On Arch Stanton

John leaning on Jesus’ shoulder

Commenter Arch Stanton has stated more than once that he admires Jesus and Hitler. Recently he even used the word ‘love’ while referring to Jesus:

So what’s not to love and respect about a man that successfully brought Jewish power to its knees through an act of selfless dedication to one’s people. Cannot the same be said of Adolf Hitler?

In the same comment he also said about an anti-Christian commenter of this site:

Why do I get the distinct impression I am addressing one of the latest generation of Jewish troll-bots here?

When the commenter responded, Arch added:

What kind of logic is this if not Jewish logic? This is why I suspect Jewish troll-bots for some of the responses I see.

In the last months I’ve tried to communicate elemental realities to Arch; for example, that long ago I stopped reading his long posts (today he sent me a long email that I barely read), or that we don’t take the New Testament as a reliable source of historical information. But he continues posting long comments (that I don’t read) as if his preaching about Jesus will, finally, reach my ears.
This is the opinion of an anonymous visitor of this site:

I don’t read Arch Stanton’s comments at other WN sites, only yours, and while he puts quite a bit of effort into his long comments I am fed up of them because they are nearly always about Jesus, unhistorical nonsense. He is totally in thrall to the Jesus cult like so many Whites are. To be honest, when I see his name I mostly skip his comments. It’s ridiculous to call Jack Halliday a Jew…
Arch Stanton is definitely, like you say, one of the very typical WN who can’t see (or doesn’t want to see) that Christianity is as problematic as the Jews, if not more so.

And in another communication:

I have a hunch that Arch Stanton’s long comments justifying his Christianity whenever Christianity is the topic possibly betray a subconscious sense that he knows the Jesus figure is crap but just can’t bring himself to give it up. Possibly. I could be wrong though but it is like he is giving a long explanation as to why he believes in Christianity all the time to justify himself before a crowd of stern anti-Christians.

Arch:
You have been pushing a persistent kerygma in the comments section of this site for a long time now. I have told you many times that the fact that Jehovah Witnesses knock my door, leaving brochures at my home, won’t change my mind. Your behaviour in this site reminds me the behaviour of our ol’ friend Matthew Crawford, the advocate of Christian Identity who, with amusing persistence, tried to sell us his theology even after, repeatedly, we asked him to stop.
I’ll paraphrase my words addressed to you last month: Jesus of Nazareth is, like King Arthur, a semi-legendary figure. If you can provide non-biblical evidence that the Jesus of your novel is historical, you are welcome to continue to discuss with us (keyword: non-biblical). Otherwise, please stop. We don’t believe in the stories of the New Testament.
I must tell you now what I told Crawford many times: there are plenty of white nationalist sites administered by Jesus lovers who, I am sure, will be delighted with your insights.

15 Replies on “On Arch Stanton

  1. Actually, there might be a point, but only if you suppose that Jews are afraid of monotheistic Aryans. Monotheism has been a chauvinistic religion of Jews that helped them survive over the millennia of losses. The caveat is that Jesus is the antithesis of a Führer.
    The entire essence of Christianity is that Aryans have internalized the anti-racist perversion of Judaism.
    But then again, the very historical fact that Goths and Franks took a Semitic worldview has to be seen as a symptom of either a defective race, or a very immature one. Remember, Arminius was murdered by his own countrymen…

  2. c.t., thx for your consistent harping on your view of the jesus story. we readers need to hear — and tell ourselves — constantly that the xtian beliefs and the other abrahamic storyboards are utter nonsense. zero historical evidence outside their sacred tomes. early childhood beliefs/ malwares are damned near impossible to uninstall. it’s as if they’re burned into our DNA, as code is burned into flash in embedded processors.
    i’ve come to entertain the idea — why not, though it’s as fanciful as the xtian story since it’s yet to be scientifically proven — that humans could just as likely as not be the invention of a pre-history intelligence, invented as intelligent robots for their benefit. that this pre-history intelligence required human robots was of such import that they made the human ability to reproduce #1 prioirity, fuk the quality of the human entities produced. which is why humans at the lowest orders of intelligence do sex for recreation. i dunno. but certainly whatever pre-history intelligence that we humans are the creative work of could give a fuk about the ability of human intelligence to invent meaningless and destructive shit, just as long as these human robots could function as intelligent slaves. fuk that human intelligence invented the idea of god in their own image, to the extent that this invention worked to kill massive numbers of humans and other species. this crazy never ending morality logos. utter bullshit.
    humans exist first and foremost as literal fuking intelligent slaves. reproducing so prolifically — mimicing all of nature’s reproductive abilities, that there is zero danger of the vast mix of human species going extinct except when planet earth shuts down and goes dark. meanwhile, we use & misuse our intelligence for our own entertainments. one of which is endless philosophizing as to why we exist, since our lovely pre-historic intelligent creators have moved on and/ or choose to remain silent and invisible. and this use & misuse of our intelligence has resulted in never ending bloodshed of humans and animals, and creating god in our images and destroying our own and others’ natural habitants. c’est la vie.
    i’m fuking tired of humans moralizing. as it apparently frequently leads to evil, the 4 words.

    1. zero historical evidence outside their sacred tomes. early childhood beliefs/ malwares are damned near impossible to uninstall.

      Absolutely!

    2. I totally support the ban of Arch Stanton and his boring books, that nobody read, in this Aryan site.

      1. Arch Stanton kinda makes me miss that Crawford fellow! To reiterate: we whites in the current year have no business in meddling in 1st-century Jewish religious politics.
        Arch repeats – uncritically – Abrahamic myths that I have corrected him on. There are NOT 613 laws in the Torah… there are about twice that number if counted consistently/honestly. 613 is a magic number in Qaballa. This 613 business was invented by Maimonides.
        The temple priests that he condemns were very often ethnic romans; puppets of Rome.
        The term ‘Pharisee’ comes from ‘Farsi.’ ‘Farsi’ means ‘Persian.’ The Pharisees picked up a lot of aryan religion… and Christ condemns them for this reason.
        As Charles Giuliani points out: in Jesus’ dispute with the Temple and the Pharisees, Jesus was actually the bad guy.

  3. And I thought that I was the only one who’d ceased to read his comments. It is good to see a post in response to the constant Christ-praise.

  4. He is just a tamer version of Thordaddy (OD commenter). They both admit that the Jesus figure was a Jew and admire him (Thordaddy goes so far as to say he was “the perfect man”), yet lash out at everybody else for being “cryptos” and such slanderous crap for the felony of disagreeing with them. They never see the contradiction in loving a Jewish figure from mythology, and yet claiming to hate the Jewish Race.
    Arch Stanton: I gave you ample opportunity to provide evidence for what you say, namely that Jesus “had nothing to do with what has become Christianity” (along with the other points you made in numbered points in reply to myself), and also that I am the lackey of an unspecified group of Jews. Instead, you resorted to condescending harangue (when you said “One – More – Time”, like I am a fucking idiot) and childish name-calling. You say that Christ was not an egalitarian but a Racist – A Jewish Racist. Why should I worship somebody who hated White people, if what you say is correct? If you gave some source I would respect that and, if I found myself to be wrong, I would admit it. What I will admit is that it is hard for most people to accept their erroneousness, even myself most times.
    @Dr Morales:
    I agree, and I got a good laugh out of that too, thanks.
    @gaedhal:
    I miss that yank too. I think the reason why he got me so angry was his unsettling serenity, even after people repeatedly attacked his ego. He just brushed it off and I found this to be disturbing and, thus, vexing. It is like how the majority of folks feel threatened by quiet people, or people who do not make much eye contact.
    @Highrpm:
    People assume that Nature never makes mistakes, and this is naïve. Nature makes perceivable mistakes all the time. I suppose originally, Humans were “designed” to be apex predators like the Tiger or the Bear, but unfortunately, we became too smart and cunning even for our own “creator”.
    Homo Sapiens – A malfunctioning destroyer.

    1. Homo Sapiens – A malfunctioning destroyer.
      i like it. short/ sweet/ on target.
      similarly, if i can cop another of your sentences, Negroes were “designed” to be apex slaves, at the beck and call of their white masters. like the southern plantation owners so properly recognized and put them to use. but unfortunately, liberal christians became too smart and cunning, intervening in and disrupting the natural course”.
      Blacks — a malfunctioning slave.

      1. That Thordaddy has some serious Aspergers. I see him on Eradica, and I have no clue what he is on about.
        I think that he has invented a method of punctuation all his own… and tries to use this as some sort of “Boolean Algebra” or “Calculus of Logic” so as to try to express whatever points his Apergistic brain is trying to make.
        That Christ is “the perfect man” or “platonic man” is a Catholic doctrine. I read it in a theology manual or essay, once. That is what I love about this blog: it proves that the biblical Jesus was far from it!

