Myles Poland Responds To Thomas Dalton

On May 22^nd of this year, Thomas Dalton published an article on Occidental Observer and National Vanguard titled “Jesus the Jew.” The article is a screed of blithering idiocy so utterly unconversant with both mainstream ancient near-eastern history, and simple logic that it ought to invalidate everything else Dr. Dalton the Dipshit has ever written. Credibility, integrity, and shame, however, are not a traits terribly common among people who give the enemies of White America in the university system enough money to get a PhD, and so I expect this gentle correction to go completely unremarked upon.

Before getting into the meat of the article, I’d like to touch on where I found this article published. The article was first linked to me from the Occidental Observer, which, until recently, platformed “Grindr Greg” Johnson. Johnson is a notorious gay sex pest and swindler that haunts dissident right politics like a wet fart on taco Tuesday. I can only imagine the types who take the Occidental Observer seriously are the same types who think nebbish closet cases like Mark Brahmin and Bronze Age Pervert are worth listening to.

The other was National Vanguard, the legacy site of one William Luther Pierce, author of The Turner Diaries. He also founded the National Alliance, an organization that could be considered the first true White Nationalist organization. For those unaware, Pierce was a fed. If the very long history of very shady behavior had been pinned to anyone else, the verdict would be unanimous, but somehow Pierce escapes unscathed while arrests are made in his wake wherever he goes.

Pierce, a notorious anti-christian, also tried to start a cult called “cosmotheism.” Their beliefs are utterly bonkers and the whole affair serves only as an excuse to remove money from the pockets of racially aware White men who recognize there’s more to life than mere materialism. I’ll do a deep dive on their beliefs in another article. Suffice to say, it’s about on par with Brahmin’s “Apollinarianism” in terms of worthwhile pursuits.

It seems perfectly fair to me to point these associations out considering anti-christians like Dalton never tire of pointing that our Savior, Jesus Christ, tangentially shared an earthly ethnicity with the likes of Ben Bernanke and Harvey Weinstein. If you’re going to play games of guilt by association, then make sure your associates aren’t gay feds.

The article starts with the title “Jesus the Jew,” as if to state some sort of controversy. I’m not aware of any serious person who denies that Jesus of Nazareth was Jewish, but apparently Dalton expects that it might come as a shock to some of his readers. This is followed by a rough demographic breakdown of believing Christians. Yes, Christianity is for everyone, including Armenians and Hatians.

The old nugget of “so many denominations” rears its ugly head, as if it proves anything. If Dalton had bothered to read into the doctrine of any of the Christian denominations, he’d find that the common denominator is the Nicene Creed, and that vanishingly few Christian denominations these days condemn other Christians to hell for heterodoxy.

Here we come to the first instance of abject historical illiteracy. Dalton says “But presumably they all must share at least a few core beliefs, simply in order to call themselves Christian.  We can guess what these might be: […] Likely there are others—the Bible (or at least part of it) is the word of God, the Gospels (whichever ones we include) record Jesus’ life and teachings, and so on”

Which Gospels besides the canonical Gospels could he be talking about? Well, he doesn’t say. He simply implies that there’s a competing textual tradition that invalidates the Bible as it’s been handed down to us from antiquity, and that’s that. More knowledgeable unbelievers will sometimes try to throw up the “gospels” of Peter, Judas, and Timothy, but all of those are unanimously understood to be forgeries from centuries after Jesus had His earthly ministry. Being conversant with Biblical textual criticism certainly helps to keep you from looking like a complete retard.

He concludes his paragraph with “Here I will focus on “the Man”: Jesus of Nazareth (or is it Jesus of Bethlehem?  Those darn Gospel writers can’t seem to keep their story straight.” The Bible is quite clear, Tommy. Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Matt 2:1) but grew up in Nazareth (Matthew 21:11), His family’s hometown. How is this hard to understand?

Dalton’s next paragraph starts with a statement that should undermine every other statement he’s ever made. It’s that breathtakingly stupid.

“First, I should note that there is a high likelihood that no such man ever existed.”

The existence of Jesus of Nazareth is doubted by practically nobody in the field of ancient history. If you don’t believe me, name six historians who specialize in the ancient near-east who think Jesus wasn’t a real person. I’ll wait. In fact, I’ll make your job easier and give you Richard Carrier. Congratulations, you’re now in good company with a literal cuckold that can’t read, and that nobody takes seriously. The so-called “minimal facts” case for Jesus is so compelling, even hardcore atheists in the field of Biblical history affirm every point, even the point that Jesus’s closest followers believed they saw Him resurrected from the dead. I’ll repeat that because I know Dr. Dumbass here has trouble reading: Atheists in the field of Biblical history believe that the followers of Jesus believe that they saw Him risen from the dead. The facts about the historical Jesus are that rock solid.

