American Dissident VoicesAudioKevin Alfred StromRadioRevilo P. Oliver

The Great Revilo Oliver: The Jewish Plague, part 10

White people, their brains fogged by Bible teachings absorbed in childhood, often identify with the ancient Jews and their hatred of the Romans who ruled them. In reality, modern Whites should take the opposite view: the Romans were our ancestors or our ancestors’ kin and, in Jewish-Roman or Christian-Roman conflicts, we should identify with them, not with the Jews and the Christian sects they spawned, who were a corrosive, destructive force and the enemies of European civilization.

A rational look at the Jewish Question: Were Christian beginnings tied to violent Jewish cults which revolted against White civilization in Roman times? Have the adaptations that made Christianity acceptable to Aryan minds been gradually abandoned?

American Dissident Voices broadcast of October 14, 2017

Listen to the broadcast

by Kevin Alfred Strom

WHEN GEORGE SOROS foments bloody riots in America and Europe, using rioters inflamed by equalitarian ideology and hatred of their betters, are we seeing an echo of the Jewish cults in the Roman Empire who lashed out again and again against the hated Whites? — Jewish sects which predicted a “messiah” who would lead them in a general slaughter of White people and in the enslavement and subjugation of the survivors? Was Christianity an outgrowth of these sects, some of them led by Jews who claimed to be that “messiah,” and who later artfully advertised their cults to non-Jews in order to swell their ranks? Is Christianity increasingly returning to its real Jewish roots, as it gradually but continuously drops its European mask and becomes an instrument of genocide against us?

No man is better qualified to increase our understanding of these questions than the late, great Professor Revilo Pendleton Oliver — classicist, linguist, scholar, and one of the greatest writers of the 20th century. This week we continue our excerpts from his insightful work on the subject, under the title, “The Jewish Plague, part 10.” We begin where we left off last week: Dr. Oliver was discussing an outbreak of violence led by a Jewish would-be “messiah” named Chrestus. I give you the words of Revilo P. Oliver:

* * *

The Jewish Plague
part 10

by Revilo P. Oliver

CHRISTIANITY, cont’d.

THE DATE OF the particular outbreak of which Chrestus was the leader is uncertain. It is assigned to 49-50 A.D. by Koestermann, who has a good article on this subject in Historia, XVI (1967), 456-469, but it could have been an outbreak of Jews six or seven years earlier. Accepting Koestermann’s date, it occurred between fourteen and fifteen years before the burning of Rome in 64 A.D., for which Nero blamed the Chrestiani, who were certainly regarded as a gang or rather horde of Jews who were trying to destroy civilization in the manner of Chrestus, whom they may have venerated as their Karl Marx or Trotsky (Bronstein). What happened to Chrestus is not known, but it is not impossible he hid to avoid arrest, got out of Rome, and went back to Judaea, if he had been there before, or, if he had not, chose it as a good place to stir up more trouble for civilized men. If so, he could have been arrested and executed there by the Roman authorities — and he could have been the basis on which the later myths about Jesus (a very common Jewish name, which could well have been his) were constructed.

It is a curious fact that one of the earliest Christian forgeries, known already to Tertullian and antedating most or all of the New Testament, is a supposed letter from Pontius Pilatus describing the Crucifixion, and exists in two versions that are addressed to Claudius as well as in the standard versions in which the reigning emperor is Tiberius. It is hard to see why any Christians should have seen an advantage in placing the Crucifixion so late, but it would be understandable if the story originally concerned Chrestus and the date was moved farther back when it was decided that it would be better to change the name to Christus and pretend that there was no connection. A change from Chrestus to Christus would have been easy to put over by the end of the Second Century, when the increasing itacism in Greek pronunciation gave eta and iota the same sound in popular speech. There would be the further advantage that the new name would be unique and unprecedented as a personal name, instead of being a very common name among the lower classes.

The word Christus, meaning ‘salve, ointment,’ was naturally never a name given to persons, but in contemporary Yiddish (i.e., the Jewish dialect of Greek) it was for some reason used as an epithet applied to the Jewish kings who appear in stories in the Old Testament, implying that they had been ‘anointed’ and so were legitimate. It does occur in the Septuagint. It thus acquired among Jews a connotation that would have made it a logical title to be assumed by a revolutionary agitator who claimed to be a legitimate king of the Jews and also the Messiah whom the Jews had long been awaiting with the expectation that his supernatural powers would enable them to butcher the hated Indo-Europeans without fear of reprisals.

It is entirely possible that there was such an agitator, distinct from Chrestus, in the time of Tiberius and that he was executed by the Roman governor of Judaea at that time. You will notice that the stories in the New Testament contain clear vestiges of a claim to be the ‘King of the Jews,’ which the authors of the stories find it necessary to explain away.

