Kriminalgeschichte, 3

Below, translated excerpts from the first chapter of Karlheinz
Deschner’s Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums

(“Criminal History of Christianity”):

 
The ravages of David and the modern translators of the Bible

Samuel, the last judge and first prophet of Israel, fought against the Philistines and defeated them but then, feeling old, anointed Saul as army commander and ordered him in God’s name:

“Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.”

The Catholic encyclopedia of many volumes, Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche annotates that the prophet in question was a character “without blemish” and goes even further in praise of his successor: “A great effort in defending the theocracy, the law and the right, was the major garment of character in Saul.” And this king, the first of Israel (1020-1000 BCE) anointed by Samuel, figures typically as a “charismatic” who acted through “the spirit of the Lord” and yet, “was obviously a psychotic depressive, tormented by persecution” (Beck) who energetically continued the tradition of “holy wars.” As the Bible tells, Saul fought “many enemies around him”: Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, the kings of the Philistines and Amalekites. Of course, when according to superior orders they killed all the Amalekites including the infants, but kept the best cattle, he incurred in the wrath of both the Lord and the prophet Samuel, after which he suffered a tremendous defeat at the hands of the Philistines and committed suicide (by the way, this is the first act of this kind mentioned in the Bible).

His successor, David, name that means the chosen one (of God), who bought as wife Saul’s daughter, Michal, for the price of a hundred Philistine foreskins, towards the end of the millennium heralded the beginning of the national state, thus achieved the maximum period of splendor for Israel, which possessions came then from the middle Syria to the borders of Egypt and was the strongest nation among the great empires of Mesopotamia, Hamath and Egypt.

As had happened with Saul, David (1000-961 BCE) was also possessed by “the spirit of the Lord” and made a campaign after another, as many were “oppressors” from the north. And so David said in her hymn of thanksgiving: “I will pursue my enemies, exterminate them; will not turn my back until they are wiped out. I will consume and shatter them all, so they can no longer recover.” “But he never started a war”—St. Ambrose hastens to add, doctor of the Church—without first asking advice of the Lord.

David is admired not only in Jewish theology, but also in Christianity and Islam as a person of outstanding religious significance. “Whenever he went on campaign, David did not leave a man or woman alive… so did David when he dwelt in the land of Philistines.” Other customs of the Lord’s chosen included to cut off the horses’ tendons of the enemy; once he also cut the hands and feet of the enemies themselves. Another hobby of “the divine David, great and softest prophet” (according to bishop Theodoret, a Church historian) was to grind prisoners with saws and iron tongs and burn them in brick kilns, as he did to the people of all cities of the Ammonites.

It is relevant to remember that, in 1956, the Council of the German Evangelical Church and the Union of Evangelical Bible Society agreed in the publication of a Bible “according to the version of Martin Luther in German,” an authorized edition in 1964 and published in 1971, which reproduces as follows the passage just quoted thus: “to the people he brought them out, and put them into slave labor with saws and axes of iron, and brick kilns.”

However, Martin Luther had translated it thus:

“To the people he took away and commanded them to be sawn, passing iron drays, and butcher them with knives, and toss them in the brick kilns.”

This passage corresponds to one of the 1st Book of Chronicles (20,3), where the above Bible authorized by the Council of the German Evangelical Church, “according to the version of Martin Luther,” says, “whose inhabitants he took away, and put them down in labor servitude in the trails, saws and harrows.” But the words Luther chose were:

“Whose inhabitants he took out, and made that drag harrows and chariots armed with cutting scythes ran over them, so that they were made pieces and shattered.”

The approved Bible is a fabrication, and responds to a certain method.

In the course of the last hundred years, the Evangelical Church has proposed no less than three reviews of the Lutheran Bible. Luther did not suspect that his spiritual heirs would amend his words so flatly, so widely—he, whose motto as a translator was that “words must serve the cause, not the cause serve the words.”

When the Evangelical Church announces a Bible “according to the version of Martin Luther in German language,” it actually is selling a gross forgery. Anyway, if the ancients, being idolaters, had been made slaves surely they would not have run a more enviable fate, even the noncombatants as reported by the archaeologist Glueck, who excavated the ruins of Eilat. His report on the slaves who worked in brick kilns was that “the rate of mortality must have been terrific.”

