Southern Baptists Capitulate on Race

[Theunissen]

As I've already posted elsewhere and know from experience growing up, far too many of the Southern Baptists and evangelicals generally do seem to worship or fetishize jews and Israel and have for a good while. Nowadays they plaster the "judeo" in front of "Christian" often. All of it completely at odds with actual Christian belief of whatever sect or denomination.

Christian Zionism has been around for a while. I'd trace this back to the 1960s with some of course already earlier engaging in prototypes thereof. I think that relates to the popularity of the Scofield Bible Commentary. It's essentially also an equivocation fallacy. Since the bible talks about Israel and Jews, those that are assigned presently with those names must be the same thing, not. And well, Judaism as we know it is kind of the opposite of Christianity, despite pretences to the different. It's a lot double talking on the part of Jews and gullible Christian folks are too foolish to notice that.
They got no idea of Amalek, Talmud and a number of other things. "But they believe in the old Testament" - No, they don't. Otherwise they'd be Christians

https://archive.org/details/amalek-t...my-of-the-jews

[Rodskarl Dubhgall]

Christian Zionism has been around for a while. I'd trace this back to the 1960s with some of course already earlier engaging in prototypes thereof. I think that relates to the popularity of the Scofield Bible Commentary. It's essentially also an equivocation fallacy. Since the bible talks about Israel and Jews, those that are assigned presently with those names must be the same thing, not. And well, Judaism as we know it is kind of the opposite of Christianity, despite pretences to the different. It's a lot double talking on the part of Jews and gullible Christian folks are too foolish to notice that.
They got no idea of Amalek, Talmud and a number of other things. "But they believe in the old Testament" - No, they don't. Otherwise they'd be Christians

https://archive.org/details/amalek-t...my-of-the-jews

There was actually more double talking by Saul, in rebuking Simon at the Council of Jerusalem and going to the Areopagus in Athens to confute Nazarene Judaism with the Unknown God of the Stoics and Epicureans. Pharisee Saul persecuted Stephen and had the nerve to co-opt his synagogue when the Jewish-Roman Wars were scattering the Jews across the Empire, then going from city to city and binding them together, like an Abolitionist conductor on the Underground Railroad amidst real Romans. The Nazarenes weren't Pharisees, Sadducees or Essenes, but they weren't Greeks any more than Saul was a Roman. This race-bending enthusiasm in our own time was prefaced by Saul's own innovations to blur those lines from the post-Joshua life of the "Apostles" and universalise that which was peculiar to their shepherd's Judean flock, admonished from the start to bypass Goy and Samaritans.

The agency and prerogative to steer from this course came after their leader's execution at the hands of those to whom their new pioneer belonged. So, if Saul wanted Greeks to cohabit with Jews in the Temple, how is that so different than Pilate and Herod getting on? Jews didn't want to be swallowed up by Goyim and Aryans wouldn't want to absorb Jewry as a corruption in either instance--both are completely understandable reservations. To insist on overlapping Indo-European and Semite strangers to abolish differences and achieve more globalistic cultural hegemony began with Persians taking over Babylon, then Greeks in Egypt, then Romans in Carthage, etc. With the pre-Galilean Atenist worship of Adonai or Adonis, there was already some Semitic bastardisation under the skin of Hellenism, so it's no wonder other derivative ideologies like Manichaeism flourished. If we wouldn't now worship Ishtar or Isis, why Joshua or Jesus, just another Messiah or Moses? These are Semitic tropes, through and through.

Truth is, Christianity is just another manifestation of Semitophilia when practised by Indogermanics, but otherwise self-affirmation when done by Aramaic Syrians and Copts. We cannot honour our fathers and mothers by putting the Biblical Patriarchs and Matriarchs on pedestals over and above them in importance. Filtering history from the Jew POV in the Tanakh is the only means to New Testament supersessionism, for the Books of Esther and Maccabees show this course to mingling with us on their part. If the Jews want to purify themselves of our heritage by discarding Ashkenazi Yiddish and Sephardi Ladin remnants, beyond disavowing the Greek Septuagint and Aramaic texts to rehabilitate their Hebraicentric worldview, then why do we bend over backwards to accommodate them by tabula rasa memory-holing our pre-conversion Gentile/Pagan/Heathen roots and instead using their Bible as template for all our own self-loathing bias?

Why should Jewry be coddled to stand apart from us and we stand apart from ourselves, in complete subjection to their preferences? Goy Christianity is slavery to Jew supremacy on the Cross. The Six Million had to pay for our sins and we obtain Shabbas Goy salvation from their direction. Christians absolutely refuse to draw the line in the sand from observing obsequiousness to any and all Jewry, whether their selective preference is Pharisee, Sadducee, Essene and/or Nazarene fortune-teller dictating the nature of morality and comity. After all, Gentiles wouldn't even be playing second fiddle Jewry if not for Saul, who argued this very thing about adopted Israelites. Saul admonished his fellow Jewry to welcome us into their society, as he himself was a Jew welcomed in Roman society no different than Herod himself. Do we need to hold up Hannibal bin Hamilcar as an honourary Roman by assimilation? Do we really need to go inside the Temple beyond the outer court reserved for outsiders such as we? WHY?!

I don't feel any pain of rejection or exclusion from Judæo-Masonic occultism, nor do I feel obliged to prove my universalist appreciation for it to be incorporated into my life indifferent or preferable to Aryan philosophy. That was the ultimate mistake by Cyrus in playing the part of Messiah to the Jews and by Ptolemy in assuming role of Pharaoh, followed by the Constantinian Shift in assuming that Rome's only way forward was in putting Levantinism above the Eternal City itself. As the Greeks became Honourary Israelites, so too did Romans follow, hence Constantinople. "Ex oriente lux" should have its limits at Semitisms, but when the first Aryan empire became a model for all that followed, this was wholesale mimicry in infamy, to the erroneous heresy that extant Zoroastrianism, Hinduism and Buddhism are dirty, foreign things just like our own lost faith, vanquished by Christian Zionist Crusades and Jihads. We are systemically impoverished of innate spirituality and culture, simply because of apologists for Semites due to expansionism and fear of losing them unless adequate consolidation was done, even at our fundamental expense in the end. Is it all worth it? REALLY?!