Dalton continues with a wild misunderstanding of how history is done, saying “We can say this with confidence because there is no—literally, zero—contemporaneous evidence for his existence, either as a miracle-working Son of God, or even as a rather ordinary rabbi.” Needless to say, this is completely wrong. We have the Gospel of Matthew, written by the Apostle Matthew, a follower of Christ during His earthly ministry. The Gospel of Mark was dictated by Peter, another follower of Christ while He walked the earth. The Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle (same case as previous), and the Gospel of Luke, along with the Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke the Physician, who interviewed and cited eyewitnesses to Jesus’s life and preaching. On top of that, we have the letters of James and Jude, two more Apostles. If this were a court case, the Biblical case for Jesus wins hands down. What more do you want?

“B-but none of that was written while Jesus was still alive!” I hear Dalton complain. Yeah, no duh. History is written after the events in question, dumbass. Should they have been written beforehand? Dr. Dipshit seems to think so!

I mentioned before this objection betrays a woeful misunderstanding of not only history in general but of ancient history in particular. They didn’t have iPads 2,000 years ago. Things took time, effort, and lots of money to properly record. The fact that the entire New Testament was completed within thirty-five years of Jesus’s Resurrection speaks volumes about the reliability of the text. If Dalton wanted to be consistent, he’d have to reject Pliny the Younger’s eyewitnesses testimony about the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. After all, to quote Dalton “there is no—literally, zero—contemporaneous evidence” for the disaster at Pompeii. Pliny’s letters are generally understood to have been written decades after the fact, in the very early second century.

He continues, saying “If Jesus was anything close to the miracle-worker that the Bible describes, there would be a mountain of testifying evidence: documents, carvings, engravings, letters, etc.  And these would exist from his followers, his skeptics, his critics, and the Romans who ruled the region.  There would be a vast and well-documented account of a man who walked on water, raised the dead, healed with a touch, calmed storms, and fed thousands with “five loaves of bread and two fish.”  These testimonies would all date to the time of his alleged ministry, roughly, 27 to 30 AD. And yet, from that time period, we have… nothing.”

We have the Gospels, which are based on eyewitness testimony. Why don’t they count? Dim Tom can’t tell you. He simply hates Jesus. It should be mentioned as well that this is an argument from silence, which is a logical fallacy. Tom can’t even bother to make a valid argument, let alone a sound one.

Dalton tries to build his case by insisting “According to conventional dating, the earliest reference of any kind is in the letters of Paul.” This is technically true, though the earliest references to Jesus come in the formulation of Christian doctrine from 1 Cor 15:3-8: “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that He appeared to Cephasa and then to the Twelve. 6After that, He appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7Then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8And last of all He appeared to me also, as to one of untimely birth.” It’s widely agreed by New Testament historians that this formulation of doctrine was established by 35 AD, and bears all the hallmarks of easy-to-memorize rabbinic teaching common to the time and place in which Jesus preached.

We can ask again why eyewitness testimony doesn’t count, but the answer is simple: no stick is too covered in shit for anti-christians like Dalton to pick up and try to swing around.

Dalton then makes several spurious claims, saying “The rest of Paul’s letters, intermixed with a few fraudulent ones attributed to him, appear between 50 and 70 AD, by which time (a) Paul had died, and (b) the Jews were defeated in Jerusalem by the Romans, and their temple destroyed.” I’m not aware of any “fraudulent letters attributed to Paul” making it into the Bible. Which letters, Tom? You should be noticing, dear reader, that Tom is awfully light on details. He expects you to just agree with him rather than recognizing that he’s an idiot talking out of his ass. It’s rather interesting that Tom affirms the existence of Paul of Tarsus while denying even the very existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Again, why the double standard?

Dalton makes even more spurious claims: “The gospel writers are formally anonymous; we know nothing about who they are, their motives, or the circumstances.  The names attached (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) mean nothing; it would be like saying “Bob’s Novel” or “Joe’s Cookbook.”  But based on textual evidence, scholars can roughly date the Gospel of Mark to around the year 70; Matthew and Luke to 85; and John to 95.  We can only imagine how much veracity they contain, given that they claim to quote Jesus precisely and cite details of his life, 40, 50, or 60 or more years after his death.  The obvious answer is: not much!”

Contrary to his assertions, every book of the New Testament can be reliably dated to before 70 AD. The crucial event that is rock solid in the historical record is the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Yet despite the center of Jewish life being razed to the ground, fulfilling Jesus’s prophecy in Luke 21:5-6, this event goes completely unmentioned by any New Testament writer. John, in his Revelation, the latest book of the New Testament, writes as if the Temple is still standing. No historical detail contained within the Gospels has ever been contradicted by historical research, mind you. So if Luke had simply made up a prophecy, why wouldn’t he have mentioned that the prophecy came true, especially if he was writing fifteen years after the Temple’s destruction!? The most obvious answer is that it hadn’t happened when Luke was writing his Gospel. Duh.

The authorship of the Gospels isn’t really contested by anyone, though “Mark” should be recognized as Peter’s work, given that Mark was Peter’s scribe. No serious historian posits an alternative tradition of authorship. Call me crazy, but “nuh uh!” doesn’t strike me as a particularly compelling alternative.

Dalton continues his screed, claiming Paul and a cabal of unnamed Jewish co-conspirators hatched a plan to promulgate the cult of Jesus specifically to undermine the Roman Empire. I’ve dealt with this ridiculous claim repeatedly on my podcast. It’s an idea that no serious person, let alone historian, entertains. The last person to even seriously posit that Christianity played any role in the collapse of the Roman Empire was Edward Gibbon, and he died 300 years ago.

One struggles to find Dalton’s claimed “anti-roman sentiment” anywhere in the New Testament. Dalton claims that verses exhorting Christians to obey worldly authorities are “far outnumbered, numerically and in theological importance, by rebellious and anti-Roman passages.” He doesn’t name a single one. The fact of the matter is that you have to get to a point in history where the Roman government is actively persecuting Christians well into the second century to see them start taking swipes at Rome. Keep in mind that Paul wrote “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” (Romans 13:1) while Nero was Emperor.

Dalton continues “But to the point:  Although there is no direct evidence for either a miracle-Jesus or a rabbi-Jesus, I suspect that some such man by that description did live, and die, in Judea.  And the reason is simply this: Since Paul and friends claimed something as true—a miracle-Jesus—that certainly did not exist, and that they knew did not exist, they were liars.” As discussed above, there’s ample evidence for even the most outlandish miracles by our Lord Jesus. But that doesn’t answer the question as to why Paul and his nameless co-conspirators would make up a rabbinical figure to undermine Rome, then proceed to get himself and a good chunk of his followers brutally executed. How does that make any sense?

Really, let’s think about this for a minute. The notion that Christianity is some anti-Roman plot only makes sense in hindsight, if you’re historically illiterate, and really, really hate Jesus. Josephus records two separate occasions on which the jews met the Roman legions in pitched battle. An event like that would be like your local Rotary Club challenging the soldiers at Ft. Benning to a fight. The method of jewish rebellion against Roman occupation was violence. The jewish conception of Messiah before Jesus came on the scene was as a military commander who would destroy the jews’ oppressors in battle. Why would a rabbi who preached submission to earthly authority but also to actively pray for those who were persecuting the jews be an effective tool for undermining Rome? Who would buy that? Unless, of course, Jesus really did perform the miracles He is said to have performed, preached the coming of the Kingdom of God as He preached, died on a cross for your sins, and was raised again by God in defiance of death. The “Jesus Conspiracy” raises far more questions than it answers, and doesn’t even pass the smell test. But Dim Tom is definitely huffing something to think this is a convincing argument.

Dr. Dipshit essentially repeats himself in the next few paragraphs establishing that Jesus was a jew. Again, no serious person denies this. There’s a rabidly dishonest sleight of hand going on here where Dalton conflates ethnic jewishness, worship of Yahweh God, and phariseeism. Modern Judaism bears no resemblance to Yahweh worship in the Bible. The rites that God demands be done at the temple simply can’t be done because the Temple was destroyed, and all attempts to build a third Temple were halted by God Himself. The jews who rejected the coming of the Messiah recognized their predicament and turned instead to a schizophrenic reading of the Mosaic law, wherein jews try to skirt commands from God, going so far as to alter holy scripture in the Masoretic text. The seeds of what can properly be called “talmudism” can be seen in the Pharisees of Jesus’s day. In fact, the Beatitudes are a direct swipe at the Pharisees who practiced this early talmudry and pilpul. The Pharisees would have you quibble with the law and obsess over minutae, while Jesus doubles down on the spirit of the commands God gives us. He exhorts us to walk two miles with someone when only one is required, and give our cloak when someone demands our shirt.

So what does that make Christianity? Christianity is the culmination of God’s plan to bring all people into faith in Him. If you’re familiar with Genesis, you’ll remember that God is not only the god of the Jews, but the God that created the entire universe, and was the God of all peoples, and always was, before we abandoned Him at Babel and were scattered. Christ is the New Covenant that renders the Phariseeism – judaism – irrelevant.

Dalton gives the game away by admitting “given that the Jerusalem Talmud was not written until the 300s (in Galilee!) and the Babylonian Talmud not until the year 500.” As explained above, what we understand to be judaism today bears no resemblance to Biblical Yahwehism any more than black Africans bear any resemblance to the great dynasties of ancient Egypt. Ashkenazim are simply trying to call dibs on something that isn’t theirs, and never was.

Dr. Dipshit torpedoes his entire case by inadvertently laying out the truth of the matter: “that the teachings of the Old Testament represent “true” religion and that the Hebrews deviated from this true path, degenerating into a rabbinical and ultimately Talmudic Judaism.  But Jesus, they say, adhered to the true, original teachings, to the Law and the prophets—later to be called “Christianity”—thus putting him into conflict with the fallen and erroneous Jews.”

He tries to step around what he just said by saying “Furthermore, it overlooks the fact that the Talmud, and later documents like the Shulchan Aruch, are elaborations on Old Testament teachings, not deviations from it.” Wait, wait, Tom, hold on a minute! I thought Jews like that no-good Paul were all liars, but now you want me to believe jews when they say that they’re writing honest commentary about the Old Testament? Which is it, buddy? Did you even read what you wrote before posting?

Next thing I know you’ll be quoting Moses Maimonides from the 1100’s AD insisting that Christianity was a jewish trick all along. So if you believe today’s talmudic jews when they say “trust me goy, we’ve got it right,” on what grounds do you deny the Jew John is telling the truth when he says “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son that those who believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life”?

And which version of the Old Testament are these jews you trust so much using, dumbass? They’re using the Masoretic text. As mentioned above, the Masoretic text has an untraceable textual tradition, and has been deliberately altered in places to remove obvious references to the coming of Jesus. Perfectly in keeping with a people who flatly deny biblical doctrines like a multi-personal God after Jesus proclaimed that He and the Father “Are One.” (John 10:30). For more on that, check out “Two Powers in Heaven,” by Alan Segal. He’s a rabbi, so Dalton the dipshit shouldn’t have any objections to believing the case Segal makes.

But let’s be honest, this has nothing to do with textual or religious criticism, or history, or anything like that. Dr. Dipshit just hates Christianity and will use literally any stick to try to hit Christians with, even if the stick comes from a jew he says he’s fighting against. His enemy isn’t the jews, his true enemy is Jesus.

Dipshit concludes with an invitation to join his gay little cult. What’s the matter, doc, too good for a Patreon or an OnlyFans?

Apparently this guy is held in some regard among the dissident right. I honestly cannot fathom why. You’d think by now, anti-christians wouldn’t be given the time of day with how often they embarrass themselves, start shaking down their fans, or wind up being sexual deviants. Usually all of the above. You’d also think that the work of actual academics like Gary Habermas would have percolated through our ranks so our guys can stop saying dumb shit like this idiot.

The comment section on this article is somehow even worse than the main attraction. Dalton’s readers seem fascinated by David Skrbina, a man who is somehow less credible than Richard Carrier. My co-host and I brutalized him recently on our show. Needless to say, we weren’t particularly impressed by Skrbina’s arguments.

Naturally, that comment section is heavily moderated, so any criticism of Dr. Dipshit will never see the light of day, especially not if he has anything to say about it.

I’ll say it again to make my point crystal clear: anti-christians don’t hate Jews. Anti-christians are actually quite fond of jews, actively admiring and envying their grasp on the reins of power, and gleefully cite jewish sources when going up against their real enemy: Christians. They don’t hate jews. They hate Christians, and they hate Jesus.

Anti-Christians like Dalton here prove themselves to be nothing but acrimonious liabilities with each and every stroke of the key without even having the decency to do five minutes of research on the topics they bloviate about. No righteous movement can succeed without God at the helm. And I think it’s time we threw retards like “Doctor” Dalton overboard.