That's even more bizarre and conspiratorial than I thought he would believe.

If yids attack Christianity to drive the small number of 'anti-semites' back to this 'Judaism for gentiles', how do they ensure that they do not drive far larger numbers of Christians away from this Judaism for gentiles altogether by means of the same arguments? 'Christianity bad' isn't an argument that only works on anti-semites.

The maths don't add up to me. Yes, you contain and neuter anti-semites by shunting them into a false oppositional belief system, but they're so miniscule in number as to be irrelevant. By contrast, if you peddle narratives like 'Christianity is bad' or 'Christianity is anti-Semitic' in order to get anti-semites to greater support it, you also risk losing the much larger number of people who also accept your arguments for why it is bad without being anti-semites, or who find anti-semitism repellant, respectively, who will drift from this Judaism for gentiles to other non-controlled opposition belief systems or atheism.

Furthermore, if the goal really was to simply corral and neuter anti-semites, why not simply argue 'Christianity is based and anti-semitic, so you should support it to oppose yids' rather than 'Christianity is bad, so you should support it because the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Seems like an inferior, weaker strategy to me. Associating Christianity with the Nazis is a much better way of getting anti-semites on board than simply arguing 'Christianity bad, and don't you know that what we say is bad is what you should say is good?'

Moreover, how does one explain yids like Johnathan Cahn who clearly promote certain types of Christianity whilst the others are attacking it? So some yids attack Christianity to drive anti-semites to it whilst other yids simultaneously promote Christianity (Pentecostal, dispensationalist versions of it) to create philo-semites? Seems schizophrenic to me, since one side is doing something counter-productive to the other: the likes of Johnathan Cahn are obviously grossly repellant to anti-semites.

I should add that I haven't paid much attention to Adam Green outside of his interviews with the intriguing David Skrbina. (This kind of thing is probably part of why.) Consequently, I apologize if this argument is not of the kind that Green or his supporters would make (although it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the claim that some yids attack Christianity to corral and neuter anti-semites whilst others like Johnathan Cahn simultaneously [and counter-productively, insofar as this specific goal is concerned] promote Christianity in a way that will drive anti-semites far, far away from Christianity).

That's even more bizarre and conspiratorial than I thought he would believe.

If yids attack Christianity to drive the small number of 'anti-semites' back to this 'Judaism for gentiles', how do they ensure that they do not drive far larger numbers of Christians away from this Judaism for gentiles altogether by means of the same arguments? 'Christianity bad' isn't an argument that only works on anti-semites.

The maths don't add up to me. Yes, you contain and neuter anti-semites by shunting them into a false oppositional belief system, but they're so miniscule in number as to be irrelevant. By contrast, if you peddle narratives like 'Christianity is bad' or 'Christianity is anti-Semitic' in order to get anti-semites to greater support it, you also risk losing the much larger number of people who also accept your arguments for why it is bad without being anti-semites, or who find anti-semitism repellant, respectively, who will drift from this Judaism for gentiles to other non-controlled opposition belief systems or atheism.

Furthermore, if the goal really was to simply corral and neuter anti-semites, why not simply argue 'Christianity is based and anti-semitic, so you should support it to oppose yids' rather than 'Christianity is bad, so you should support it because the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Seems like an inferior, weaker strategy to me.

Moreover, how does one explain yids like Johnathan Cahn who clearly promote certain types of Christianity whilst the others are attacking it? So some yids attack Christianity to drive anti-semites to it whilst other yids simultaneously promote Christianity (Pentecostal, dispensationalist versions of it) to create philo-semites? Seems schizophrenic to me, since one side is doing something counter-productive to the other: the likes of Johnathan Cahn are obviously grossly repellant to anti-semites.

I should add that I haven't paid much attention to Adam Green outside of his interviews with the intriguing David Skrbina. (This kind of thing is probably part of why.) Consequently, I apologize if this argument is not of the kind that Green or his supporters would make (although it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the claim that some yids attack Christianity to corral and neuter anti-semites whilst others like Johnathan Cahn simultaneously [and counter-productively, insofar as this specific goal is concerned] promote Christianity in a way that will drive anti-semites far, far away from Christianity).

That's even more bizarre and conspiratorial than I thought he would believe.

If yids attack Christianity to drive the small number of 'anti-semites' back to this 'Judaism for gentiles', how do they ensure that they do not drive far larger numbers of Christians away from this Judaism for gentiles altogether by means of the same arguments? 'Christianity bad' isn't an argument that only works on anti-semites.

The maths don't add up to me. Yes, you contain and neuter anti-semites by shunting them into a false oppositional belief system, but they're so miniscule in number as to be irrelevant. By contrast, if you peddle narratives like 'Christianity is anti-Semitic' in order to get anti-semites to greater support it, you also risk losing the much larger number of people who find anti-semitism repellant, who will drift from this Judaism for gentiles to other non-controlled opposition belief systems or atheism.

Furthermore, if the goal really was to simply corral and neuter anti-semites, why not simply argue 'Christianity is based and anti-semitic, so you should support it to oppose yids' rather than 'Christianity is bad, so you should support it because the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Seems like an inferior, weaker strategy to me.

Moreover, how does one explain yids like Johnathan Cahn who clearly promote certain types of Christianity whilst the others are attacking it? So some yids attack Christianity to drive anti-semites to it whilst other yids simultaneously promote Christianity (Pentecostal, dispensationalist versions of it) to create philo-semites? Seems schizophrenic to me, since one side is doing something counter-productive to the other: the likes of Johnathan Cahn are obviously grossly repellant to anti-semites.

I should add that I haven't paid much attention to Adam Green outside of his interviews with the intriguing David Skrbina. (This kind of thing is probably part of why.) Consequently, I apologize if this argument is not of the kind that Green or his supporters would make (although it makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than the claim that some yids attack Christianity to corral and neuter anti-semites whilst others like Johnathan Cahn simultaneously [and counter-productively, insofar as this specific goal is concerned] promote Christianity in a way that will drive anti-semites far, far away from Christianity).