In the Bible, a man named Shimei curses David calling him a “bloodthirsty” and throws stones upon him. Erich Brock and a few others have opined that the words were uttered “for good reason.” Even the Lord himself confirms it: “You have shed much blood, and done many wars.” But yes, it is always “with the Lord,” always moved “by the will of the Lord”; hence, no doubt, “pleased, the Lord watched David” for example after passing on the knife “twenty-two thousand Syrians” or after a massacre of “ eighteen thousand” Edomites. “Do whatever inspires your heart, for God is with you,” he says in another place.

But if God praised the “bloodthirsty” David for keeping his commandments and walk always in the shadow of the Lord, doing only what would please him, and if David praised himself, he is also praised forever, tireless, by the Christian clergy: a clergy that, as I will try to argue, in all ages has been in favor of the great criminals of history if they are useful to the Church. The same bloodthirsty king was the first to encourage the clergy as he could, and so he has set an example for millennia: for being faithful to the Lord, for making war in the name of the Lord, for sanctifying the loot destined to the construction of the Temple. (He who tried to hide the contribution was exposed to the extermination of his entire family, livestock included.)

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://chechar.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/criminal-history-of-christianity-iii/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

34 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. There is some evidence that the Philistines were Indo-European Aryans coming, perhaps, from Greece. And St Ambrose praises the jude David who gloated over the “hundred Philistine foreskins” he ordered to be cut from the penises of our Indo-European ancestors…?

    And these Church fathers even dare to state in positive light: “Whenever he went on campaign David did not leave a man or woman alive… so did David when he dwelt in the land of Philistines” (i.e., whites)?

    With these exterminationist pro-Semitism coming from our most influential, great Christian friends who needs enemies?

    • To summarize, the holocaust was DESERVED.

    • Eh, I’m not sure where this is going.

      The main apologists for Communist massacres are leftist atheists who probably never read the Bible and would condemn it if they did (on the same grounds as Deschner). The Christian Zionists who think these passages are super-great holy scripture do condemn Communism, sometimes even saying it’s worse than Nazism (OH GOD).

      Obviously they don’t believe the Jews were the primary force behind such massacres. But even if it was proven to them they’d never draw a parallel with the Old Testament, since obviously God the Father wouldn’t command the Jews to massacre Christians. He might command either to attack Muslims, but that’s sort of a side issue.

      Also I’m sure no White Americans associate themselves with the Philistines or Canaanites or so on. They’d more likely think of themselves as the Hebrews. Hell they could be more closely related to a “Hebrew” since we don’t know what the fuck one is or if they even existed in any real sense. I don’t think we expected Ramses II to be a ginger.

      The Jews themselves are another matter, obviously, but I just don’t see how the brutality of the Old Testament is affecting White behavior today.

      • “Eh, I’m not sure where this is going…”

        Simple: as Sunic pointed out, the traitorous way that Americans behaved in WW2 is the direct result of their superstitious views about the tribe: and the root of this is their Old Testament, Calvinist form of Christianity that conquered the American north.

        Again, I have no way to watch a parallel, quantum world. But hadn’t the Aryans been conquered by a Semitic faith my guess is that whites would have been far more conscious of the Jew as the radical Other. You cannot be a thoroughgoing anti-Semite—e.g., like Titus—if you share the same god of the Jews—like today’s Americans.

  2. Interesting, Chechar.

    I’m wondering if you are aware of Julian, Roman Emperor, attitude towards the Jews. Does Vidal mention this in his work of fiction?

    If not you may be interested in this.

