Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old September 8th, 2010 #1
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,354
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default (Unfinished but very long) Review of "The Christ Files"

[A reader in Australia sent me this book, which I promised to review. I wrote this months ago, didn't quite finish it, have lost my train of thought, so might as well post as I will never get back to it. Even so, 90% of what I had to say is said is in this, and perhaps discussion will bring back the one or two things I'd intended to sum up with. This review will ultimately be copied and stickied in the books section.]

The Other Round File: Reviewish-Flavored Notes on John Dickson's "The Christ Files," by Alex Linder

The Christ Files: How Historians Know What They Know About Jesus, by John Dickson, Blue Bottle Books (2006)

Thinking about Jesus is thinking about thinking, about evidence, about what you accept or reject and why. This thing called 'Jesus' is the perfect test case for examining your own ideas about what constitutes solid mentation. 'Jesus' was a guy or guys or fictional character or composite character living or created 2,000 years ago. What are we to make of the thing, its surrounding stories, and the featherless bipeds who yawp and yodel after it?

The obvious starting point for thinking about Jesus is doubting that he performed the miracles claimed for him. But the best way to begin thinking about Jesus is to ascertain the likelihood it existed at all... My personal starting point is assuming that Revilo Oliver is likelier to be right than wrong when he asserts that Jeboo was a fictional composite of at least three Jesuses. I think this because I have read much Oliver and found him wrong on very little. I am predisposed to accept his verdict unless I see overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While Jebus fanatics are legion, they question the nature of their hero less than pigs question the ingredients of their slop. The porcinical essay at least a sniffle-sniff before diving in; the Jeboozers admit of no delay. Boozus! they hop and stamp and clap and bow. They love him. They don't think about him. Someone once said that to love something is to take it seriously. By this measure, Christians love Jesus as much as post-Christian liberals love niggers, which is to say not at all: it's just another device they can use for feeling good about themselves and thinking bad of and on others. To say that Christians are despicable reality-haters probably doesn't go far enough, but, going in, recognizing their perverse and actuality-averse behavior and mindset seems a good bias for a normal man to start with. Whatever else may be said about 'Jesus,' he's certainly the type who would appeal to his followers - an all-forgiving douchebag who doesn't exist any more than the miracles-breaking-all-known-physical-laws he's said to have performed.

Really, arguments about Jesus - spoiler alert! There's no proof he existed, and no proof of his miracles - are proxies for reality - do you think reality exists, or is an option to be contrasted now and then with your nogginal notions? If you believe that what you want to believe is more important than anything else, you are very well qualified to waddle up to the christian trough with the other piglings.

Now, as you can smell, we're just warming up here. We're making some christian-zest, the same way Rachel Ray makes lemon zest! We're rubbing the religious idiots, to be redundant, across the grater of right reason. Our goal is to see what's in 'em, and what they're made of. What they smell like, what they taste like. Let us take them in the spirit one of their unmanliest excuse-makers, C.S. Lewis, demands they be taken in: they aren't kidding. They really mean it. The Comeback Kid really existed, really did the things he claimed, and really spoke the truth about his mission. Let us take christ-insanity seriously enough to reject it if there's no reason to accept its claims are true. To cut these notes short, there isn't. There is no reason in this book or any other to believe a single word about Jesus written by any of the editors who created the stories in the Bible, nor any apologist who commented on those cobblings later. Christianity can be safely dismissed as lies. The main concern of the White man, in relation to Christ-inanity, ought to be to protect himself and his kind from the utterly pernicious mental and physical effects of Christians and their doctrines.


This is a cute little book. Its cover is black, with a big yellow or chartreuse fingerprint on the cover by way of design. The book is 101 pages, written by an Australian, a scholar, and a Christian. He has a look common to American Christians, particularly Baptists - a big block-shaped head, no neck, and a look of amiable affability. Now, this guy is no dummy, being a historian at a university in Sydney, but he's still of the doubting-is-dancing school, no matter how mild his tone. Christians are mild in tone these days -- the pros you see on tv -- only because they're inferior in power to their mockers, by which I don't mean me, or other normals, but jews. The Christies know that anything appearing dogmatic they do in public will be used and abused by tv jews, so they're as careful as they can be to keep an evergreen smile of liberal tolerance on their mugs, even as their eyes dart fishily, prowling ever for sucker-converts and semitic-critics. John Dickson "lives in Sydney with his family," the back cover informs us, and "spends his time researching, writing and speaking about life's big questions." Well, isn't that fruity.

