified and multiplied its blasphemies since the time of Christ? How ought we to treat those who revere the Pharisees as their spiritual forefathers and who obey the rabbinic tradition of the wicked Talmud? Even if there were no genetic link between Jews in Christ’s time and those who call themselves Jews today, their affirmation of the same repulsive tradition is enough to generate substantial moral skepticism.
Going even further, the apostle John records Jesus’s excoriation of the Jews in chapter 8 of his gospel, where Christ calls them sons of Satan. This parallels His words for Jews in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9, where He calls their places of worship “synagogues of Satan.” And in addition to the excruciating words of the Lord, St. Paul speaks of those “of the circumcision” as ones who subvert households and attempt to acquire filthy lucre (Titus 1:10-11). He similarly unleashes sweepingly condemnatory words for them in his first epistle to the Thessalonian church:
14 For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus. For you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, just as they did from the Judeans, 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they do not please God and are contrary to all men, 16 forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved, so as always to fill up the measure of their sins; but wrath has come upon them to the uttermost (2:14-16).
It is because of language like this that the New Testament can be openly denounced as anti-Semitic;5 and it is because of open accusations of anti-Semitism that Christianity clearly is anti-Judaic. Scripture presents the Jewish people as a dangerous population, conspiring to kill Jesus (e.g. Mark 11:18) and plotting to incite violence and murder throughout the book of Acts (4:15-17; 5:33; 6:11; 9:23-24; 17:5; 20:3, 19; 23:12-13). Christianity therefore must be utterly perverted to become what it is today. But if one is looking for good reasons to oppose corrosive, Jewish-inspired culture-destruction, Christianity certainly provides the proper and true basis.
The Testimony of Past Saints
The accusations of anti-Semitism extend also to the practices and statements of Christians throughout church history, of which I will provide some cursory examples. It would first be profitable to view some statements of the early church fathers. Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 35-108), for example, stated, “For if we still live according to the Jewish law, we acknowledge that we have not received grace. . . . It is absurd to profess Christ Jesus, and to Judaize. For Christianity did not embrace Judaism, but Judaism Christianity.”6 Similarly, Justin Martyr (A.D. 103-165) wrote a dialogue with a Jewish man named Trypho, in which he said the following:
For the circumcision according to the flesh, which is from Abraham, was given for a sign; that you may be separated from other nations, and from us; and that you alone may suffer that which you now justly suffer; and that your land may be desolate, and your cities burned with fire; and that strangers may eat your fruit in your presence, and not one of you may go up to Jerusalem. . . . Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him; and now you reject those who hope in Him, and in Him who sent Him—God the Almighty and Maker of all things—cursing in your synagogues those that believe in Christ. . . .
For other nations have not inflicted on us and on Christ this wrong to such an extent as you have, who in very deed are the authors of the wicked prejudice against the Just One, and us who hold by Him. For after that you had crucified Him, the only blameless and righteous Man—through whose stripes those who approach the Father by Him are healed—when you knew that He had risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, as the prophets foretold He would, you not only did not repent of the wickedness which you had committed, but at that time you selected and sent out from Jerusalem chosen men through all the land to tell that the godless heresy of the Christians had sprung up, and to publish those things which all they who knew us not speak against us. So that you are the cause not only of your own unrighteousness, but in fact of that of all other men.7
Augustine (A.D. 354-430) also speaks of the Jewish people as accursed:
[T]he voice of God in the Holy Scriptures accuses the Jews. For the blood of Christ has a loud voice on the earth, when the responsive Amen of those who believe in Him comes from all nations. . . .
So the unbelieving people of the Jews is cursed from the earth, that is, from the Church, which in the confession of sins has opened its mouth to receive the blood shed for the remission of sins by the hand of the people that would not be under grace, but under the law. . . . [T]he Church admits and avows the Jewish people to be cursed.8
Perhaps the most emphatic and forceful father to oppose Judaism was John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407):
But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. . . . Indeed the synagogue is less deserving of honor than any inn. It is not merely a lodging place for robbers and cheats but also for demons. This is true not only of the synagogues but also of the souls of the Jews. . . . Here the slayers of Christ gather together, here the cross is driven out, here God is blasphemed, here the Father is ignored, here the Son is outraged, here the grace of the Spirit is rejected. Does not greater harm come from this place since the Jews themselves are demons? . . .
The Jews [are] the most miserable and wretched of all men. . . . The difference between the Jews and us [is] not a small one, is it? Is the dispute between us over ordinary, everyday matters, so that you think the two religions are really one and the same? Why are you mixing what cannot be mixed? They crucified the Christ whom you adore as God. Do you see how great the difference is? . . .
