The Aryan Christ

1. White Christianity

The White Spirit has had many incarnations and Avatars since it came to earth from Thule about 40,000 years ago. But can it be possible that one of them was a Jewish Messiah, Jesus of Galilee? On the face of it the answer would be no, for between Thule and Zion is fixed an unbreachable gulf. There are further depths, however, since countless thousands of racially aware white people are Christian, and almost all of them would assert that their Lord is not Jewish at all, and in fact is the antithesis and adversary of the Jewish Spirit.

A sizable minority of those who hold this belief are members of a sect called Christian Identity, which claims that the Old Testament Hebrews were not Semites but Aryans, and that therefore white Christians and not Jews are the true Chosen People. This far-fetched theology is usually supported by a lot of academically unsound anthropology, but I think the real root is in the deep imprint of the Bible on the collective unconscious of Christians, causing them to identify with the protagonists of the Hebrew epic. I feel that the conclusive refutation lies in David Duke’s impeccably documented critique of Old Testament Jewish history, particularly the story of Joseph (My Awakening, chapter 21). It demonstrates vividly that the collective character traits of the Hebrews even at that early stage were very familiar: manipulating the economy of their host country to reap enormous profits from the misery of the masses, and using this financial leverage to gain political power and control.

What, then, are we to make of the belief shared by the majority of racial Christians who affirm that their Savior is as white as they, without any rationalizations about Aryan Hebrews? We can inform an answer with a bit more history, going back a hundred years to the fertile mind of James Morgan Pryse, an Englishman who wrote an 800-page volume in prose and poetry titled The Restored New Testament. In it he proved (at least to his own satisfaction and that of many readers) that the Jewish framework of the Gospels and the New Testament as a whole is a total fraud; that in fact the work was completely a product of the Greek spiritual intellect. The foundations of his thesis are not historical per se, but rather cultural, literary, spiritual, and esoteric. His is the God’s-eye view which looks down upon the artifact and decisively recognizes its origin in the collective soul of a certain people. He says that the New Testament in all its profundity and gnosis could not possibly have been conceived by the Jewish mentality ~ why, it’s absurd, outrageous, a fraud!

There’s much in The Restored New Testament that’s of great value in itself, treating it as an original visionary opus. So the work is not invalidated by the fact that the weight of mainstream scholarship shows that the three synoptic Gospels were clearly not Greek in origin. However, the Gospel of John certainly was ~ or Ioannes, as Pryse calls him. It’s filled with enlightened Greek philosophy from “In the beginning was the Logos” (John 1:1) to “Tarry till I come” (John 21:22). It’s also filled with criticisms and condemnations of “the Jews”, some from the mouth of Jesus himself, so vehement that a critical first-time reader might wonder how the Jewish holy man of the other Gospels suddenly became “anti-Semitic”! The obvious explanation is that Ioannes the Greek Evangelist took the cogent elements of the story of Jesus and transmuted it into a grander mythos which burst out of the confines of the Jewish Zeitgeist, and even opposed it.

Some white Christians believe that the Church in its earliest stage was in rebellion against the Jewish establishment (e.g. the Pharisees, criticized so often by Jesus in all the Gospels), and that this was subverted by Saul, a member of the Sanhedrin (inner council of Judaism) after he experienced a vision of Christ and was converted, changing his name to Paul. This belief, however, is historically inaccurate, and in fact the exact opposite is true. Acts of the Apostles makes clear that the big dispute in the early Church was between the conflicting positions of Paul and James the biological brother of Jesus. James championed the status quo which was strictly kosher: rigid adherence to the Mosaic law, adamant Jewish identity, and no Gentiles allowed. If James had carried the day, there would never have been a Christian Church at all, just another peculiar Jewish sect. The victory of Paul opened the way for the Gospel of John/Ioannes, and this was the beginning of the separation of Christianity from Judaism, as thousands of spiritually starved Gentiles from all over the Roman Empire embraced Christ as their Savior.

In the next two centuries the doctrine of Ioannes kindled a desire among many Christians to break the tie with Judaism completely. The canon of sacred scripture was still fluid, and a movement arose to exclude from it the entire Old Testament ~ i.e. the Jewish Bible. The proposition was put to a vote at the Council of Rome in 382 AD, and was defeated by a narrow margin. Had it gone the other way, just imagine how different the history of white Christian Europe would have been!

Back in the first century, the Ioannine Gospel also crystallized the concept that the Jews were the killers of Christ. This was later formalized into a dogma that prevailed throughout the Middle Ages and was not revoked by the Church until 1965, when the Pope formally absolved Jews of collective guilt for the Crucifixion.

2. Spectre vs. Spirit

Above image: The Sacrament of the Last Supper (detail) by Salvador Dali

Note: The feature image for this post (which appears in links) is a detail from a picture of which the complete version can be found here: The Family of the Ram