A Palestinian elementary school was shut down last week after Israel’s Civil Administration confiscated the vehicle used to transport teachers to it.
Teachers initially tried coming to the school, located in the Jinba cave village in the southern Hebron hills, by donkey, but this proved disruptive since they were often late.
On Sunday, the administration also confiscated the car of a veterinarian employed by the Palestinian Authority when he came to the village to vaccinate sheep. The vehicles were seized as part of a stepped-up enforcement campaign in Area C, the part of the West Bank under full Israeli control.
The Civil Administration also issued a demolition order against the school, though residents have no access to any other school: The nearest is in Yatta, 20 kilometers away.
In addition, it ordered an access road, tents, mud huts, sheepfolds and solar energy facilities razed, reinstating demolition orders frozen by agreement with the state prosecution in 2007.
In 1999, the area was declared a live-fire exercise zone by the Israel Defense Forces, meaning people aren’t allowed to live there. The residents were evicted but petitioned the High Court of Justice, which issued an interim injunction allowing them to return until it issues a final ruling. Ever since, the case has been stuck in court, with the state requesting and receiving continual postponements of the deadline for filing its response. Last month, the state promised to file its response within 30 days.
The residents’ attorney, Shlomo Lecker, told Haaretz that the wave of confiscations and demolition orders is a serious violation of the High Court’s injunction. “It’s the state that asked to delay hearing the petition for the last 12 years, and you can’t expect hundreds of residents of the cave village to have their lives put on hold for such a long time – that the access road to the site would be blocked, and they would be denied the possibility of giving their children compulsory education,” he said.
Dror Etkes, who has monitored West Bank settlement activity for years, told Haaretz that three settlement outposts had recently expanded into the live-fire zone: Avigail, Mitzpeh Yair and Havat Ma’on. “But as far as I know, there are no restrictions on their movement in the area, and none of their vehicles have been confiscated,” he said. “I also don’t know of any active army exercise area within this live-fire zone. In most of it, there never were any exercises.”
The Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories said the court would hear the petition against the army’s declaration of the live-fire zone in a few days, and the state would give its response there.
Illuminati Jewish Bankers and Freemasons have undermined Christian civilization and are replacing it with a world police state dedicated to Satan. Humanity is being inducted into their satanic cult under the guise of being “sexual liberated” and “progressive.”
Jonas Alexis documents this process in his book, Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: Surprising Differences, Conflicting Visions, and Worldview Implications–From the Early Church to our Modern Time.This is an excerpt from Chapter Two, “Prostitution, Sexual Liberation & Cultural Warfare.”
The real cause of anti-Semitism is that Cabalist Jews are at the forefront of advancing the Luciferian principle - the denial of mankind’s highest aspirations (the soul and spiritual ideals) and instead defining man as an animal. Culture now celebrates man’s lowest instincts and satanic behavior. Culture used to uplift and inspire; now it degrades and destroys. Like their god Lucifer, the Illuminati are in rebellion against God, and are leading humanity to destruction.
“The first prerequisite for healthier human and sexual relationships is the elimination of those moral concepts which base their demands on allegedly supernatural commands, on arbitrary human regulations, or simply on tradition…We do not want to see natural sexual attraction stamped as ‘sin,’ ‘sensuality’ fought as something low and beastly, and the ‘conquering of the flesh’ made the guiding principle of morality!” Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957, Austrian Jewish psychiatrist) 1.
By Jonas Alexis (jonasealexis7@yahoo.com)
(henrymakow.com)
The bottom line is that sexual liberation is viewed as one of the most effective ways to counteract the Christian principles that still remain at the heart of American culture.
Let’s look at Wilhelm Reich … When he set out to attack Christianity–and Jesus Christ in particular, as his blasphemous book The Murder of Christ demonstrates–he envisioned a complete sexual revolution. Reich not only placed his sexual energy (which he called “orgone”) and Christianity on equal footing, but, based on what he called a “self-repressive side of Christianity” that was in total opposition to his sexual revolution, decided that Christianity had to go.
“For Reich,” biographer Myron Sharaf said, “Saint Paul, the organizer, was to Christ what Stalin was to Marx–the distorter of the truth.”
Reich’s principles of sexual liberation have had a widespread impact on the Jewish community in Hollywood. Many of today’s rising stars see no problem with promiscuity and homosexuality. Jake Gyllenhaal, after the re- lease ofBrokeback Mountain, declared, “You know it’s flattering when there’s a rumor that says I’m bisexual. It means I can play more kinds of roles. I’m open to whatever people want to call me. I’ve never really been attracted to men sexually, but I don’t think I would be afraid of it if it happened…As an actor, I think we need to embrace the times we feel most uncomfortable.”
Scarlett Johansson, who has worked with Woody Allen on three films, appeared inVicky Christina Barcelona (2008), which is another of Allen’s psycho-analytic explorations of sexuality, marriage, infidelity, and existentialism. The core theme Allen presents here is that life has no meaning, so you should enjoy it while you can, particularly through sex.
When Johansson was asked to defend her real-life promiscuity, she responded, “I do think on some level we are all animals, and by instinct we kind of breed accordingly.”
It seems that being Jewish, to many, is a form of liberation from moral and ethical restraint. So when we watch films like Dirty Dancing, the product of Jewish writer Eleanor Bergstein, or those produced by the Coen brothers, we are reaping a Jewish worldview that has more to do with anti-Christian ideology than art.
Although the Coen brothers say that they aren’t pushing a moral (or amoral) worldview in their work, their movies tell a different story.
William Rodney Allen writes in his book The Coen Brothers: Interviews, “The bedrock of the Coens’ intellectual world is really good old-fashioned existentialism. Princeton philosophy major Ethan Coen, in addition to writing his senior paper on Wittgenstein, certainly seems to have absorbed his Sartre and Camus. Both of those philosophers argued that man finds himself in an absurd world, where he must act despite having incomplete knowledge, with no moral absolutes to guide him…This bleak metaphysic underlies the film noir of Blood Simple (1984), the gangster milieu of Miller’s Crossing (1990), the theater-of-the-absurd cosmos of Barton Fink (1991), the mechanical though superficially comic landscape of The Hudsucker Proxy (1994), the morose, end- less midwestern snowscapes of Fargo (1996), and, most purely, in the black- and-white existential gloom of The Man Who Wasn’t There (2001).”
If they truly don’t intend to weave messages about morality into their movies, why then do the Coen brothers so frequently make derogatory references to Jesus Christ (The Big Lebowski) and even openly mock Christianity (O, Brother, Where are Thou?) in their movies? Why does the main character in The Big Lebowski keep referring to Nazi Germany as nihilist, but then commits nihilistic acts himself?
Logic dictates that this is an obvious contradiction that the Coen brothers must explain; Talmudic reasoning says they don’t have to.
In general, art has become a weapon aimed at the heart of Western Civilization–its Christian principles. This generation’s Cronenberg appears to be Eli Roth.
In reviewing Roth’s film Hostel, Jewish writer David Edelstein of New York Magazine opines, “Certainly television has become a place for forensic fetishism…Some of these movies are so viciously nihilistic that the only point seems to be to force you to suspend moral judgment altogether.”
Precisely–when moral judgment is deconstructed, everything is possible: rape, sadistic sex, pornography, and even sexual torture.
The age of Bar Kochba is over; the age of manipulation through the arts is here. The subtle difference is that Bar Kochba used weapons that could only destroy the body. Roth and others use weapons that can destroy the mind–a much more dangerous battlefield, since mind control is the highest form of manipulation. The battle has become spiritual and mental, rather than physical.
—
1. Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure. New York: Doubleday, 1971, page 53.
This week is Universities Week, a chance for everyone involved in the higher education sector to shout from the rooftops about all the brilliant work that our universities do. Considering the controversy and arguments that surround the issue of education and its future at the moment it’s good that we take the time to collectively appreciate what it is we’re fighting for.