But after [Christ] died on the cross, he then destroyed your city; it was then that he dispersed your people; it was then that he scattered your nation over the face of the earth. In doing this, he teaches us that he is risen, alive, and in heaven. . . . For God did not threaten that he will forgive the sins of the Jews but that he will execute vengeance upon [them].9
Other church fathers provide similar attestation, but I think such a sample is sufficient. It would also be beneficial to note an influential medieval thinker. Thomas Aquinas, in a letter to Margaret of Flanders, asserted that the Jews possessed “nothing except what they acquired through the depravity of usury,” in which case their stolen property should be expropriated and distributed to the robbed Gentiles.10 Many popes could also be cited for their edicts and behavior, as they reflected the disposition of the Catholic Church in general.11 Last but not least would be Martin Luther’s famous treatise, On the Jews and Their Lies:
No human reason nor any human heart will ever grant [Christian doctrines], much less the embittered, venomous, blind heart of the Jews. As has already been said, what God cannot reform with such cruel blows, we will be unable to change with words and works. Moses was unable to reform the Pharaoh by means of plagues, miracles, pleas, or threats; he had to let him drown in the sea. . . .[T]he Jews will not give up their pride and boasting about their nobility and lineage. As was said above, their hearts are hardened. Our people, however, must be on their guard against them, lest they be misled by this impenitent, accursed people who give God the lie and haughtily despise all the world. . . .
By virtue of such futile, arrogant circumcision in the flesh they presume to be God’s only people, until the foreskin of their heart has become thicker than an iron mountain and they can no longer hear, see, or feel their own clear Scripture, which they read daily with blind eyes overgrown with a pelt thicker than the bark of an oak tree. . . .
Alas, it cannot be anything but the terrible wrath of God which permits anyone to sink into such abysmal, devilish, hellish, insane baseness, and arrogance. If I were to avenge myself on the devil himself I should be unable to wish him such evil and misfortune as God’s wrath inflicts on the Jews, compelling them to lie and to blaspheme so monstrously, in violation of their own conscience. Anyway, they have their reward for constantly giving God the lie.12
The presence of anti-Jewish art in church history, such as Ecclesia et Synagoga,13 nicely supplements the testimony of these prominent Christian figures. If the church has so consistently opposed Jewish influence and their devastating religion from the early church onward, certainly it is not the case that Christianity is in principle a religion that promotes Jewish supremacy. On the contrary, Christ’s religion stands as the most formidable and potent opponent of today’s Jewish influence. White nationalists should know that if the church triumphant is clearly and uniformly this way, so also should the church militant be.
As befits the history of Christian-Jewish relations, Christianity is not an ideology constructed for the worship of the Jewish nation, but has only today been perverted into that monstrosity known as Judeo-Christianity. Though always tempering our interactions with love and a desire for the conversion of Jewish people, Christians ought to desire to resist Jewish influence and harbor moral skepticism towards confessions of Judaism. This perfectly makes sense of the Jewish corrosion of Western culture in recent times; white nationalists therefore have every reason to follow Christ in His plan for dominion. In this last installment of the series, I hope to have made that abundantly clear.
What is more, it would be foolish of white nationalists to deny Christianity if they wish to combat Jewish hegemony. Paganism has been shown to be weak and contrived, and all attempts to bring white nationalism into secularism would encounter thoroughgoing Jewish ideology: any endeavor to secularize society would thus require some sort of acceptance of Jewish influence. White nationalists therefore must either join Jewish activists in de-Christianizing the West, or follow Christ. Before such a King all should tremble, and to such a King all must repent.
- http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,4676183.column ↩
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_is_a_jew ↩
- These political delegations would be moral and not positive like Abraham’s, but the point remains. ↩
- Lee Irons has written a good piece defending this “non-millennial” interpretation of the passage. ↩
- http://www.daylightatheism.org/2009/07/new-testament-anti-semitism.html ↩
- Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, chs. 8, 10. ↩
- Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chs. 16-17. ↩
- Augustine, Contra Faustum, Book 12, §§ 10-11. ↩
- John Chrysostom, Eight Homilies Against the Jews, Homilies 1, 4, and 5. ↩
- http://www.ccjr.us/dialogika-resources/primary-texts-from-the-history-of-the-relationship/268-aquinas ↩
- http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/mine/timeline.htm ↩
- Luther, On the Jews and Their Lies. The first two quotes are from chapter 1, the third is from chapter 2, and the fourth is from chapter 10. ↩
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesia_et_Synagoga ↩