The Founding of Christianity by Roman Counterintelligence

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Looks like a may have to eat my words about radical Jews using the term Christ, as in Christiani.

Here is a free ebook, The Founding of Christianity by Roman Counterintelligence:

Eric Laupot is a leading New Testament and classical scholar. His articles have been published in major journals –Vigiliae Christianae in the Netherlands and Revue des études juives in Paris. In this book for the first time the results of his extensive research on Jesus and early Christianity that has rocked the world of scholarship are explained and made accessible to the general public.
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Laupot's evidence for that proposition, that the radical Jews called themselves "Christiani", is rather thin. He notes that Tacitus calls them Christiani, and then he claims that a fragment from a fifth century Christian author, Sulpicius Severus, is a quote from Tacitus. This is based on peculiar phrasing used, but the fragment isn't noted as a quote, or attributed to anyone, by Severus. So it might be a close paraphrase, either of Tacitus or some other author, but it seems dicey to rely on any particular word.

The fragment reads as follows:

It is reported that Titus first deliberated, by summoning a council of war, as to whether to destroy a Temple of such workmanship. For it seemed proper to some that a consecrated Temple, distinguished above all that is human, should not be destroyed, as this would serve as a testimony to Roman tolerance and clemency; whereas its destruction would represent a perpetual mark of cruelty. But others, on the contrary, disagreed—including Titus himself. They argued that the destruction of the Temple was a number one priority in order to destroy completely the foreign religious belief of the Jews and the Christiani [Titus’ faction is distinguishing here the ordinary Jews from the Christiani guerrillas, Rome’s main enemy]. For though these religious beliefs are conflicting, nevertheless they arose from the same founders: The Christiani sprang up from the Jews. With the “root” removed, the “branch” [Latin, stirps, meaning either “branch” or, by extension, “descendants”] is easily killed.
So here, Tacitus is allegedly reporting that some sect called Christiani had "sprang up from the Jews" but with conflicting beliefs, and that Titus needed to destroy that sect completely. Severus apparently considered the story credible, and saw no problem with the idea that Christians were a radical offshoot from the Jews. But IMO it's a stretch to even consider that Tacitus said exactly this, much less that Titus or the radical Jews would have said so.

On the other hand, the story seems perfectly credible, and consistent with everything else we know. So we probably should stop being so sure that the radicals didn't consider themselves "Christiani".

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
From merely what you have described, it sounds to me to be a fabricated backstory to further conflate the radicals with the Christiani name. If so, I wont have to back off my position. I love the root and branch reference.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
It seems that by the time I got to page 31 that Laupot miraculously modified the text (see highlighted in red), so as to agree with my supposition. The Silly Martians retreat post-haste, seeking their conversion epiphany.

And note that the definitive linkages, once more comes to coinage, this time from the Palestinian Jews, aka Nazorean rebels (aka Nazarenes). And here we link to the root and branch typology of Isaiah 11 and Romans 11. The coins of the time in question feature upturned branches, 'rising up' against Rome. But, alas, their tree would not bear fruit.

Prior, Laupot laid out that the term 'Nazorean' derives directly from the Hebrew 'netser', for 'branch', as in the branch of David. And here is where the Nazarite purity ritual, from Numbers 6, would come into play for a pretender to being a Judaic king.

From pages 30-31:

The fruits and leaves hanging on the branches of the coins are always pictured as rising
upwards, against the force of gravity. This is unnatural and completely contrary to the way fruits
and leaves hang in real life. Most people in Israel at the time lived in rural areas and would have
been well aware that this portrayal was not realistic. All this suggests that the plants on the coins
symbolized people (Nazoreans), who were rising up against the Romans in accordance with
Isaiah 11.1. This is strongly reminiscent of the language of Fragment 2, where “the Christiani
sprang up from the Jews.” As one scholar, Leo Kadman, has commented, “The design on the
[coins] . . . was obviously not intended to depict the plants of the land.”