    I. Julian Proposes to Rebuild Jerusalem, 362-363:
    To The Community Of The Jews

    In times past, by far the most burdensome thing in the yoke of your slavery has been the fact that you were subjected to unauthorized ordinances and had to contribute an untold amount of money to the accounts of the treasury. [Ever since Vespasian, about 72 CE, the Jews had been paying the Romans special Jewish taxes, like the Fiscus Judaicus.] Of this I used to see many instances with my own eyes, and I have learned of more, by finding the records which are preserved against you. Moreover, when a tax was about to be levied on you again I prevented it, and compelled the impiety of such obloquy to cease here; and I threw into the fire the records against you that were stored in my desks; so that it is no longer possible for anyone to aim at you such a reproach of impiety. My brother [cousin] Constantius of honored memory [in whose reign, 337-361, severe laws were enacted against the Jews] was not so much responsible for these wrongs of yours as were the men who used to frequent his table, barbarians in mind, godless in soul. These I seized with my own hands and put them to death by thrusting them into the pit, that not even any memory of their destruction might still linger amongst us.

    And since I wish that you should prosper yet more, I have admonished my brother Iulus [Hillel II, d. 365], your most venerable patriarch, that the levy which is said to exist among you [the taxes paid by world Jewry for support of the Palestinian patriarchate] should be prohibited, and that no one is any longer to have the power to oppress the masses of your people by such exactions; so that everywhere, during my reign, you may have security of mind, and in the enjoyment of peace may offer more fervid prayers for my reign to the Most High God, the Creator, who has deigned to crown me with his own immaculate right hand. For it is natural that men who are distracted by any anxiety should be hampered in spirit, and should not have so much confidence in raising their hands to pray; but that those who are in all respects free from care should rejoice with their whole hearts and offer their suppliant prayers on behalf of my imperial office to Mighty God, even to Him who is able to direct my reign to the noblest ends, according to my purpose.

    This you ought to do, in order that, when I have successfully concluded the war with Persia, I may rebuild by my own efforts the sacred city of Jerusalem [closed to the Jews since Hadrian, 135 CE], which for so many years you have longed to see inhabited, and may bring settlers there, and, together with you, may glorify the Most High God therein.

    • Of course I know. Have you missed my latest posts quoting Gibbon? (Vidal also mentioned it in his novel.)

      • No, I haven’t read your latest posts quoting Gibbon. I shall do so today.

        On that topic of Gibbon, with the focus of “the decline and fall of the Roman Empire”, I have been scanning the concluding chapters of Scullard, and Cary & Scullard’s two histories of Rome. The latter deals briefly with Gibbon’s focus on Christianity as the primary source of the so called “fall” of the Roman Empire (though the patient lived on for another thousand years in the east).

        I will email them to you when I have completed the scanning, if you are interested.

        Scullard puts down a single cause, if a single cause must be found (neither feel their is a single cause even if they should accept the Roman empire “fell”, which they don’t) to the Roman habit of “emperor making”. That is, towards the latter part of the empire in the west, Roman efforts became constantly inwardly focused on the army forgetting the outer boundaries of the empire and marching on Rome to install their favourite as emperor.

        Back to Vidal and Julian the Pagan, what do you make of his desire to see all other religions *but* Christianity return to Rome? What do you make of his desire to see Jerusalem return to the Jews and his intention to rebuild their temple, kill Romans who opposed the Jews, and rescind the special Jewish taxes?

        Bears striking similarity to what is going on today in the American Empire, it seems to me.

      • Note that the Roman Empire administered in the east, which survived till its sacking by Muslims in the year 1453, was thoroughly Catholic, that is Christian.

        Have you any thoughts on this fact of history, Chechar?

      • (Vidal also mentioned it in his novel.)

        And what did Vidal make of it? Did Vidal cite it approvingly?

      • Julian was a flawed emperor. A pity that visitors were not interested in my entries of Julian because that’s the message that can be gathered in the final chapter of Vidal’s novel: a very flawed yet heroic person.

        You seem to have also missed lots of thoughts and quotations about Constantinople in this blog (and I believe that in the Addenda too). In a nutshell, the so-called Rome of the East is a textbook case of how a universalist cult that took over the Empire was one of the central culprits of centuries of miscegenation with non-whites: something unthinkable in the Old Roman Republic. So miscegenated were the Byzantines that before their fall the true Europeans could not differentiate between the Byzantines and the Muslims except for their clothing.

