It has been years since I engaged with Nietzsche’s argument in The Antichrist that Christianity was the “vampire” of the Roman Empire which I see mindlessly repeated by e-pagans.
“Christianity was the vampire of the imperium Romanum, — overnight it destroyed the vast achievement of the Romans: the conquest of the soil for a great culture that could await its time. Can it be that this fact is not yet understood? The imperium Romanum that we know, and that the history of the Roman provinces teaches us to know better and better, — this most admirable of all works of art in the grand manner was merely the beginning, and the structure to follow was not to prove its worth for thousands of years. To this day, nothing on a like scale sub specie aeterni has been brought into being, or even dreamed of! — This organization was strong enough to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personality has nothing to do with such things — the first principle of all genuinely great architecture. But it was not strong enough to stand up against the corruptest of all forms of corruption — against Christians ….
These stealthy worms, which under the cover of night, mist and duplicity, crept upon every individual, sucking him dry of all earnest interest in real things, of all instinct for reality — this cowardly, effeminate and sugar-coated gang gradually alienated all “souls,” step by step, from that colossal edifice, turning against it all the meritorious, manly and noble natures that had found in the cause of Rome their own cause, their own serious purpose, their own pride. The sneakishness of hypocrisy, the secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell, such as the sacrifice of the innocent, the unio mystica in the drinking of blood, above all, the slowly rekindled fire of revenge, of Chandala revenge — all that sort of thing became master of Rome …”
It is a nice rhetorical flourish.
In retrospect, I now see why so many people in the community bought into it because of their addiction to conspiracy theories and reflexive tendency to blame the Jews for everything in history. This is why they selectively borrow from Nietzsche. They love that Nietzsche blamed the Jews for creating Christianity to turn the world upside down because the theory gives them an opportunity to bash Jews and Christians. They are much quieter about the fact that Nietzsche was a degenerate philo-Semite.
Here are ten reasons why you shouldn’t believe this nonsense:
1. First, the Roman Empire was overrun by the same barbarians in the Crisis of the Third Century and nearly collapsed then from the forces which weakened it and ultimately brought it down which included terrible leadership, division, incessant civil wars and the Plague. The Persians were a persistent threat in the East and Rome’s Germanic neighbors were becoming more organized over time. This wouldn’t have changed in an alternate timeline in which Rome remained pagan.
2. Second, it was Diocletian who divided the Roman Empire, created the unstable Tetrarchy and who began the process of shifting power to the East by ruling from Nicomedia. If Constantine had died at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Maxentius had won and Rome had stayed pagan, the Roman Empire would have still retained this unstable structure which fueled usurpers and civil wars. The fall of Britain to the Anglo-Saxons is easy to explain. It happened because the usurper Constantine III left Britain for Gaul with all of his troops only to die on the continent and leave the island defenseless.
3. Third, the major challenges of the 5th and 6th centuries which brought down the Western Empire would have happened anyway. The Plague of Justinian would have still killed millions. The Huns would have still swept across the steppe and pushed more organized Germanic groups to the west.
4. Fourth, the Late Roman Empire still produced excellent generals like Constantine, Stilicho, Flavius Aetius, Majorian and Belisarius. It also produced terrible emperors like Honorius who had Stilicho executed or Valentinian III who murdered Aetius. Rome had produced terrible emperors when it was pagan like Caligula and Nero which would have continued had it not converted to Christianity.
5. Fifth, the Germanic barbarians who overran the Western Roman Empire were also mostly Christians like the Goths, the Vandals, the Franks and the Burgundians. It is also worth nothing that the weak Christian Romans defeated the Huns who were stopped in the East by the Theodosian walls around Constantinople and in the West by Flavius Aetius and Theodoric I at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains. The Huns had conquered the pagan tribes of Germanic Europe.
