Even the likes of Adam Green do not seem to argue that Christianity can be explained from a functionalist perspective all the way down to the present day. Rather, they claim that Christianity was designed to defeat the Roman Empire, implying that its intended function expired long ago. They simply saw no reason (or found it too difficult) to remove it afterward, but it does not necessarily mean that it is still fulfilling some kind of function for them.

Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond: 'Your argument is prima facie compelling, but it misses the possibility that Christianity has outlived its purpose. Thus, the yids created Christianity because it served them a function, but today they attack it because they have a different belief system(s) to which they wish to move people towards. Furthermore, for all we know, perhaps the yids also attack it because today's yids are by and large unaware that it is a product of their ancestors' own scheming long ago against the Roman Empire, a history either forgotten or suppressed, and thus mistake it for something authentically of the goyim.'

This preserves your fair observation without necessarily leading to your conclusion, i.e. that Christianity being relentlessly attacked is proof that it is not a sort of 'false opposition'.

One might throw Marxism in as an example of another such 'thick' subversive belief system - a grand narrative of all history that deeply affects economics, politics, and society - that is indubitably 'Jewy' and yiddish (Marx, Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky, Lukacs, etc.) to the core, but was abandoned by them because of Stalin's turn towards 'anti-semitism'. Thus countless Marxist yids like Daniel Bell, Louis Samuel Feuer, Nathan Glaser, and Seymour Martin Lipset all switched from Marxism to become the 'neo-conservatives'.

The 'Holocaustianity' you allude to is of course a 'thin' version of such subversive belief systems, thin in the sense that it is modular and could be bolted on to almost any political culture, ideology, or system. It can clearly be viewed from a functionalist perspective as serving an anti-nationalist, globalizing function for the yids. What does 'Never Again' mean? It is to never again turn against the yids, to view the yids as a permanent feature of life that must never be excluded or eradicated. Holocaustianity does to the atheist what Pentecostal, dispensationalist Christianity does to the Christian: it makes him feel it is somehow 'wrong' to oppose the yids on anything at all.

Even the likes of Adam Green do not seem to argue that Christianity can be explained from a functionalist perspective all the way down to the present day. Rather, they claim that Christianity was designed to defeat the Roman Empire, implying that its intended function expired long ago. They simply saw no reason (or found it too difficult) to remove it afterward, but it does not necessarily mean that it is still fulfilling some kind of function for them.

Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond: 'Your argument is prima facie compelling, but it misses the possibility that Christianity has outlived its purpose. Thus, the yids created Christianity because it served them a function, but today they attack it because they have a different belief system(s) to which they wish to move people towards. Furthermore, for all we know, perhaps the yids also attack it because today's yids are by and large unaware that it is a product of their ancestors' own scheming long ago against the Roman Empire, a history either forgotten or suppressed, and thus mistake it for something authentically of the goyim.'

This preserves your fair observation without necessarily leading to your conclusion, i.e. that Christianity being relentlessly attacked is proof that it is not a sort of 'false opposition'.

One might throw Marxism in as an example of another such 'thick' subversive belief system - a grand narrative of all history that deeply affects economics, politics, and society - that is indubitably 'Jewy' and yiddish (Marx, Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky, Lukacs, etc.) to the core, but was abandoned by them because of Stalin's turn towards 'anti-semitism'. Thus countless Marxist yids like Daniel Bell, Louis Samuel Feuer, Nathan Glaser, and Seymour Martin Lipset all switched from Marxism to become the 'neo-conservatives'.

The 'Holocaustianity' you allude to is of course a 'thin' version of such subversive belief systems. It can clearly be viewed from a functionalist perspective as serving an anti-nationalist, globalizing function for the yids. What does 'Never Again' mean? It is to never again turn against the yids, to view the yids as a permanent feature of life that must never be excluded or eradicated. Holocaustianity does to the atheist what Pentecostal, dispensationalist Christianity does to the Christian: it makes him feel it is somehow 'wrong' to oppose the yids on anything at all.

Even the likes of Adam Green do not seem to argue that Christianity can be explained from a functionalist perspective all the way down to the present day. Rather, they claim that Christianity was designed to defeat the Roman Empire, implying that its intended function expired long ago.

Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond: 'Your argument is prima facie compelling, but it misses the possibility that Christianity has outlived its purpose. Thus, the yids created Christianity because it served them a function, but today they attack it because they have a different belief system(s) to which they wish to move people towards. Furthermore, for all we know, perhaps the yids also attack it because today's yids are by and large unaware that it is a product of their ancestors' own scheming long ago against the Roman Empire, a history either forgotten or suppressed, and thus mistake it for something authentically of the goyim.'

This preserves your fair observation without necessarily leading to your conclusion, i.e. that Christianity being relentlessly attacked is proof that it is not a sort of 'false opposition'.

One might throw Marxism in as an example of another such 'thick' subversive belief system - a grand narrative of all history that deeply affects economics, politics, and society - that is indubitably 'Jewy' and yiddish (Marx, Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky, Lukacs, etc.) to the core, but was abandoned by them because of Stalin's turn towards 'anti-semitism'. Thus countless Marxist yids like Daniel Bell, Louis Samuel Feuer, Nathan Glaser, and Seymour Martin Lipset all switched from Marxism to become the 'neo-conservatives'.

The 'Holocaustianity' you allude to is of course a 'thin' version of such subversive belief systems. It can clearly be viewed from a functionalist perspective as serving an anti-nationalist, globalizing function for the yids. What does 'Never Again' mean? It is to never again turn against the yids, to view the yids as a permanent feature of life that must never be excluded or eradicated. Holocaustianity does to the atheist what Pentecostal, dispensationalist Christianity does to the Christian: it makes him feel it is somehow 'wrong' to oppose the yids on anything at all.

Even the likes of Adam Green do not seem to argue that Christianity can be explained from a functionalist perspective all the way down to the present day. Rather, they claim that Christianity was designed to defeat the Roman Empire, implying that its intended function expired long ago.

Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond: 'Your argument is prima facie compelling, but it misses the possibility that Christianity has outlived its purpose. Thus, the yids created Christianity because it served them a function, but today they attack it because they have a different belief system(s) to which they wish to move people towards. Furthermore, for all we know, perhaps the yids also attack it because today's yids are by and large unaware that it is a product of their ancestors' own scheming long ago against the Roman Empire, a history either forgotten or suppressed, and thus mistake it for something authentically of the goyim.'

This preserves your fair observation without necessarily leading to your conclusion, i.e. that Christianity being relentlessly attacked is proof that it is not a sort of 'false opposition'.

One might throw Marxism in as an example of another such 'thick' belief system that is indububitably 'Jewy' and yiddish (Marx, Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky, Lukacs, etc.) to the core, but was abandoned by them because of Stalin's turn towards 'anti-semitism'. Thus countless Marxist yids like Daniel Bell, Louis Samuel Feuer, Nathan Glaser, and Seymour Martin Lipset all switched from Marxism to become the 'neo-conservatives'.

The 'Holocaustianity' you allude to is of course a 'thin' version of such subversive belief systems. It can clearly be viewed from a functionalist perspective as serving an anti-nationalist, globalizing function for the yids. What does 'Never Again' mean? It is to never again turn against the yids, to view the yids as a permanent feature of life that must never be excluded or eradicated. Holocaustianity does to the atheist what Pentecostal, dispensationalist Christianity does to the Christian: it makes him feel it is somehow 'wrong' to oppose the yids on anything at all.

Even the likes of Adam Green do not seem to argue that Christianity can be explained from a functionalist perspective all the way down to the present day. Rather, they claim that Christianity was designed to defeat the Roman Empire, implying that its intended function expired long ago.

Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond: 'Your argument is prima facie compelling, but it misses the possibility that Christianity has outlived its purpose. Thus, the yids created Christianity because it served them a function, but today they attack it because they have a different belief system(s) to which they wish to move people towards. Furthermore, for all we know, perhaps the yids also attack it because today's yids are by and large unaware that it is a product of their ancestors' own scheming long ago against the Roman Empire, a history either forgotten or suppressed, and thus mistake it for something authentically of the goyim.'

This preserves your fair observation without necessarily leading to your conclusion, i.e. that Christianity being relentlessly attacked is proof that it is not a sort of 'false opposition'.

One might throw Marxism in as an example of another such 'thick' belief system that is indububitably 'Jewy' and yiddish (Marx, Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky, Lukacs, etc.) to the core, but was abandoned by them because of Stalin's turn towards 'anti-semitism'. Thus countless Marxist yids like Daniel Bell, Louis Samuel Feuer, Nathan Glaser, and Seymour Martin Lipset all switched from Marxism to become the 'neo-conservatives'.

The 'Holocaustianity' you allude to is of course a 'thin' version of such subversive belief systems. It can clearly be viewed from a functionalist perspective as serving an anti-nationalist, globalizing function for the yids. What does 'Never Again' mean? It is to never again turn against the yids, to view the yids as a permanent feature of life that must never be excluded or eradicated.

Even the likes of Adam Green do not seem to argue that Christianity can be explained from a functionalist perspective all the way down to the present day. Rather, they claim that Christianity was designed to defeat the Roman Empire, implying that its intended function expired long ago.

Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond: 'Your argument is prima facie compelling, but it misses the possibility that Christianity has outlived its purpose. Thus, the yids created Christianity because it served them a function, but today they attack it because they have a different belief system to which they wish to move people towards. Furthermore, for all we know, perhaps the yids also attack it because today's yids are by and large unaware that it is a product of their ancestors' own scheming long ago against the Roman Empire, a history either forgotten or suppressed, and thus mistake it for something authentically of the goyim.'

This preserves your fair observation without necessarily leading to your conclusion, i.e. that Christianity being relentlessly attacked is proof that it is not a sort of 'false opposition'.

One might throw Marxism in as an example of another such 'thick' belief system that is indububitably 'Jewy' and yiddish (Marx, Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky, Lukacs, etc.) to the core, but was abandoned by them because of Stalin's turn towards 'anti-semitism'. Thus countless Marxist yids like Daniel Bell, Louis Samuel Feuer, Nathan Glaser, and Seymour Martin Lipset all switched from Marxism to become the 'neo-conservatives'.

The 'Holocaustianity' you allude to is of course a 'thin' version of such subversive belief systems. It can clearly be viewed from a functionalist perspective as serving an anti-nationalist, globalizing function for the yids. What does 'Never Again' mean? It is to never again turn against the yids, to view the yids as a permanent feature of life that must never be excluded or eradicated.

Even the likes of Adam Green do not seem to argue that Christianity can be explained from a functionalist perspective all the way down to the present day. Rather, they claim that Christianity was designed to defeat the Roman Empire, implying that its intended function expired long ago.

Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond: 'Your argument is prima facie compelling, but it misses the possibility that Christianity has outlived its purpose. Thus, the yids created Christianity because it served them a function, but today they attack it because they have a different belief system to which they wish to move people towards. Furthermore, for all we know, perhaps the yids also attack it because today's yids are by and large unaware that it is a product of their ancestors' own scheming against the Roman Empire, and thus mistake it for something authentically of the goyim.'

This preserves your fair observation without necessarily leading to your conclusion, i.e. that Christianity being relentlessly attacked is proof that it is not a sort of 'false opposition'.

One might throw Marxism in as an example of another such 'thick' belief system that is indububitably 'Jewy' and yiddish (Marx, Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky, Lukacs, etc.) to the core, but was abandoned by them because of Stalin's turn towards 'anti-semitism'. Thus countless Marxist yids like Daniel Bell, Louis Samuel Feuer, Nathan Glaser, and Seymour Martin Lipset all switched from Marxism to become the 'neo-conservatives'.

The 'Holocaustianity' you allude to is of course a 'thin' version of such subversive belief systems. It can clearly be viewed from a functionalist perspective as serving an anti-nationalist, globalizing function for the yids. What does 'Never Again' mean? It is to never again turn against the yids, to view the yids as a permanent feature of life that must never be excluded or eradicated.

Even the likes of Adam Green do not seem to argue that Christianity can be explained from a functionalist perspective all the way down to the present day. Rather, they claim that Christianity was designed to defeat the Roman Empire, implying that its intended function expired long ago.

Consequently, if I was a follower of Adam Green, I would respond: 'Your argument is prime facie compelling, but it misses the possibility that Christianity has outlived its purpose. Thus, the yids created Christianity because it served them a function, but today they attack it because they have a different belief system to which they wish to move people towards. Furthermore, for all we know, perhaps the yids also attack it because today's yids are by and large unaware that it is a product of their ancestors' own scheming against the Roman Empire, and thus mistake it for something authentically of the goyim.'

This preserves your fair observation without necessarily leading to your conclusion, i.e. that Christianity being relentlessly attacked is proof that it is not a sort of 'false opposition'.

One might throw Marxism in as an example of another such 'thick' belief system that is indububitably 'Jewy' and yiddish (Marx, Bernstein, Kautsky, Trotsky, Lukacs, etc.) to the core, but was abandoned by them because of Stalin's turn towards 'anti-semitism'. Thus countless Marxist yids like Daniel Bell, Louis Samuel Feuer, Nathan Glaser, and Seymour Martin Lipset all switched from Marxism to become the 'neo-conservatives'.

The 'Holocaustianity' you allude to is of course a 'thin' version of such subversive belief systems. It can clearly be viewed from a functionalist perspective as serving an anti-nationalist, globalizing function for the yids. What does 'Never Again' mean? It is to never again turn against the yids, to view the yids as a permanent feature of life that must never be excluded or eradicated.