    2. ‘Jesus “had nothing to do with what has become Christianity”’ and ‘Christ was not an egalitarian but a Racist – A Jewish Racist’
      If Arch Stanton thinks this then, as you rightly say, he has no business, as an Aryan, loving either the Jesus of history or the Christ of faith. Those two concepts are, as anyone who has made a close study of biblical criticism knows, radically different entities (in the same way that the Adolf Hitler of history differs radically from the ‘evil Hitler’ of what has become an article of faith for the ‘new West’). The Christ of faith is the ‘love pedlar’ who has brought our race to its present parlous state. The Jesus of history, more likely than not, was some sort of Jewish supremacist/freedom fighter/terrorist. Arch Stanton would appear to have worked out the difference between these two versions of the Jesus figure but then, bizarrely, to have decided to hitch his trailer to the former, which is to say the ‘Jesus of history’, i/e. the one who worked for Jewish supremacy.
      The New Testament is of course a work of kerygma/fiction. The Tubingen school, however, identified the ‘tendenz’ factor within its corpus, whereby certain historical facts were so well known that any to attempt by the NT authors to hide them would have immediately exposed them to charges of untruth. That is why there are so many examples of things stated in the NT that are most inconvenient to the core narrative. Chief among them is that the Jesus figure’s own family clearly hated Saul of Tarsus. The Book of Acts makes no attempt to hide this, as to do so would fly in the face of what was presumably common knowledge at the time the gospels were written, which is to say in the early second-century CE. The reason for their animus must surely have been the way in which Saul had ‘hijacked’ their brother/son/cousin and was preaching non-lawful things about him in furtherance of his attempt to synthesise a version of Judaism with which he could ‘weaponise’ gentiles in furtherance of Jewish aims, which is to say the defeating of the hated ‘kittim’ – the Romans in other words. Chief among these ‘unlawful’ things would, of course, have been the egregious notion of drinking his blood (albeit symbolically). The Jewish law maintained an absolute prohibition on touching blood (which accounts for their loathsome system of kosher slaughter). Mwn were not even allowed to share the same bed as their wives when they were menstruating. And along comes Saul of Tarsus, suggesting that converts to his little ruse should DRINK blood!
      At all events, the first sentence that I quote at the beginning of this post is, so it seems, largely true. But that is no reason whatsoever to ‘love Jesus’, because he was just a Jewish terrorist fighting for Jews against Aryans. Loving such a figure is, for any White person, idiotic.

      1. Christopher Hitchens identified Christ’s being born in Nazareth as another tendenz factor.
        I should rather believe that “Nazareth” was founded by Jewess ” Neo Flavian” – i.e. a descendent of Josephus “Flavius” Bar Matthias; who was a Kohen – Saint Helena.
        However let us hear Hitch out:
        Christ was born in Nazareth.
        In John’s Gospel his Christ is a lot less cucked; a lot more Marcionite. He doesn’t care at all about fulfilling Jewish prophecy.
        Hence John’s Gospel does not give a genealogy… and does not even attempt to disguise that Christ was born in Nazareth. He does not invent a fictitious narrative – like the contradictory infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke – to try to get Jesus born in “David’s city”, Bethlehem, so as to fulfil Jewish prophecy.
        John is writing about a Pythagorean hero; a Christos, or “Good and Sun-annointed man.” A demigod. John could care less about Jews and their Messiah, and their contemptible Old Testament.
        Rabbi Tovia Singer discusses the Marcionite character of the Joahannine Gospel. Why I recommend listening to him. He disproves the New Testament from the Old.
        So Christ – according to Hitch – was born in Nazareth. This was a fact that everyone knew. Hence Matthew and Luke’s fictitious infancy narratives.

    3. Nature doesn’t make mistakes. Nature just is and doesn’t care about anyone. Nature doesn’t need anyone or anything. Nature couldn’t care less if all life on this planet would disappear. However, anyone who sins against Nature will suffer the consequenses of that foolishness. If we as Aryans want to thrive on this planet our religion should be to live according to Nature’s mechanisms. I.o.w. to live exactly opposite to the current false paradigm, which is created by another species which is thriving very well using this strategy. There’s really nothing more to it than that.