        Stubbs again:

        Let’s put it this way. Do you think that the Council of the German Evangelical Church would have published a fraudulent Bible hadn’t they felt something sacred about Israel’s kings, David in particular? Today’s blindness about the JQ is related to hundreds of similar incidents where Christian theologians simply did not want to see (let alone today’s Christian liberals) the dark side of their Holy Book, the Book they share with the Jews: the OT.

      • I think you will be very interested in the Cary & Scullard chapters I will send you as they cover your point re. miscegenation.

        Re. the “Old Roman Republic”, why do you confuse that with the pagan Roman Empire under the Caesar’s? Both periods were pagan yet you hold out the empire of Byzantium “central culprits of centuries of miscegenation” when miscegenation had long before set in in the West, along with the drop in fertility?

        The drop in fertility was so dire that Augustus specifically legislated to rectify the problem.

        Furthermore, why do you blame miscegenation for the racial decline of the Old Republic when you could equally assign the problem to that of ongoing wars resulting in Rome’s finest being killed at early age thus leading to a dearth of Romans of the founding stock?

        You seem hell bent on brushing aside any fault within the Roman system itself and assigning all modern faults to that of Christianity.

        Getting back to Julian’s, and apparently Vidal’s, love of paganism so much so that the former approved of the Jews, over and above his own people, and the latter glories in Julian the Pagan, where specifically have you addressed this matter on this blog?

        I would have thought such a problem, given that you are a proponent of the White race as opposed to simply a hater of Christianity, would be something you would go to great lengths to address. Have you done so?

      • Re. the “Old Roman Republic”, why do you confuse that with the pagan Roman Empire under the Caesar’s?

        Not confusing anything. The mess started with Julius Caesar and his empire.

        Furthermore, why do you blame miscegenation for the racial decline of the Old Republic

        I don’t blame the Old Republic but the empire.

        You seem hell bent on brushing aside any fault within the Roman system itself and assigning all modern faults to that of Christianity.

        Nope. This is my favorite quote from Greg: “In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives”—what I call the One Ring—“are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible.” In other words, I blame more the Ring than my former religion.

        Getting back to Julian’s, and apparently Vidal’s…

        Had he succeeded in rebuilding the Temple it would have enormously helped whites because these parasites would have returned to their place instead of staying with us.

  3. Would the Spartans have viewed David as a monster, or as a powerful leader to be admired?

    • It all depends. We lack visuals of what really happened. If Spartans could see that David’s victims were descendants of the Greeks, they would have hated them. I mean: if machines to see the past were invented and today’s Christians could see that the Philistines were white and David’s soldiers not, they would be shocked into reality. Most of the Christian art (Bosch, an exception), that I love by the way—:

      https://chechar.wordpress.com/category/christian-art/

      —depicts Jews, including Israel’s kings, as handsome whites. This is IMHO the main problem with history. Without visuals you cannot see what was really happening.

      • I’m a bit confused then; are you opposed to the ancient Israelites because you believe they were brutal towards whites, or because they were brutal in general? That is, if they had slaughtered only non-whites, you wouldn’t have a problem?

      • Exactly. That wouldn’t be my business. Amalekites, Edomites Moabites, Ammonites et al were Semites, right? I am not concerned with Semites butchering Semites outside Europe or in the Middle East. I am concerned, in a nutshell, with what Giselher Wirsing was capable to see (see my below P.S. to Stubbs).

      • So the brutality of the OT itself does not offend you, as it does Deschner; you are concerned about the OT because the Israelites attacked tribes who may or may not have been white by today’s standards (that is, even if the Philistines ultimately had a Greek origin, they had surely mixed with local Semitic people). That seems like a rather tenuous reason to dislike the OT.

        Antichrist right-wingers often simultaneously criticize Christianity for:
        1) the Gospel being too soft, thereby enabling liberalism
        2) the OT being too harsh, thereby enabling cruel Christian persecution of heretics.

        It seems inconsistent to criticize Christianity for being both too harsh and too soft.

        If your view truly is that there is nothing wrong with the brutality of the OT per se, but the Gospel is too soft, then you would have a more consistent position.

        I’m not sure your true meaning came out in quoting Deschner, given that his intent clearly is to present OT brutality in itself as evil.