This would also explain why Titus’ general staff in Fragment 2 had no trouble seeing Israel as
a growing “plant.” They had only to look at Israel’s coins to be reminded of the comparison.
There is, however, one other possibility that has not yet been considered: The single branch
on each coin may have represented the righteous of Israel, as it does in Isaiah 4.2, 60.21, and
61.11. Yet, if the design of a single branch had not been the prevailing one on these coins, then it
might be possible to argue that the branch on each one does represent Israel’s righteous.
However, this branch motif was on almost every coin, and while there were many symbols
available at the time for Israel and its people, only the present explanation accounts for why just
one such symbol, the solitary branch, was actually employed on the coinage—to the virtual
exclusion of all other motifs.

All this is completely consistent with Titus’ speech in Fragment 2, in which he describes the
Jewish resistance movement as a whole and calls it the Christiani. Presumably he is describing
the Christiani as those who had minted the coins of Israel with the “big branch” insignia on them.

He is not describing just a small part of the resistance movement. It is therefore likely that

“Christiani” was the Latin term for those who were both in the forefront of the first-century Jewish
resistance and who minted the coins of Israel. According to Titus, then, the word “Christiani” was
an umbrella term for the whole Jewish freedom movement.

So, the coins show that the resistance had a unified ideology, and Tacitus’ Annals 15.44
(“the Christiani’s deadly religious belief was breaking out again . . . throughout Judea”) indicates
that this same “Branch of David” ideology had also spread throughout Israel. Thus we have three
parallel and complementary pieces of evidence showing that the Christiani and the Jewish
resistance were ideologically unified throughout Israel: the Jewish coins, Fragment 2, and Annals
15.44. Nor is there any valid historical evidence suggesting otherwise. On this point the well known
Roman propagandist Josephus contradicts himself, at times suggesting the Jewish
resistance was fragmented, at times implying the contrary, but ultimately producing a net effect of
zero. The existing evidence, especially the three sources above, is far more credible. Thus we
see that “Christiani” was the name for the ideologically united first-century Jewish resistance

Finally, there are other ancient writings that strongly support the authenticity of Fragment 2.
The content and some of the language used in this fragment is reminiscent of the descriptions by
Tacitus in Histories 5.13 and Suetonius in Vespasian 4.5 of the (unidentified) Jewish biblical
prophecy that was said to have triggered the Jewish War. Although neither of these historians
tells us exactly where in the Bible this prophecy originated, the language they use, compared to
that in Fragment 2, gives it away as Isaiah 11.1. This is partly because the reports of Tacitus and
Suetonius use some of the same Latin words as Fragment 2: profecti (“arose” or “set forth”) and
Iudaea (“from Judea”). Compare Fragment 2: “arose [or set forth] . . . from the Jews” (profectas . .
. ex Iudaeis). So it turns out that Tacitus and Suetonius parallel Fragment 2 and therefore ought
to shed more light on it.
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
It seem that by the time I got to page 31 that Laupot miraculously modified the text (see highlighted in red), so as to agree with my supposition.

Sadly, the problem is my reading comprehension. I missed the point that Titus could have been using the name 'Christiani' to describe the rebels, and even then it could have been a fabrication on his part, or a distortion that the Romans had been attempting to foist on the rebels for some time, rather than anything in their own self-description.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
To follow your analogy, you mean the Romans co-opted the name? I was thinking about this as well, but not in the exact same manner you suggest with the Tea Party.

It is possible that the Jews (and those goyim converted to radical Judaism) outside Palestine had indeed known their movement as the Christiani, while the Palestinian messianic Jews knew it as the Nazoreans. Most of the former Jews had come to only speak Greek, which is the common habit for immigrants after a few generations. So in this case, there was a natural dichotomy in the names for the Romans to exploit.