In the absence of any historical record one can only speculate, of course, but on the whole I think it more likely that there was an agitator or thaumaturgist named Jesus (i.e. Yeshua, a common contraction of Yehoshua — like Jake for Jacob) in the time of Tiberius than that the whole story was reconstructed from the career of Chrestus.

Palestine was full of goetae, fakirs, peddling miracles and revelations to the multitude, and it would not be at all astonishing if one of them tried to set himself up in competition to the established Jewish priests with fatal results or even started a revolutionary movement of some sort that the Roman government nipped in the bud.

The foregoing will explain why it is nearly certain that the Chrestiani executed by Nero in 64 A.D. were a mob of Jewish revolutionaries, followers of the notorious Chrestus, who had led the destructive outbreak fourteen or more years before. There is thus no historical evidence for the existence of Christians at so early a date. (The term ‘Christian’ should obviously be applied only to sects that claim to be derived from a Christus distinct from Chrestus.) For further information on this subject, see the article by Koestermann cited above.

Pliny’s letter is our earliest historical evidence for Christians. Pliny was in Bithynia in 112 A.D., and at that time the Christians probably had not yet concocted any ‘gospels,’ although it is possible, of course, that they had some in secret and were able to conceal them from him. (There is a translation with the text of the letter in the Loeb series.) They convinced Pliny that they were just a bunch of ignorant and superstitious, but innoxious, fanatics, and, as is evident from the letter, Pliny was really astonished to find no evidence that they were guilty of the crimes (such as ritual murders) and anarchistic subversion that he naturally associated with the name. Since his is the only historical evidence for Christians at so early a date, we have no means of knowing whether he confused Christiani with Chrestiani (who may still have been active at that time — the Jews were always conspiring against civilization and may have kept the name) — a confusion that was particularly easy because a Roman would have thought it unlikely that a group would call itself ‘the people of the salve,’ which is all the name would mean to anyone who was not a Jew — or there were Christians (i.e., persons who claimed to be followers of a Christus, not Chrestus) who did practice ritual murders and the like. There were such later.

It is certain that the earliest known sects of “Christians,” i.e., followers of one or another of the agitators named Jesus, were enemies of, and probably conspirators against, the Graeco-Romans. The Nazarenes admitted only Jews; the Ebionites, in conformity with the doctrine stated explicitly in the “New Testament” (Marc. 7.27-29), although most Christians are too stupid to understand what they read, admitted goyim to the status of “whining dogs,” provided they had themselves circumcised and obeyed their divinely-appointed masters, promising them that when Jesus returned with celestial reinforcements and inflicted on the hated Greeks and Romans all the slaughter and torment that is so enthusiastically described in the apocalypse that was included in the “New Testament,” the proselytes would be permitted to lie on the floor behind the tables at which the triumphant Jews banquet and to eat the table scraps thrown to them.

This promise, however, understandably failed to attract large numbers of goyim, and the superstition got under way only when its doctrines had been modified to facilitate the “conversion” of large numbers of the mongrelized inhabitants of the once-Roman Empire.

Many of the early Christian sects disclaimed in various ways a connection with the Jews, and it can scarcely be doubted that the anti-Jewish passages in the “New Testament” were designed to facilitate competition with those sects.

It is, I think, most significant that the Christian sect which shrewdly made a deal with the despots of the decaying Roman Empire and thus acquired the legal and military power to exterminate its competitors was one which had assembled a hastily collected and slovenly edited anthology of a few of the numerous gospels and called it a “New Testament,” so that it could carry with it an “Old Testament” of Jewish tales to prove that the Jews were the Chosen Race of the tribal deity whom the Jews had impudently identified with the animus mundi of Stoic monotheism as well as with the Ahura-Mazda of the Zoroastrian cult.

It may also be significant that the Christians have always used the normal Jewish techniques of fraud and forgery, most obviously when they concocted gospels that purport to have been written by eyewitnesses of miraculous and impossible events.

The evidence does not permit us to affirm that Christianity was cunningly invented by the Jews as a means of paralyzing the healthy instincts of other races, but we can affirm that if the Jews did set out to devise a mental poison that would eventually be lethal to our race, they could have concocted no drug that was more efficacious in the circumstances. I emphatically call your attention to the obvious fact that the primitive Christian doctrine is a specific demand for the suicide of our race, which survived from the end of the Roman Empire to the present only because our ancestors, of fresh barbarian stock, simply ignored in practice a large part of the pernicious doctrine, especially in northern Europe under essentially aristocratic regimes.

Until the disintegration of Protestantism made it possible for any ambitious tailor, clever confidence man, or disgruntled housewife to have “revelations” and pitch the woo at lower classes to make themselves important or fleece the suckers, the professional holy men either contented themselves with telling our people they were “sinful” or used the common devices of theologians to conceal the import of the holy book. (Even so, however, the Catholic dervishes are obviously responsible for the eventual dominance of Mestizos in “Latin” America, and many similar misfortunes.)

For the deplorable acceptance of Christianity by the ignorant barbarians of our race, I have tried to account in my book, Christianity and the Survival of the West. I would now change nothing in that discussion except to make it more emphatic, for in the years since I wrote it, I have come to the conclusion that, with only numerically insignificant exceptions, the Christians are useless in any effort to preserve our race, and that our domestic enemies are, from their standpoint, well advised to subsidize, as they are now doing, the ranting of evangelical shamans and the revival of menticidal superstitions by every means, including the hiring of technicians who can pose as “scientists” and “prove,” by subtle or impudent tricks, the “truth” of the flimsiest hoaxes and the most preposterous notions.

The development of Christianity in all the sects of the Western world during the past two centuries has been the progressive elimination from all of them of the elements of our natively Aryan morality that were superimposed on the doctrine before and during the Middle Ages to make it acceptable to our race and so also make it a religion that could not be exported as a whole to other races. With the progressive weakening of our racial instincts, all the cults have been restored to conformity with the “primitive” Christianity of the holy book, i.e., to the undiluted poison of the Jewish originals.

I should, perhaps, have made it more explicit in my little book that the effective power of the alien cult is by no means confined to sects that affirm a belief in supernatural beings. As I have stressed in other writings, when the Christian myths became unbelievable, they left in the minds of even intelligent and educated men a residue, the detritus of the rejected mythology, in the form of superstitions about “all mankind,” “human rights,” and similar figments of the imagination that had gained currency only on the assumption that they had been decreed by an omnipotent deity, so that in practical terms we must regard as basically Christian and religious such irrational cults as Communism and the tangle of fancies that is called “Liberalism” and is the most widely accepted faith among our people today.

I am a little encouraged that today some of the more intelligent “Liberals” are at last perceiving that their supposedly rational creed is simply based on the Christian myths they have consciously rejected. I note, for example, that Mary Kenny, who describes herself as “a former radical” (The Sunday Telegraph, 27 January 1980, pp. 8-9), has come to the realization that “so many of the [“Liberals'”] political ideas… are religious at root. The search for equality in the secular sense is a replacement of the Judaeo-Christian idea that God loves every individual equally. …The feelings of guilt or, indeed, pity, which once went into the religious drive, are being transferred to secular ideas to the ultimate destruction of our civilisation.” So far as there is hope for us, it lies, I think, in this belated tendency to take account of biological realities.

* * *

 You’ve been listening to “The Jewish Plague, part 10,” written by Professor Revilo Pendleton Oliver and presented by your host, Kevin Alfred Strom.

To read more of Dr. Oliver’s works, visit https://nationalvanguard.org/oliver.

Next week we will sum up and conclude this important series, right here on American Dissident Voices.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance. The National Alliance is working to educate White men and women around the world as to the nature of the reality we must face — and organizing our people to ensure our survival and advancement. To help us, send donations to National Alliance, Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. For free fliers to spread the truth in your community, visit natall.com/fliers. Once again, our postal address is Box 172, Laurel Bloomery, TN 37680 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you of the words of Richard Berkeley Cotten: Freedom is not free; free men are not equal; and equal men are not free.

Listen to the broadcast

For Further Reading

Previous post

The Jewish Hand in the World Wars, Part 1

Next post

Revamped Liberty

1 Comment

  1. Thomas Plaster
    November 20, 2017 at 7:03 pm — Reply

    The intro by Kevin Strom to this Revilo Oliver article struck a chord with me. As a kid I got the same message from (Protestant) Christianity that the Roman Empire were enemy #1 for Christians. Later, I thought; what a contradiction. If Christ had to die for our sins then we should thank the Romans for crucifying him. Otherwise, he wouldn’t have died for humanity’s sins and we would all have not been “saved”. Well, to me it’s senseless.

    I took four Latin classes once and the third/fourth were like a history overview of all ancient Rome; monarchical, republic and empire periods. It was quite interesting and the unmistakable impression I came to was that the Romans were responsible for much scientific, technical, military and government advances for the western world. And if it were not for the Pax Romana, then no damned Jesus could have spread his message so far and wide, and later Christians some how getting the Roman gov’t to declare it the state religion.

    Like this article says, the western people should celebrate Rome, not condemn it.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.