      • Well Christians have the same double standard; NT towards Jews and Muslims, OT towards Pagans and Atheists.

      • My issues about the NT are explained elsewhere. As to the OT, I use Deschner in ways that he would certainly abhor. For instance, I will skip his next chapter in my collection of his quotes because it’s about—the horror!—anti-Semitism coming from ancient Christians. But his huge work contains gems that could be useful for my POV (as the above fabrication in the name of Luther).

        Since you seem to be a Christian and since in the New Testament the word “Babylon” is used as the reign of evil, perhaps you might want to see the post I added a few minutes ago:

        https://chechar.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/the-new-babylon/

        In his book Sunic explains beautifully why a particular form of Christianity is behind the current madness.

      • I have not read Sunic’s book, but I’ve listened to his radio show and read some of his articles. I’ve never found him to be particularly insightful.

        In general I am opposed to the entire “Yankee problem” theory, or any theory that suggests that without the Jews we still would have ended up with a system of racial egalitarianism. I deal with the topic here: link

        In America, discussions on racial differences were not “quickly neturalized” after the Declaration of Independence. Frank discussions on racial differences were the norm up until the 1940s, when Jews completely took over American society.

        Sunic is also incorrect in thinking that from the beginning Americanism meant an ignorance of one’s racial roots. From the Revolutionary War up through the early 20th century, an understanding of Anglo-Saxon and Aryan roots was at the center of American ideology. Americans always thought of themselves as a white pioneer nation up until the mid-20th century when the Jews took over:
        http://www.truesonsofabraham.com/aryans-follow-the-sun.htm
        http://www.truesonsofabraham.com/frontier.htm
        http://www.truesonsofabraham.com/pioneer-mother.htm

      • Thanks for the links.

        Since you are relatively new in discussing here I’d like to point out to this article of mine—:

        https://chechar.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/with-and-without-jews-the-same-old-story/

        —where you will see why those who, like me, were born here down the South cannot accept that Jews are the main cause of our woes; there are other factors (I also talk a bit about my Catholic background).

        Presently I believe that the factors, according to their destructive influence, are:

        1) The One Ring
        2) The Christian Problem
        3) The Jewish Problem

      • Like any parasite they wait for an opportunity and then sink their teeth in. Just because it was our carelessness or nativity that let them start in the first place doesn’t mean they are free from blame or deserve what they got. Must be some weird(and irrational) honor code these philo-semites have. It’s not like a game of tag where you get tagged and go “Oh, you got me.”

        From the comments section of your first link, worth repeating.

      • Yes: I was perfectly conscious that if someone actually read that article originally published in Kevin’s webzine he could point out that the author focuses (unlike me) in the JP. However, my purpose of linking to such a lyric piece was basically to explain beautifully the metaphor of the “One Ring”.

        Sunic and Michael O’Meara maintain that capitalism is a major factor of our decline. While both agree with WNsts on the JP, they consider the tribe a secondary or third infection, after the “ring” and Christianity.

      • That was actually from Clement’s article on the Stormer.

        It’s a good distinction between honest people who don’t consider the Jews their primary concern and apologists for the Jews looking to bail them out. I’d put you in the first category, of course.

      • Oops. I thought you had exctracted it from Michael Colhaze’s article (which I have not read for a while).

  4. Simple: as Sunic pointed out, the traitorous way that Americans behaved in WW2 is the direct result of their superstitious views about the tribe: and the root of this is their Old Testament, Calvinist form of Christianity that conquered the American north.

    So it’s less about the caustic effects of the passages and more about how acceptance of the passages displays the privileges Christians give to the Jews? Obviously if some Viking warlord claimed he was favored by Odin because he chopped so many people into pieces the Christians would have a fit. When the Jews do it there must be “more to the story”, like when a crazy nigger microwaves his own baby or whatever.

    Again, I have no way to watch a parallel, quantum world. But hadn’t the Aryans been conquered by a Semitic faith my guess is that whites would have been far more conscious of the Jew as the radical Other. You cannot be a thoroughgoing anti-Semite—e.g., like Titus—if you share the same god of the Jews—like today’s Americans.