6. Sixth, the weakness of wormlike Christian Romans hobbled by Jewish slave morality is wildly overstated. After all, Julian the Apostate’s grievance was that his entire family had been brutally murdered by his uncle Constantius II. Also, it was the poor, un-Christian treatment of the Goths that led to their explosive uprising against the Romans and the death of Valens at the Battle of Adrianople. Oddly enough, both Valens and the Visigoths were Arian Christians.
7. Seventh, the weak Romans succeeded in reconquering the Vandals in Africa, the Ostrogoths in Italy and southern Spain from the Visigoths. It was the Gothic War which destroyed Italy. There was really never a time when the Romans ceased to be warlike or martial because of Christianity. Had it not been for the Plague of Justinian and a global climatic disaster caused by volcanic eruptions, Belisarius would have likely succeeded in reconquering and restoring most of the Western Empire.
8. Eighth, the Eastern Roman Empire survived for another thousand years and never developed into anything like a Western liberal democracy. Quite the opposite. We have already seen how Justinian had tens of thousands of people slaughtered in the Hippodrome. The allegedly weak Byzantines spent centuries torturing people in their dungeons. They were soft only in the sense that they preferred to mutilate their victims by blinding them instead of killing them outright.
9. Ninth, the Great Pagan Hope Julian the Apostate was pro-Jewish and attempted to rebuild the Third Temple in Jerusalem. He died a strange death fighting the Persians. Julian had consulted his priests who after deciphering the entrails of animals warned him not to engage in battle that day with the Persians. He did it anyway. It is hard to see how paganism could have saved Rome when even Julian, the most pious of pagan emperors, didn’t take it all too seriously.
10. Finally, it was pagan Rome where Caligula had the Roman aristocracy working as prostitutes in the brothel that he established in the Imperial Palace, which as far as I am aware is the lowest it ever sunk in over 2,000 years. Feel free to correct me if anything like that ever happened in Byzantine history.
Note: War and imperialism didn’t spread liberalism in Antiquity and the Middle Ages. It wasn’t a problem at the time.
Ha ha ha. I knew something was afoot. Our sources have been saying Hunter has been brooding for sometime on his fishing trips. I’ve seen the pattern repeated often thru the years. He doesn’t just go to repose on these trips, which I sometimes play fun at, but is often quietely determining some course of action to take. We knew something was coming up, and here it begins. He has obviously come up with a plan of action to deal with these incessant enazi epagan trolls once and for all and prove it thru historical analysis which practically everybody loves to read from him.
What Hunter writes here is absolutely spot on from what I’ve read. For those trapped in that the enazi/epagan clown show out of earnest frustration read these new responses on history from him, you will learn something to free yourself. For those determined to be fire starters, well you will just get burned. For the rest, hopefully it will provide some answers or help judgements when coming across these clowns, many of them Feds, Narcs, Commies are all the above anyways.
As Hunter correctly points out there is a mortal fallacy underlying the Nitzchean Pagan Nazi mileu, regarding its fascination with ancient pagan or modern anti christianism. Hopefully, he will continue to flesh this out. One thing I’ve learned is to not underestimate Hunter Wallace, especially after he has gone to his fishing hole. I look forward to reading more on this vein from Hunter. Good job.
P.S. Fantastic you looked up Maiorianus on this subject. Good fellow. Hopefully you’ll attract some good pastoral and or historical help online on this subject here at OD which badly needs it.
Maiorianus has long been one of my favorite YouTube channels. I discovered him through Pete Kelly of History Time
https://x.com/seethroughit2/status/2000612792794034370
Modern Liberalism arose largely out of the revival of pagan, materialistic Epicurean philosophy (which was of course significantly updated for the new times; one might call it “neo-Epicureanism”). Thomas Hobbes was the “Grand Old Man” or pioneer of this introduction of Epicurean worldview into politics.
I could cite countless Christian conservatives explaining exactly why the Hobbesian worldview is pernicious (for one thing, it provides blueprints for “Liberal imperialism,” or forcibly subduing all those troublemakers who would dare to defy the omnipotent, centralized Leviathan state, like the proud Southern aristocrats for example – the victory of Lincoln over Dixie was ideologically like the victory of Hobbes over Locke).
But I think I will cite just these words of a Nazi academic, professor Albert Prinzing, written in 1942:
https://archive.org/details/derleviathaninde0000carl/page/196/mode/2up
“Verständlich, daß Hobbes bei den Nationalsozialisten eine noch schlechtere Presse bekommt, wenn man ihn zum Ahnen des Liberalismus ernennt. Dann leiten sich aus seiner Theorie der „moderne Individualismus“ und, da für Hobbes der Tod das größte Übel ist, auch der „radikale Pazifismus“ ab. Hobbes ist dann an allem schuld: Er „entwickelt die Grundpositionen der kapitalistischen Grundauffassung, da bei ihm der Enfolg des Lebens sich bemißt nach Maß des Überschusses der Lust über die Unlust“; beim ihm liegt „der Ursprung der marxistischen Wirtschaftslehre und des Klassenkampfgedankens,“ wird doch bei ihm „jede überindividuelle Wertung … abgelehnt.“ Die „reine Gegenposition zu Lebensauffassung und Menschenideal der beiden europäischen Revolutionen“ – denjenigen Hitlers und Mussolinis – ist Hobbes’ Theorie. Diese ist das „mephistophelische Prinzip“ schlechthin, nämlich, „die Negation aller Höchstwerte des arischen Menschentums und damit die Negation der Grundlagen der abendländischen Kultur.“ Ein Volk stellt „in seinen rassisch bedingten Höchstwerten die Gegenposition zur Hobbes’schen Wertskala“ dar – Hobbes’ Konzept mündet in „rassischer Zersetzung“ und in die „Heraufführung des politisch Minderwertigen durch die Aufstellung unheroischer Wertbilder.“24”
“”
And even though Nietzsche much liked to mock English writers, Hobbes was the one Anglo thinker he did not really dare to attack – perhaps he was even a little bit intimidated by the cold cynicism of “the Monster of Malmesbury,” feeling he had met his match in him, so to speak – here he contrasted, with implicit admiration, the typically shallow and intellectually dishonest German Victorian-era Liberal scribbler David Strauss with Hobbes:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/David_Strauss:_the_Confessor_and_the_Writer#VII
“With a certain rude self-satisfaction, he swathes himself in the hirsute garment of our Simian genealogists, and extols Darwin as one of mankind’s greatest benefactors; but our perplexity is great when we find him constructing his ethics quite independently of the question, “What is our conception of the universe?” In this department he had an opportunity of exhibiting native pluck; for he ought to have turned his back on his “We,” and have established a moral code for life out of bellum omnium contra omnes[4] and the privileges of the strong. But it is to be feared that such a code could only have emanated from a bold spirit like that of Hobbes’, and must have taken its root in a love of truth quite different from that which was only able to vent itself in explosive outbursts against parsons, miracles, and the “world-wide humbug” of the Resurrection.”
I recommend reading this direct comparison of Hobbesian and Nietzschean worldviews:
https://cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2012/Howell.pdf
“Modernist despotism remains a means to accomplish the goal of modernism, to transform man into the ‘perfect herd animal’, or last man, in the name of freedom (Human, All too Human, pp. 173-174 aph. 473; Beyond Good and Evil, p. 118 aph. 203). In Zarathustra’s language state is the means by which the last man will triumph.
…
Hobbes argues all are equal and that any inequality is authorised by the sovereign. All those who seek to distinguish themselves, who seek something higher are compelled to serve the interests of the state or the run the risk of a confrontation with the state (Hobbes, p. 117 or 2.18.19).
…
For Nietzsche the struggle for the future, for the meaning of earth, is between the ‘wretched contentment’ which Leviathan and Baconian science make possible and the higher men and new tables of values heralded by the superman.”