In any case, why do you say the Tea Party was co-opted by the Republicans and not the other way around? I would say that the Tea Party had first co-opted (Koch-holded) the Republicans, and later via agent Trump, the globalist faction co-opted (cuckholded) the Tea Party. Maybe this more recent Trump phase is what you were referring to? But if so, Trump was not part of the Republican establishment, but rather a Democrat of the old Eastern Liberal Establishment mold -- only worse.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following quoted letter from Clement, identified by Valliant and Fahy as the cousin of Titus and bishop (pope) of the early Roman Church, demonstrates the dichotomy between the Nazoreans (aka Christiani) and what we know of as the Pauline Christians. Clement is referring to the confusion between the names. This confusion was the consequent blowback from the 'globalizing' Romans efforts to co-opt the radical 'nationalist' movement.

The next chapter has Laupot demonstrating that the burning of Rome was a Roman false flag operation against the radical Christiani. And thus, consistent with my earlier assertion, Nero was in on the whole thing, and thus aligned with the Flavians. And such as Epiphroditus was a bridge between the imperial administrations. Even earlier Laupot includes emporer Claudius as being in this alignment, again this linking the Flavians further into the historic fabric.

From pages 72-73:

9. What Did the Early Christian Church Think of the Nazoreans?

The leaders of the early Christian church hated Nazoreans, as a certain early letter from the
Church in Rome tells us. Dated about 96 A.D. it was written in Greek to the Pauline Church in
Corinth, Greece. The letter is commonly referred to as 1 Clement. A translation of the first section
(1.1) is given here:

Owing to the sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities which have
befallen us, we consider that our attention has been somewhat delayed in turning
to the questions disputed among you, beloved, and especially the bloody and
unholy [Greek, anosios, a word sometimes used to describe the Jewish
resistance] uprising, alien and foreign to God’s chosen [that is, Pauline
Christians], which a few [see Chapter 1 on the small size of the Nazorean
movement after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D.] rash and stubborn
people have sparked [literally, “set on fire”; compare this to the parallels in the
endnote to chapter 1: “Burning down villages in Israel”] to such a frenzy that
your name [Christiani], venerable and famous and worthy as it is of all men’s
love, has been much slandered [presumably because it was shared by the
subversive Nazoreans]. (translation based on Kirsopp Lake, Apostolic Fathers I,
Loeb Classical Library)
We see a number of parallels between the language here and that used elsewhere to
describe the Nazoreans. The main complaint of the author of this letter against the Christiani is
that their guerrilla actions were causing problems for the reputations of Christians because both
groups shared the same name.

1 Clement 4.1–6 apparently goes on to compare the Nazoreans to the homicidal Cain and
the Christians to Abel (Genesis 4.1–17). See 1 Clement 1.3, 2.6, 3.1–4, 4.7–13. The frequent use
of the Greek word zelos (meaning both “jealousy” and “zealotry”) in this letter is reminiscent of the
jealousy that Roman slaves may have felt towards their masters, and the jealously of the Roman
poor towards those well off. The frequent occurrence of this word is also suggestive of similar
complaints of Jewish jealousy of the Christians (e.g., Matthew 27.18; Acts 13.45, 17.5–7) and
also of the zealotry of the Nazoreans. Note 1 Clement 6.4: “Jealousy [or zealotry] and strife have
overthrown great cities and uprooted [compare Fragment 2; see also Jude 1.4, 12; Matthew
15.13; Matthew 13.24–30 and its parallel Gospel of Thomas 57] mighty nations [including,
apparently, Israel].” The views of the Church of Rome thus parallel those of the Roman
propagandist Josephus in that both engage in diatribes against the Jewish resistance.

The Church must have been aware that some Christians were resisting the Romans
(possibly with the aid of the Nazoreans) by not paying their taxes, not honoring their emperor,
and/or not obeying their slave masters—otherwise the Christian admonitions to do these things in
(1) Romans 13.1–10, (2) 1 Peter 2.17, and (3) Romans 13.1–5, 1 Corinthians 7.21, Ephesians
6.5–8, Colossians 3.22–25, Titus 2.9–15, 1 Peter 2.18–25 would not have been necessary.

All this would explain, at least in part, Josephus’ astonishing silence throughout his works on
the proper name of the Jewish resistance. Like the Church of Rome in 1 Clement 1.1, he may
not have wished to tarnish the name of the Christians by mentioning the Christiani. As we have
seen, Pauline Christianity represented a counterweight to Nazorean mass proselytizing, and the
central government in Rome had an incentive to keep Paul’s movement going. This may have
been one reason why Josephus almost never uses the words “Christiani” or “Nazoreans” in his
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
The fruits and leaves hanging on the branches of the coins are always pictured as rising
upwards, against the force of gravity. This is unnatural and completely contrary to the way fruits
and leaves hang in real life. Most people in Israel at the time lived in rural areas and would have
been well aware that this portrayal was not realistic. All this suggests that the plants on the coins
symbolized people (Nazoreans), who were rising up against the Romans in accordance with
Isaiah 11.1. This is strongly reminiscent of the language of Fragment 2, where “the Christiani
sprang up from the Jews.” As one scholar, Leo Kadman, has commented, “The design on the
[coins] . . . was obviously not intended to depict the plants of the land.”

About those coins, here are some pictures. Especially with regards to the first coin design (in this case, a silver half shekel) Robert Deutsch is not so sure about whether it's a branch with three pomegranates, or whether it's the staff of a high priest.

Pics from


This other one is definitely a leaf rising from a branch:

Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Or they could've co-opted the name Christiani, like the when the recent Tea Party movement was co-opted by the Republican establishment.
I just happened upon an interesting article discussing what happened to the Tea Party, written by an insider.

Laupot's book does a great job of framing the dialectic between the Romans and the mostly rural Nazoreans, and its associated factions. The Romans of course, had their puppets, including their hand picked Jewish high priest, and the Pharisees who espoused a neutrality that benefited the Romans.

Here its also interesting to view the parallels between the (l)ibertarian movement of today with these radical Jews, who demanded no Law but that of their God's (via Moses of course). In the Roman's POV, this is anarchy, as many within the (l)ibertarian movement espouse - in line with the meme that government is inherently defective. And in this modern manifestation, the (l)ibertarian meme was fomented by such as the royal Hapsburgs (of Holy Roman Empire fame) via the Mont Pelerin front. The Hapsburgs being traditional Catholic monarchists are here in line with the Kochs, who are also traditionalist Catholics.

This is how the shepherds divide and conquer their flocks.

Now Trump has co-opted the American Zealots and his General Flynn, is trumping up Islam as a 'political ideology disguised as a religion'. How ironic? At some point Jerry and I want to focus on the creation of Islam, as a political foil in waiting, just as Judaism served in this Suffering Servant role for several thousand years. In any case, we already know the role western agency played in the creation of Wahabism, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and even ISIS. All for the greater good and profit of the oligarchs.

In this regard, Laupot also discusses that the Romans believed that the Spartans and the Jews were indeed related, as asserted in the famous letter included in 1 Maccabees. Laupot doesn't seem convinced that this indeed was the case, but now we know that the Hebrew tribe of Dan was indeed the prior Greek Danoi.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Referring to the just prior thread post, Laupot discusses the relationship between the Jews and the Spartans. This in regards to explaining Nero's typological references in burning the Nazorean Christiani as candles and eaten by dogs and such.

The meaning of 'Spartoi' as being 'sown men' is rather interesting here. And especially in the context of the prior collapse of the Late Bronze Age, where only Egypt was left standing in the Eastern Mediterranean and adjacent Mesopotamian region. As a result, the Greek mainland, so to speak, was left unpopulated for centuries, before being re-sown with men. The Mycenaeans that supposedly defeated Troy to mark the end of the Late Bronze Age, went missing, the Danoi ended up in northern Palestine, only to later be forced to immigrate by the Assyrians along with the other 'Hebrews' (the so-called Lost Ten Tribes).