    Aren’t the Muslims? Well I suppose they’re just anti-Jewish.

    But sharing the same god as the Christians certainly hasn’t deadened the Jews’ hate for us in any case. I think the problem isn’t so much that we “share” a god (each version damns the other) but rather that we allows Jews to control the text. The Koran is extensive, and was written by Arabs, which doesn’t leave the Jews with much wriggle-room. The Bible is a bunch of scripture taken straight from the Jews with some vague “gospels” and early-church commentary written on top. The Christian parts are utterly dwarfed by the Jewish parts, and then Christians go ask the Jews to help them translate it!

    Let’s put it this way. Do you think that the Council of the German Evangelical Church would have published a fraudulent Bible hadn’t they felt something sacred about Israel’s kings, David in particular? Today’s blindness about the JQ is related to hundreds of similar incidents where Christian theologians simply did not want to see (let alone today’s Christian liberals) the dark side of their Holy Book, the Book they share with the Jews: the OT.

    The Gnostics did, though they were a heretical sect of course. The Cathars especially became one of Rosenberg’s big interests, and were part of the model for “Positive Christianity”. Serrano also used them as a starting point, though he pulled theories from all across the board. Basically their stance is that “Yahweh” is evil and that the true God is like Brahman. Sort of an anti-freemasonry.

    I feel like the concept has potential, though Serrano simply isn’t going to be accessible to most people and just dredging up medieval forms of Gnosticism wouldn’t be enough.

    • Better than Gnosticism would have been simply not to miscegenate since the times of Julius Caesar—insofar as it was precisely the destruction of the original stock what moved the new breed of citizens to look elsewhere for models for inspiration. No mongrelization, no need to look after Semitic cults. The culprit of course was the Ring: the curse of the white race.

      • P.S.

        “In degenerated Puritanism lies, side by side with Judaism, America’s inborn danger.”

        This quote by Giselher Wirsing, who had close ties with officials in the Third Reich, is a perfect epitome of what I’m trying to say.

      • The culprit of course was the Ring: the curse of the white race.

        I just want to be clear hear. I’ve scanned your essays on the Ring but when you use that term do you in essence mean economic liberalism; i.e. the quest for cheaper labor and lower cost goods? And that the system that makes that possible is capitalism whether in its ancient form or post-industrial version? And that capitalism ultimately leads to mixed race societies as such is the outcome of the quest for cheap labor?

        Just trying to put this all together.

      • To have a superficial idea of what I mean by that metaphor just read Michael Colhaze’s nice article linked in the above words: “1) The One Ring”. If you want to delve deeper into it click on the two book excerpts below the phrase “Fascinating histories of the white race” at the sidebar—where Pierce and Kemp prove (to my satisfaction) that since the civilizations of the Ancient World to date, whites have been losing because they don’t follow the golden rule: total separation from non-whites. Instead, they fall in temptation of trying to use them as “capital”: whether slaves, servants, second-class citizens, or wet-backs in the US.

        The moral of both books is that browns always overwhelm the white majority after some centuries.

  5. Although Islam is ethnocentric towards Arab men, it allows converts. Even Judaism has a salvation plan for non-Jews: Noahide Laws. An Eurocentric religion should have provisions for outsiders as well.

    • Reincarnation?

  6. “The moral of both books is that browns always overwhelm the white majority after some centuries.”

    What if you castrate your slaves, like Muslims did?

    • You would have to sterilize women too, and in case of the ethnostate that would be only one-generation slavery (Muslims mongrelized with blacks precisely because of this problem). As I said, the moral of those books is that you just cannot use Untermenchen as capital: that’s falling into the spell of the Ring. They are not capital, but biological beings with the potentiality of reproduction with you.

      Do you know who are the only Aryans in Mexico who have remained pure for generations? The Mennonites: precisely the only group of whites that have no servants under any circumstance but do the hard work themselves.

      I happen to be this morning in a family mansion and just opened the door of the (brown) maid that works here (they also have chauffer and other brown maids will be coming this week). These relatively rich people do exactly the opposite of what the Mexican Mennonites do.

      You see my point?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: