>>16068720During the early Roman Empire Jesus' name was never mentioned anywhere in the works of Roman historians, except for the fact that Roman society - up until the beginning of the second century AD - considered Jews (Judeai) and Christians (Chrestianos) as one and the same sect. Therefore, the expression “Judeo-Christian” is by no means an oxymoron, nor a deliberate verbal corruption of a single religious denomination.
— In his latest book containing over one thousand pages, Alain de Benoist writes:
>“In fact, Jesus never polemicized against Judaism, but rather within it. He never wanted to create a new religion, nor to establish a “Church”. At most, he wanted to reform from within the Judean religion, this being his only objective. In other words, at its very beginning Judeo-Christianity was not a form of Christianity, but rather a form of Judaism. This is the reason why, rather than speaking of Judeo-Christianity, it would be far better to speak of Christian Judaism.” — However awful this may ring in the ears of devout modern Christian anticommunists and many White Nationalists, Christ may qualify as an early paleo-Bolshevik of Antiquity, and his apostles dubbed as early crypto-commissars. After all, the underlying and allegedly pacifying dogma has remained the same despite the usage of different signifiers, respectively: multi-racialism, multiculturalism and ecumenism, i.e. communism and globalism.
— The uncomfortable truth is, next to modern day Antifa rabble-rousers and various Jewish agencies, the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) along with the German Christian Bischofskonferenz (DBK) have been, and continue to be, the most vocal spokesmen for non-White migrations into the West - known today under the name of The Great Replacement.