Somewhere in all this, Laupot mentions that the Jews' term, as found in the Talmud several times, for the Romans was Edomites. As I pointed out in my article, Isaac and the Fortunate Scions, the 'Jewish' OT states that the Edomite descendants of Esau would regain their rightful inheritance (that coming from Abraham). Well, what happened then? Laupot also mentions that the Jews used the term Gentile mainly for the elite Romans, only sometimes applying in a wider sense. Why? Because this is the correct usage of the term, as indicated by the terms gentil and gentility.

From pages 80-83:

Actaeon the hunter was a figure better known in the ancient world for his death than his life.
His grandfather, Cadmus, may have been of Semitic origin. Cadmus was thought perhaps to
have been an Egyptian or the king of Phoenicia, and to have founded the Greek city of Thebes.
He is also believed to have sown from the teeth of a serpent in Thebes a race of warriors known
as the Spartoi (literally, “sown men” in Greek). These were frequently, but incorrectly, connected
in people’s minds with the Spartans of Greece and were also mistaken by some for biological
descendants of Cadmus. Thus for some there was a close connection between Actaeon
(Cadmus’ grandson) and the Greek Spartans.

Likewise there was a well-known idea in the ancient world that associated the Jews with
both the Spartans and Cadmus. According to the author Hecataeos of Abdera (some of whose
work was preserved by the ancient historian Diodorus of Sicily [see section 40.3.1–8 of his
Library of History]), this association between the Jews, the Spartans, and Cadmus originated with
the tradition of a common Jewish Exodus [from Egypt] and . . . Greek migration [out of Egypt] of Danaos [a
relative of Cadmus and therefore of Actaeon] and [Cadmus] as episodes of one
and the same event—the expulsion of the [Semitic] Hyksos [dynasty of Pharaohs
from Egypt] which [Hecataeos of Abdera] described after the late Egyptian
[fables]. Thence the assertion—wherever it may have originated—that the
Spartans (whose kings, through Heracles and Perseus, claimed descent from
Danaos) are brothers of the Jews and descend from Abraham’s kindred. For us,
in this context, it is absolutely indifferent whether some tribes of the [Israelites]
directly participated in the Hyksos invasion [of ancient Egypt], or the Israelites
adopted these reminiscences from the real participants, the Canaanites or, the
Hyksos motifs were borrowed from the Egyptians themselves by Judean settlers
in Egypt since the VIIIth century [B.C.]—what interests us is the resemblance of
the essential thematic skeletons.

Hecataeos’ story begins with the conquest of ancient Egypt by a non-Egyptian dynasty of
Pharaohs, known as the Hyksos, ruling over the Egyptian people. According to Hecataeos’
tradition, the Hyksos successfully invaded Egypt and invited the Jews and the Spartans in to help
them rule (compare the story of Joseph in Genesis 45.8, in which he becomes ruler over Egypt at
Pharaoh’s request). This was done to help control the Egyptians, and the Jews and Spartans
shared in the spoils of the conquest. Eventually the Hyksos were overthrown by the Egyptian
people, and the Jews and Greeks had to flee the country. According to Hecataeos, the Spartans
made it home but the Jews did not. They were enslaved in Egypt by the new dynasty of
Pharaohs. They were not to be freed until Moses arrived several centuries later. But in Nero’s
time the Jews were seen as brothers to the Spartans because of their common experience
supporting the Hyksos against the Egyptians.

Hecataeos’ tradition would fully explain the biblical Exodus from Egypt of those Jews who
had been enslaved: They were in fact rescued by their Spartan allies (or by Jews living in Israel
and elsewhere outside Egypt)—and it was done in secret. The Greeks (or Jews), through their
agent Moses, may have bought the slaves’ release from the Pharaoh, or they may have once
again put in place one of their own as Pharaoh in order to free the Jews. All hands maintained
silence during and after the Exodus in order to avoid war with Egypt. A cover story was devised
involving “divine intervention.” Over many centuries the Jews—still sticking to secrecy because of
the fear of war—came to believe the cover story.

There is also a well-known diplomatic letter, dated between 309 and 290 B.C., sent from the
government of the city-state of Sparta to the Jewish state of Judah in the land of Israel. This
official correspondence reaffirms the historical brotherhood between the Jews and the Spartans.
See 1 Maccabees 12.1–23 and its parallels in Josephus’ Antiquities 12.226–227, 13.163–170.

However, the letter, as far as we know today, lacks any details as to the nature of the
brotherhood. Only the bare assertion seems to have been made by the Spartans to the Jews that
they were brothers. This could be because the details themselves had been covered up from the
beginning to avoid war with powerful Egypt. All this would tend to support the present
explanation, but only the discovery of better documentation or archaeological evidence can tell us
for sure.

This ancient perception of a brotherhood between Jews and Greeks is further supported by
the famous reports in Tacitus (Annals 15.39), Suetonius (Nero 38.2), and Cassius Dio (Roman
History 62.18.1) that during the Great Fire Nero sang of the burning of the ancient city of Troy (in
what is now northwestern Turkey) by the Greeks. While Nero did not actually “fiddle while Rome
burned,” he did sing about Troy’s burning. According to tradition (Virgil’s Aeneid 1.7, 33, 257–296;
Livy’s From the Founding of Rome [Ab urbe condita], 1.1.1–1.7.3), the Trojan survivors of the war
eventually came to found Rome, fathering the Julian line of kings from whom Nero himself was
believed to be descended. The Greeks at Troy fought the Trojans who later founded Rome and
who were, in a sense, the first true Romans. They were also enemies of the Greeks. By singing of
this during the Great Fire, Nero was therefore “comparing contemporary evils with ancient
calamities” (Tacitus’ Annals 15.39). That is, he was comparing Rome’s war against the Jews with
the Trojan War against the Greeks—and the burning of Rome (allegedly by the Jewish
Nazoreans) to the burning of Troy by the Greeks. These were powerful analogies because of the
tradition of a brotherhood between the Jews and Greeks. Nero seems to have viewed the
proselytizing Nazoreans and their form of Judaism as a sort of “Trojan horse” whose Nazorean
promoters had, like Actaeon and like the Greeks in Homer’s Trojan War poem the Iliad, already
incurred the wrath of the gods.

Not only would both tragedies, the Great Fire of Rome and the burning of Troy, have
concerned, in Nero’s view, Rome’s present and former foreign enemies, the Nazoreans and the
Greeks, but both catastrophes would sooner or later lead (in Nero’s view) to the birth of a new,
more secure Rome, free of hostile foreign influence (whether Nazorean or Greek). This further
suggests that during the fire Nero had already made up his mind to execute the Nazoreans in
Rome. While Nero’s singing probably had the effect of making him appear insensitive to the
suffering of his subjects during the fire, he may actually have intended it to remind them that in
the long run Rome would prevail over the Jews, just as it had over the Greeks (Rome conquered
Greece in 146 B.C.).
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Below Laupot is discussing Nero's parody on the Nazoreans, inverting their terminology, here that of 'dogs'.
This is what I referring to about the Jew's usage of the term 'Gentile', which can not be extended to all non-Jews as is the vogue for the past 2,000 years.

From page 88:

Moreover, there is another clue to the meaning of the dogs in Annals 15.44.4 and Matthew
7.6: As we have seen, dogs sometimes represented Gentiles. More important, however, the

expression “the Gentiles” was routinely used by Jewish soldiers in the mid-second century A.D.
under the command of Israel’s national leader, Bar Kokhba, to mean the Romans, especially the

Roman establishment. It was also used this way in the Gospels: Matthew 18.17, 20.19 and Luke
21.24. Thus it is possible that the dogs in Nero's executions alluded first to Gentiles (see above)
and then, by extension, to the Romans.
Furthermore, we can see that the Jewish rebels were anti-Roman (the Gentiles) and not anti-goyim. Note the bible verses list which proscribe harming 'strnagers'. In several verses the term for 'stranger' is qualified by the writer informing the reader that they must behave so because they were once 'stranger's in Egypt. We are discussing people who are rabid to follow their God's divine word, so here we can see that the relationship between 'gentile' Christians and 'Jews' was purposely poisoned by such propagandic semantic games. Of course, today's Jews are what survived in the former Pharisee camp, and became institutionalized under the 'protective' wing of the Roman papacy (as detailed in Carroll's Constantine's Sword). This is why today's Jews are more highly inclined towards globalization ala Rome's framework.

From page 87:

Did the dogs in Nero’s parody therefore imply that the Nazoreans (or Nero) thought of their
movement in terms of a conflict between Jew and Gentile? This seems unlikely since the
Nazoreans had been recruiting Gentiles, who would hardly have joined a movement directed
against themselves. Note also the Bible’s prohibitions against an anti-Gentile campaign in Exodus
22.20 (verse 21 in English Bibles), 23.9; Leviticus 19.10, 33–34, 24.22; Numbers 15.15–16, 29;
Deuteronomy 1.16, 14.29, 24.17, 26.12–13; Psalms 146.9; Jeremiah 7.6, 22.3; Ezekiel 22.7;
Zechariah 7.10; and Malachi 3.5.
In the above, Laupot would have been semantically better off to have employed the term goyim, instead of 'Gentile'.

And to re-iterate Laupot's position, the Jews at this time highly proselytized the goyim world, at odds with the contemporary notions that rabbinic (Rome's) and Zionist Judaism's portrayal of Jews as being exclusivist via bloodlines and marriage.
Last edited:

Sgt Pepper

Active Member
In any case, why do you say the Tea Party was co-opted by the Republicans and not the other way around?

It was co-opt within a co-opt :)
It began as a right-wing libertarian movement: anti war; anti world police; anti federal reserve; states rights; anti war on drugs; etc.
The whole Ron Paul thing. He ran on the Republican platform to gain the visibility (we all know how well 3rd parties are covered in the media).
Then it was co-opted and all the rhetorical talking points listed above disappeared.

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
As I may have mentioned, I started this fall on the path to becoming a Catholic. This afternoon I attended my first Catholic social event.

A gentleman sat down and struck up a conversation with me. In short order, he casually mentioned something to the effect that when the CIA goes into a new country, they liaise with the parish priest, since there's almost certainly already a Catholic church wherever it is

Jerry Russell

Staff member
In short order, he casually mentioned something to the effect that when the CIA goes into a new country, they liaise with the parish priest

That's a really odd pickup line. An exotic James Bond connection? How do you feel about being liaised by the CIA, Marcilla? You are on the path to becoming a Catholic... are there two paths, or just one?

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
As I may have mentioned, I started this fall on the path to becoming a Catholic. This afternoon I attended my first Catholic social event.
Some people put Chevy engines in their Ford cars. If you change your engine once again, you can become a Catholic priest. Or do you want to marry Jesus?

In short order, he casually mentioned something to the effect that when the CIA goes into a new country, they liaise with the parish priest, since there's almost certainly already a Catholic church wherever it is
There are some that say the acronym really stands for the Catholic Intelligence Agency. Of course, there were always a lot of Freemasons there along with uber-elite Catholics. And now a lot of Mormons, with their holy underwear. Ultimately they all work for the same guy, Christ Caesar du jour.

I predict that you'll have an office in the Vatican basement within 9 months.