The first way to review a book... pardon me. The second way. The first way is to eye the cover suspiciously. Then pinch it, and flip it with two fingers. If you haven't absorbed any poison, the next thing to do is to look left and right, then raise the book to your nose. Inhale as you rifle the pages under your thumb, like an epithelial flip book. Why? Well, as used to be generally known, the black marks on the pages called words began life as thoughts in the minds of men...or in this case, christians. As christians tend to be evil and filled with lies, the blackness of their thoughts tends to survive general printing and copying, so that even the millionth issue is, if not ripe then more than faintly redolent of decomposing skunk cabbage. Books excreted by the christ-insane, thus, are the rotting of something rotten when healthy - a sort of zwieback of malicious and misleading mentalicizing. This book, while not entirely without essence du zombific goodness, is nevertheless not as stinky as it might have been, for one reason: the author doesn't even try to claim things he can't. Now that is mere honest modesty for a normal man, but, again, we're talking about a christian here. People who believe other people raise up from the dead, walk on water they don't turn into wine, and spam eternal salvation on future generations without their consent - little things like obeying the rules of logic and evidence hold no unmagic power over them, so it's worth mentioning in the instances one of the christ-insane takes them into account, even if only to enhance marketing to normals.


This short book's point and mission are to persuade you to take the gospels seriously, and to persuade you that serious people take them seriously. It's all very owly, if you recall the srsly graphic. If you read the bible to take its whiff, the impression made on a normal white man is that it was written by some very nasty people, people very familiar with lying and deceiving. The art put into the wording can't hide that the bible is easily the nastiest book ever written. The bible is very similar to de Sade in that the brilliance of the style, in places, only accentuates the unwholesomeness of the subject. The bible appeals primarily to intellectual cretins and the conforming tasteless. The bible is a book of lies cobbled by semitic slicksters to fool and bedizen the doltish masses. Intelligent men who believe in the bible do it either because it makes them money, or because they lack imagination. Remember that 19 out of 20 men aren't leaders. They are followers. Just as people who praise jews never do it because they actually like them, only ...

The bible is believed and beloved of the same social class that likes professional wrestling. There is art in the wording, but it can't can't change the nature of the nasties what cobbled it. Christianity is a movement of social bowels, an exaltation of all that is lowly and disgusting and untrue. You know how a medicine is made worse by improvement? By making some nasty tasting but helpful elixir "better" by adding a sub-commercial quality flavor for it? Christianity is very like that, except its heart is not helpful, but deleterious. Christianity turns humans into animals. If you take the genes of a worm and a zombie and combine then, the result is a christian - a spiritual dead end rushing off, now, to succor crushed niglets in Haiti. Because we are all god's children. If so, then god is a fucking monster who needs to be slain, not obeyed. Far too little thought has been spent on considering the proposition that the Creator is evil. How can Christianity possibly be a good thing - judging by Christians? Christianity is a pseudo-artistic, dogmatic attack on the only thing that has served humanity without misleading: the ability to connect cause and consequence. Christianity occludes clear thinking, clear reasoning, clear judging, and clear acting. Christianity is occlusion, and its appeal is to the insane and the malocclusive. Just as democracy is ultimately the recognition that the public can vote itself subsidies out of earners' pockets, christianity is the recognition that if enough losers stick together, they can triumph over the winners. Christianity is lie that empowers an evil slice of the smart set to use the stupid set to empurple itself. Christianity is spiritual and intellectual downbreeding. For people with no imagination, lots of fear, overwhelming urge to conform - christianity is a godsend. Christianity offers safety and illusion.

I agree with the author that the gospels deserve to be read seriously, but not because they contain truth or accurate history or beautiful literature. They contain none of those. They deserve to be read seriously because they accurately depict mentalities that threaten normals: the mentality of the jewish liar, the jewish pseudo-universalist, the buhliever. The economic concept of opportunity cost should be applied to Christianity. No more destructive belief ever flourished in White society. The opportunity cost of the semitic balderdash is...unknown. Who knows what kind of healthy societies were made impossilble by the rise of the christian lie? We can only observe that everything good in white nature and society preexisted christianity, and, with luck, will outlast its rapid declension into second-rate voodoo for jungle natives.


Chapter two, "The Troublemaker: Jesus in Ancient Pagan Writings" offers a COMPLETE, yes, "complete" "list of Greco-Roman references to Jesus." There are seven (7). Think about that. The guy performed all these remarkable and unprecedented miracles and...there are seven (7) mostly contemptuous or dismissive references to him outside his circle of kikes and converts. What does that tell you? It tells me that Jesus likely didn't exist and certainly never performed any miracles. I mean, is it not astounding that, in a mere eight pages of a 101-page book, the author can afford to list ALL non-christian references to the Main Player In All World History? It kind of argueth against the claims, methinks. What are these references?

#1 Some "Thallos" claims there was an eclipse at some point during Jesus' upsticking. This mention was around 55 AD. Can we not Valley-Girl our eyes and "What-ever."

#2 Some kikey-named "Mara bar Serapion," in a letter to his son, said, "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their Wise King? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished[.]" Says Dickson, "You will notice that Mara does not name the 'wise king'... Yeah. I noticed that. I also noticed the after-therefore-because fallacy. Again, "What-ever."

#3 Cornelius Tacitus (yes, the Tacitus) mentions "in passing" both Jeboo's death and a movement in his name. Says "Dickson," "the text is strongly, almost humorously, anti-Christian in style." Here is what Tacitus, the greatest Roman historian, said of the 'boo and the 'booflers: "Christians derived their name from a man called Christ, who, during the reign of Emperor Tiberius had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate. The deadly superstition, thus checked for the moment, broke out afresh not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but also in the City of Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part ofthe world meet and become popular."

Now, contra "Dickson" there is nothing at all funny about Tacitus' words or his meaning. He means exactly what he says, and he is right. Just look into the faces of the white Christian zombies adopting Haitians, the descendants of murderers of every white they could get their machetes in, and you know exactly what he means. Christianity is poisonous. It is indeed a "deadly" superstition, because it kills minds, first, then societies.

#4 In 110 AD, Pliny the Younger wrote to Emperor Trajan to ask whether he should keep executing Jeboo fans. Imagine how unattractive the early christians must have been to be executed in light of Pliny's statement that the "sum total of their guilt or error was no more than the following. They had met regularly before dawn...and sung antiphonally a hymn to Christ as to a god. They also took an oath not for any crime, but to keep from theft, robbery and adultery, and not to break any promise." Hmm, definite food for thought in that one. Were theft, robbery and adultery pagan-normal, and christianity something new? Or was christianity from day one a sort of Alcoholics Anonymous for losers and criminal scum?

#5 Suetonius, another Roman historian, mentions jews being expelled from Rome in 49AD, "because of the riots they were causing at the instigation of Chrestus." Explains "Dickson," most New Testament scholars, and Roman historians, think Suetonius confused "a slave name 'Chrestus'" with the jewish title christ, the 'anointed one.' I draw nothing from this except if Jeboo existed, he was some minor kike, causing problems in the usual kikey way.

#6 Lucian, who was a Greek lecturer and satirist of the 2nd century, refers to Jeboo as "the one whom they still worship today, the man in Palestine who was crucified because he brought this new form of initiation into the world... Moreover, that first lawgiver of theirs persuaded them that they are all brothers the moment they transgress and deny the Greek gods and begin worshipping that crucified sophist and living by his laws." So, in other words, if Jesus existed, he was a typical troublemaking kike - a liar, a socialist, a universalist-for-non-jews: in other words, he was a typical useless, worthless jew - and seen to be such by white normals.

#7 Celsus around 175AD made dismissive comments toward Jesus, saying, like the jews, that his father was Panthera, a Roman soldier.

The conclusion a reasonable man would draw is that Jesus might or might not have existed, but if he did, he was a typical scummy jew, and so regarded by the tiny handful of Aryans who took note of him. Christians appear to have been the same despicable lot at the start they are today. Christians hate reality like cats hate water. Their brain does the same stutter-rejection when it encounters actuality as a cat's paw when it touches liquid. Christianity is lies for losers.


Anything good in this book? There are a few things, either correctives to nonsense spouted even by WN, or insight into hoaxes peddled in the jewed mass media. For example, Christian Identity idiots, to be redundant, claim Jesus was an Aryan, and that Galilee, where he is supposed to have come from, was an Aryan island in a Semitic sea. Dickson shows otherwise. He says, "Whatever else Jesus was, he was a Jew - he was born a Jew, raised a Jew, he attended the synagogue, he worshipped at the Jerusalem temple, he formed a band of Jewish followers and he believed he was fulfilling everything the Jewish Scriptures said about the coming Messiah Christ." Of course, if he believed Jesus were not a jew, Dickson probably wouldn't say it, because he couldn't get published. Jews are ambivalent about Christianity. They want to blame it for everything bad, and take credit for anything in it that's good. In the bible they brag about murdering Jesus; today they repeat "Jesus was a jew," a statement they love to place in the mouths of goyish characters in their movies. Nevertheless, a thing may be true, though it come out of the mouth of a jew. Jesus certainly was a jew, whether he came out of the pen, mouth or twat of a hooknosed liar. Dickson says that archaeological discoveries and scholarship have refuted the once-popular notion that Galilee was a Greekish outpost. "In short, the Galilee which archaeologists are discovering is deeply Jewish. The Galilean towns mentioned in the Gospels, such as Nazareth and Capernaum, show no evidence of Gentile influence. [...] Mainstream Judaism is everywhree present in the archaeological record of these cities: (1) the bowls and containers found here are made of chalk or soft limestone, important for Jewish purity; (2) numerous Jewish ritual baths have been discovered; (3) the burial practices uncovered are Jewish; and (4) pig bones are conspicuous by their absence, indicating that the people here obeyed Jewish kosher rules. All of these factors tell us that Galilee in Jesus' day was profoundly Jewish, not pagan. Any attempt to argue for a strong Gentile influence on Jesus' ministry suffers from a complete lack of evidence." The enthusiasm in "Dickson's" words is typical of the Christian gelding, lapping at the mouth and anus of his jewish master. Still, I doubt he is lying. Christian Identity is far past stupid; lack of evidence is proof to CI idiots, to be redundant. Jesus, if he existed, was a kike. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. It was certainly a jew mouth, twat or pen that shat him, his behavior proves it.

Another good thing is "Dickson's" pointing out the anti-church lies in Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code. Since we know mass publishing is run by a handful of jewish houses out of New York, we know that any mainstream mention of christianity will be deceptive or destructive. The church, to jews, is a mixed bag. They hate it for historical reasons, and for practical reasons. The creation of the Catholic church was an earlier, not wholly successful, example of the culture of critique. The church distorted white man's world. Any institution is good, or treated as good by the jew-controlled mass media, insofar as it advances the jewish agenda. If that agenda calls for the destuction of white folk, then any institution that only half follows will be fully attacked. The church is "good for jews" in that it spreads the idea of equality, soul and otherwise, but bad for jews in that it counteracts the promiscuity and general-character looseness they promote through mass electronics. The church is a mixed bag to organized jews. On one hand, its "save the niggers" campaigns dovetail with their ethnically self-interested drive for death-thru-diversity for whites. On the other hand, the church's focus on personal morality works against their believe that general character looseness, and sexual promiscuity in specific, lead to lower levels of 'anti-semitism.' In a phrase, "if they're not screwing, they're anti-jewing" is solid doctrine to kikes, and it explains literally everything you see on tv. So, intellectually the jews are ambivalent about the church. But emotionally they hate it, because, well, they hate everything they don't have complete and 100% control over. This loxism takes many forms, but one of them is spreading mass literature that undermines Christian doctrine and honest history. Just as the jew publishes a million times over a liberal lawyer's mass-paperback featuring a (statistically nonexistent) white-on-black gang rape, the jew publishes a million times over a liberal academic's pseudo-religious broadside against the Catholic church. Anything that undermines Rome the jew promotes, whether false political history or false religious history. Dickson cites ten errors in a single patch of Brown's fiction. It goes without saying that Dickson fails to identify the jewish animus that sees Brown's lies published in the first place. The fact that jews hate Christianity should not be construed to mean that a) christianity is true, or that b) christianity is objectively pro-White. It is neither. Rather, Christianity is a Big Lie, the doctrines of which cut a number of ways, both pro- and anti-White, and both pro- and anti-jew.

Last edited by Alex Linder; September 8th, 2010 at 11:10 AM.


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:00 PM.
Page generated in 0.43750 seconds.