In Hobbes, you can see Liberalism with its MASK OFF; in the abortion issue you can also see the Liberals with their mask off, or showing their real “Hobbesian” sentiments underneath all their pretty talk about compassion, reduced to nothing but coldly selfish atomic-individualist materialistic calculation, without any propagandistic pretence of altruistic goodness (Liberals appeal to Christian values precisely when doing that kind of “optics” stuff, or PR exercises, or trying to sweet-talk naive Christian believers into doing what they want):
https://archive.org/details/moraldarwinismho0000wike/page/164/mode/2up?view=theater
“The “choice” in “pro-choice” could only come from Hobbes’s definition of liberty as “the absence of external impediments” within a moral void, for what other view of the universe would claim a right for each individual to decide whether a particular act was murder or not? Moreover, the presocial relationship of the mother to the unborn child duplicates Hobbes’s presocial state of nature, for in such “a condition of war of every one against every one,” that is, the mother against the invading fetus, “every man [and here we must add “every woman”] has a right to every thing; even to one another’s body [here, the life of the fetus].””
We wuz kangz and sheit. Okay but why aren’t you kangz anymore? What made you go from kangz to slaves? Sin. Sin is what destroys and all Christianity is, is away to overcome the sin. The jews may entice, may tempt us to sin, sure. But nobody can force us to commit sin. It is all us.
Don’t throw out fab Freddie because he was mad at God for something manboons did with poor use of free will.
I will say that for a person going through hard times, Nietzsche is good medicine: “Suck it up!”
He is also the only interesting philosopher of the last couple hundred years, although I’m tempted to make an exception for Feyerabend.
PS. If you’re not Roman Catholic, you’re not Christian.
“If you’re not Roman Catholic, you’re not Christian.”
Lol. To claim the exact opposite is an
equally (of course “Protestant”) lie.
https://archive.is/qJ958
AI responds to lies like this:
Core Definition of Christianity
Christianity centers on faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, not membership in any specific denomination. The term “Christian” first appears in Acts 11:26 for followers of Jesus in Antioch, long before the Roman Catholic Church formalized as a distinct entity around the 4th-11th centuries with events like the Edict of Milan (313 AD) and East-West Schism (1054 AD).
Historical Diversity
Early Christianity included diverse groups like Eastern Orthodox (split in 1054), Oriental Orthodox, and later Protestants (16th century Reformation), all tracing roots to the apostles and accepting core creeds like Nicene (325 AD). Roman Catholicism became the largest branch but never the sole one; for example, the Church of the East and others existed independently.
– Scriptural basis: Salvation comes through faith in Christ (John 3:16, Ephesians 2:8-9), not institutional affiliation—echoed across denominations.
– Denominational breadth: Over 2 billion Christians worldwide span Catholics (50%), Protestants (37%), Orthodox (12%), and others, per global estimates.
– No monopoly: The Bible warns against adding requirements to faith (Galatians 1:8); claiming exclusivity mirrors historical errors like Arianism, condemned at Nicaea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPZ5kgzv6Dg
“Roman but Not Catholic” by Kenneth J. Collins and Jerry L. Walls argues that Roman Catholicism, while sharing core Christian beliefs, has added distinct Roman elements that prevent it from embodying true catholicity (universality).
Main Conclusions
The authors conclude that Protestant traditions better preserve the universal “catholic” faith of the early church, as Roman claims like papal supremacy and certain sacramental developments represent later innovations rather than apostolic essentials. They affirm unity on Trinitarian and Christological doctrines but highlight irreconcilable differences in authority (Scripture over tradition), ecclesiology (no exclusive Roman church), and soteriology (justification by faith alone).
Key Critiques
– Papacy and church structure: Rome’s exclusive ecclesial claims lack historical or biblical warrant, evolving from political influences rather than divine institution.[2]
– Tradition and Mary: Extra-biblical traditions elevate Mary and sacraments in ways that divide rather than unite Christians.
– Path forward: Despite disagreements, Protestants and Catholics can collaborate ecumenically on shared gospel witness without compromising convictions.
https://pdfhost.io/v/Khq9ZBDZp9_Roman_but_Not_Catholic
Nietzsche’s theory of a “Christian slave morality” cannot be completely dismissed, however. At least, that is the argument put forward by those who distinguish between the European culture of guilt and the East Asian culture of shame.
It has been discovered that Japanese people, for example, deal with the consequences of World War II in a completely unbiased manner, rather than internalizing them morally, and this is attributed to the Christian implementation of the concept of an alleged “original sin” through the Bible.
“PS. If you’re not Roman Catholic, you’re not Christian.”
Spoken like a true Papist. Unlike Christians who believe Christ saves, Papists believe the Pope saves. Ergo, Christians believe there are Christians everywhere in all sorts of institutions, including the Roman Papal Curia, but Papists deny anyone is a Christian who isn’t in the Catholic Church, kisses the Pope’s ass, and lets themselves get didled by the Bishops finger during catechism, like Nick Fuentes said happened to him.
The kind of comment that fulfills every negative opinion I’ve ever had about the Catholic Church.
I’m thankful that there are still approaching these things with nuance. The collapse of the Western Roman Empire was inevitable regardless of the religious affiliation of the Emperor
Yep.
There were also key moments where the worst possible outcome was chosen like when Stilicho was killed, Aetius was killed or Majorian was killed
Majorian, my favorite Emperor and the last of the true Romans. I’ve been fascinated by him since reading about him as a teenager. Now he has his own channel named after him…
Ricimer who killed Majorian, and others, was probably the single person most responsible for causing the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. But for him, its likely it would’ve recovered. He really makes me mad and always has since I read about him.
Interestingly, there is a school of thought that sees him as some sort of German Freedom liberationist. I don’t discount it entirely which is why I am always on the look out for bloody Germans mucking things up just cuz they aren’t on top. There are lots of them here at OD, whole platoons of bloody Ricimers.
This Canadian living in China, who often minimizes, conceals, or ignores the contribution of Germany to the development of Western civilization, claims that the Vatican is based on pagan culture. It is clear that Christianity made a large-scale attempt to eradicate all traces of paganism in Europe wherever it could. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rGf0dCRRNk
This was not so easy to implement, so these old traditions were adapted or incorporated in a subtle way. Christmas and Easter are therefore not purely Christian holidays, and the Christmas tree and Easter egg are pagan symbols. Many churches were literally built on pagan places of worship such as hills.
Gutenberg’s printing press became widespread through the production of Luther’s translation of the Bible. The foundation of Western culture. Btw., 45 % of Americans are Protestant, only 22 % are Catholic (and they are mainly from Latin America). The Anglican Church is ultimately a variation of the Lutheran version.
Modern high-performance capitalism is a Protestant invention, not a Catholic one. One could say that East Asians have become economic Protestants without even knowing it.
Incidentally, it is interesting to note that “Maiorianus” is a German YouTuber. I asked AI: “Can the classic claim that the Germanic tribes were “barbarians” be upheld from a historical perspective?”
AI replies:
No, the classic claim that Germanic tribes were “barbarians” cannot be upheld from a purely historical perspective, as the term was largely a Roman rhetorical device rather than an objective descriptor.[1][4]
Term’s Origin
“Barbarian” derives from the Greek “barbaros,” mimicking the unintelligible speech of non-Greeks, and Romans applied it to Germanic peoples beyond their borders, like those east of the Rhine. Tacitus’s *Germania* portrayed them with mixed traits—praising virtues like chastity and bravery while decrying “wildness”—to critique Roman decadence more than to assess accurately. This label ignored evidence of Germanic sophistication, such as ironworking, trade networks, and runic writing from the Jastorf culture onward.
Cultural Achievements
Germanic tribes built complex societies with tribal assemblies, advanced metallurgy, and seafaring skills, evident in artifacts from Denmark and northern Germany dating to 500 BCE. They weren’t primitive; archaeology shows permeable borders, constant migrations, and cultural exchanges with Celts and Romans, challenging stereotypes of uniform savagery. Practices like possible human sacrifice were exaggerated or paralleled Roman brutality, such as gladiatorial games and slavery.
Roman Bias Exposed
Romans failed to conquer Germania fully after the Teutoburg Forest defeat in 9 CE, fueling propaganda that depicted tribes as fierce but uncivilized to justify borders. Later, during the Migration Period (375–568 CE), groups like Franks and Goths formed “barbarian kingdoms” within Roman territory, adopting laws, Christianity, and administration—proving adaptability over barbarism. Modern scholarship rejects the term’s validity, viewing it as ethnocentric rather than factual.
Here you need to activate the AI-
generated audio track of the video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStkTdpRHWc
NNR-Nick, most likely due to my anti-Nazi criticism that I sent him, created a stream in which he justifies the brutality of the Nazi regime towards its critics as legitimate. There can be no talk of Christianity in such “thinking”; I would even argue that there is just as little talk of racial brotherhood.
https://rumble.com/v7348c6-nightnation.live-the-anti-hitler-resistence.html
https://de.zxc.wiki/wiki/Liste_von_im_Deutschen_Reich_hingerichteten_Personen
Although the Spanish do not consider themselves descendants of Germanic tribes, they are demanding the return of the Visigothic artifacts that Franco voluntarily handed over to Himmler. Of course, the submissive anti-Germans in the puppet-government, who are left-wing progressive globalists, will uncritically comply with this request.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3770767/Madrid-seeks-return-Visigoth-artefacts-handed-Heinrich-Himmler-1940-prove-Spain-s-Aryan-heritage-Nazis.html
Imagine if psychopathic mass murderer Anders Breivik could “legally” indulge his sadistic lust for murder. Then you get a beast like Willi Herold. Tyranny breeds glorification of violence. A terrifying document of total amorality, vigilante justice, and ultimately anarchy, disguised in the most perverse manner as “justice.”
Whether this story is an exaggeration or corresponds to the facts is difficult to ascertain. In any case, it seems very bizarre to me to believe a 19-year-old hiding in a uniform and to consider him the owner, because officially there were no 19-year-old captains in the Luftwaffe. Enable available English captions:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-3BtbjPw1k
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willi_Herold
Activate available English captions
https://tubitv.com/movies/722240/the-captain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Captain_(2017_film)
The famous 20th century classical scholar Sir Ronald Syme was of the opinion that the Roman Empire had strong potential to split into Western and Eastern parts from the very beginning, which could be seen already in the clash between Octavian (with his base in Italy) and Mark Antony (with his base in Egypt):
https://archive.org/details/dli.ernet.506079/page/289/mode/2up?view=theater
“The Empire might split into two parts—very easily. It is one of the miracles of Roman history that in subsequent ages the division between West and East was masked so well and delayed so long. The loss of dominions beyond the sea would be ruinous to an Italy that had prospered and grown rich from the revenues of the East, the return she gained from her export of soldiers, financiers and governors.”
““The Empire might split into two parts—very easily. It is one of the miracles of Roman history that in subsequent ages the division between West and East was masked so well and delayed so long. The loss of dominions beyond the sea would be ruinous to an Italy that had prospered and grown rich from the revenues of the East, the return she gained from her export of soldiers, financiers and governors.””
Yes. My own theory is much of the foreign and domestic policies of the Roman Empire was based on this divergence between West and East. Egypt under the Ptolemies was a world power with trade and shipping fleets that went all the way to China and to the UK. Vaste sums of money were deposited in Alexandria.
When Julius Caesar sired children with Cleopatra, the Romans who had a system in which the Pater Familias stood at the apex of a socio economic system that then reached upwards to the Senate, correctly saw this as a threat. Julius Caesar could wed Cleopatra, be made King of Egypt, and then fund an entire grass roots and commercial army to seize control of Rome. So they offer him. When Antony was made heir to Julius, he went to Egypt bedded Cleopatra, adopted Julius Caesar children, and attempted to do the same thing as Julius. So, the final Roman Republic Civil War began.
Augustus won that war. He overthrew the Ptolomies, made Egypt a special province whose governor had a unique rank, was always senatorial, and had the job of diivvying out the revenues to the Egyptian province the Empire and the various senatorial families. Rome’s power rested on the revenues of the East.
When Constantinople was erected, that whole system began drifting away from Rome to the new city. Most of the late Roman Civil Wars were again over issues caused by this changes. Eventually Constantinople gained the upper hand. My theory is it saw Rome as a potential threat if went so far as to sabotage various efforts to restore the Western Roman Empire. Not until Justinian, an actual Italian, managed to gain the purple, and essentially slaughter his Pro Eastern opponents and auxilleries as in the Hippodrome, did the Eastern Romans make a serious non sabotageable effort to restore the West. Even then Justinian was afraid his best generals there would assume the purple in Rome which was actually offered by the still extant Senate and so he would recall them. The tensions between East and West were at the heart of the problems in the Empire, that and of course usury and economic conglomeration as mentioned elsewhere.
The Apostle Paul wrote, concerning Anti-Christ,”And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letterhead will let, until he be taken out of the way,” (2 Thess 2:6-7).
So, Paul is saying that something is holding back AntiChrist. The apostate NKJV, which has nothing to do with King James, capitalizes the word “He” in the verse to make you think that the Holy Ghost is holding back AntiChrist.
But Paul isn’t talking about the Holy Ghost, so you throw that garbage NKJV away. The early church “fathers” knew exactly what Paul meant. The Roman Empire was what was holding him back. And history confirms the prophecy: the Roman Church replaced the fallen empire. The Pope was at the height of his power: he christened kings; persecuted the Elect, who he labeled “heretics”. In 1514, at the Lateran Council, heretics were called to plead there case before the Council. No one showed up. There were no more witnesses for Christvto be found. The orator of the session, a as ended to the pulpit and said,”There is an end of resistance to Papal rule and religion.” That was May 5, 1514.
Exactly three and one half years later (3 1/2 prophetic days) on 31 October 1517 Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses. The Witnesses were resurrected.
See Revelation 11:7-12 for the prophecy of this event.
The neo-Nietzschean internet atheists never studied philosophy and have no idea that this exact question was addressed by Augustine in “City of God” in the fourth century. Augustine argued that all politics is corrupt, violent, immoral and inhumane due to the imperfect and fallen nature of Man.
“What are kingdoms” he asked, “but great bands of robbers?”
Christianity was a rejection of both homicidal Jewish supremacy based on the Mosaic covenant, as well as a rejection of homicidal Roman “might makes right” paganism.
The example of Christ is very simple; if you call out the powers-that-be for being swindlers and con men, as he called out the Jewish temple rabbis for their temple-coin scam, they are going to railroad you and kill you as if they were swatting a fly. Your life is worthless to them; your only recourse is with your Creator in Heaven.
Christianity properly understood is not simping or faggy children’s picture book pacifism. It is the understanding that in this life, the only true path is to check out of the corrupt political order, to reject the honors and riches it awards based on violence and cruelty, and to form a community of like-minded brothers.
This is what Augustine meant when he distinguished between the “City of Man” (Rome) and the City of God (the Christian community).
People are attracted to strength and power only because they do not believe that they will ever be on the receiving end of it. But sooner or later, they will. Look at how even Trump was ARRESTED and CONVICTED on 34 (bogus) FELONY counts — after serving his first term! How is that any different than the Pharisees framing Christ for calling them out on their bullshit? The political order aways eats its own, that is its very nature.
Resenting women for their stupidity is like scolding monkeys for not being able to read and write. It’s a completely futile endeavor. As long as men don’t even consider [!] getting back behind the wheel themselves, women will continue to “purposefully” drive their cars into walls.
I experienced this firsthand a few days ago, so to speak. Although I had absolutely negative experiences with female dentists stored in my brain, I was nevertheless weak enough not to insist on replacing the female dentist assigned to me with a male dentist at a dental office.
And it came as it had to come: the “dental surgery” was an incompetent, sadistic ordeal of botched work that was almost unbearable and did more harm than good, both to body and soul. I felt helpless, vulnerable, and lost, as if I were on a torture chair.
It cannot be a coincidence that women have created practically no lasting technical or scientific inventions or achievements in human history, that there are no outstanding female artists or chefs, because they ruin the porridge, and their music is a cacophony of irrationalism.
Any man who seriously votes for a woman to hold political office (or a powerful position in a company) might as well flush himself down the toilet. That is precisely where we have ended up: in the cesspool of history.
Why anyone takes Nietzschess a guide to understanding history and life in general is beyond me. The man wrote nearly all of his works while his brain was being destroyed by syphilis.
HW, your attempt to resuscitate Christian nationalism is sad and pitiful. It is bound to fail.
Gerald L.K. Smith and his The Cross and Flag crashed when Americans identified as Christians and attended church every Sunday.
Your “Messiah” was known in his lifetime as rabbi Yeshua. The Last Supper was a passover seder dinner. Romans gave the pharisees the choice of freeing one jewish prisoner during passover, and the jews chose Barrabus over rabbi Yeshua/Jesus.
When jews were expelled sometimes more than one from the 109 nations of Europe, it was the Christian monarchs, aristocrats, and clergy that let them back in.
We need to stop repeating the mistakes of the past.
November,
Christian nationalism is thriving and your secular brand of “NS” is exactly where it was 25 years ago. Merry Christmas though!
Even from a purely pragmatic, objective point of view, pro-Whites clearly need to try some “milder” form of political engagement than Hitler-style neo-Nazism, whis is by now a very proven dud, with decades of sheer failure to show for its efforts.
(And even the original Nazi twelve-year Reich was originally raised largely through the votes of conservative German Christians (Lutherans especially; RCs were a more problematic case), who were appalled at the Judeo-Liberal Weimar decadence. At that time, Hitler outright forbade militant Völkisch neopagans in his movement from showing their colors too brazenly, because he needed Christian votes!)
And since something “milder” than Nazism is needed to challenge the reign of shitlibbery efficiently, Christian nationalism just so happens to fit that bill pretty perfectly. It is the right ideology at the right time in the right place.
Pointing in laughing emoji.
It just can’t be the simple explanation that empires peak fall off and die just like individual people do.
Ironically, I’ve seen the house where Nietzsche both was born and died, and buried in his yard. It’s in a blink and you miss wide spot in the road called Röcken, southwest of Lepizig. It’s so tiny that the Michelin road atlas doesn’t show it, and not even Google Maps will put its proper name over it even if you zoom in far enough. Bing Maps will.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Leipzig,+Germany/@51.2433123,12.1131025,15.42z/data=!4m6!3m5!1s0x47a6f818200f2c73:0x93df80d2b9b4f552!8m2!3d51.3396955!4d12.3730747!16zL20vMDRrZjQ!5m1!1e4?hl=en&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
What is it about some of these NS folks who cannot move beyond (or face up to) the ultimate failure of the Austrian painter? National Socialism has moved on elsewhere. India is presently run by what is basically a National Socialist regime, as is Xi’s China – regardless of the fig-leaf of Communism. Likewise Russia is in many respects National Socialist. Hitler did not invent national socialism and others have moved beyond him – though they’ve generally been careful to avoid the term due to the hysteria over the Austrian painter and the endless screams of the 6 million x a billion emanating from the usual suspects and their amen corner situated in the rotting carcass of much of what calls itself Christianity today
Voxday is a retard on Hitler and evolution.
His christinsanity blinds him from critical thinking, and he is a sportsball faggot.