Which is why the latest comments to emerge from coalition MPs about why the Higher Education Bill was quietly dropped earlier this year, leaving parliament and the public with no chance for scrutiny of changes to higher education, are so undignified. If these MPs really wanted make Ministers to come clean on their plans for higher education we’d welcome them to the cause and stand alongside them calling on David Willetts and Vince Cable to make their intentions clear in parliament but instead they choose to brief anonymously and use something as important as the future of higher education to score a few cheap political points off the MPs they are supposed to be working with.
Not having the scrutiny in the Houses of Parliament, in the media and in public of the government’s plans that a higher education bill would provide is a dangerous attempt to bypass accountability and that is why students from all over the country came to parliament last month to lobby their MPs on this very issue. The changes proposed in the higher education white paper were as significant to universities and students as the health bill was to the NHS and they deserve the same public scrutiny rather than being slipped through the back door at the stroke of a ministerial pen.
So, Ministers are shying away from debate and backbench MPs are using universities as political football, deeply concerning in itself but it’s not just those in parliament who are endangering our universities, the people who run them have been worryingly quiet as well. Recently I spoke to the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) conference and I told the gathered heads of universities and other policymakers that our universities do a great deal of good but that many of their senior leaders had failed to stand up for their institutions.
Our universities, I told them, have great strength in depth, a wonderful and powerful range of teaching and research, diverse in style and subject that puts our university sector as a whole amongst the best in the world. I drew attention to a recent report that almost all university students would earn more money over their lifetimes than those that didn’t go into higher education. Crucially, at a time of ever increasing unemployment, graduates are much more likely to be unemployed than those with lower level qualifications. Then there are the social and cultural benefits of the melting pot campuses of the UK, the excellent representation of women and the impact of students’ unions, societies and clubs on their communities. Universities are an undoubted and provable good in society.
But yet the Vice-Chancellors who run our universities stood by quietly as budgets were slashed; they meekly accepted the imposition of a forced market in fees that they know will be bad for many universities and the consequences have been chaos and obfuscation.
The government has more changes planned, we know they do because they published a white paper outlining them all but when the going got tough and they didn’t fancy another fight on the scale of the one they got over the increased privatisation of NHS services so they dropped the bill but not the plans.
We believe changes that will increase the incursion of profit-making companies into education, destabilise the sector by moving the controversial ‘core and margin’ goalposts, retrospectively change the cost of loans and further slash core teaching funding can be made even without legislation and that making such moves in undemocratic and that the government should come clean immediately and table an HE Bill so that their plans get the scrutiny they need.
I think university leaders believe the same thing and that they should stand up and say so. When sniping MPs use one of the best education systems in the country to derail the plans of another political party they shouldn’t let it go past without taking a swing. When the government push them into offering virtually useless partial fee waivers instead of bursaries and simultaneously causing already diminished funds to diminish further then they should resist publicly. And when the government tries to introduce damaging increases in for-profit companies in universities they should stand with students, who voted at NUS Conference this month for continuing national action, in saying enough is enough.
Vice-Chancellors proudly proclaim that their institutions are core to civic society and essential to challenging accepted wisdom and yet renege on their responsibility to speak out as academic commentators on deeply damaging public policy. Until they step up it is left to students to say “Our universities are our future and we will not let you endanger them without a fight.”
You will soon. We Andalusianists – not al-CIA-duh, a.k.a. the wahhabi foreign legion – are the real Muslim threat to take over the world.
The Zionists have their myth. They claim that they’ve been exiled from their promised land for centuries, and they’re going to take it back – “and if you don’t like it, my hairy friend Samson here will nuke all the capitals of Europe.”
We Sianists have a better myth – and a better “promised land.” We were driven out of Andalusia (Islamic Spain) more than five centuries ago. And unlike the Zionist myth, our myth lines up squarely with actual history.
The Zionists are using their myth as a springboard to world domination. They aren’t interested in just that little patch of land the UN “gave” them (after they’d bribed Truman with a suitcase full of cash) in 1948. Their appetites are not satisfied by the extra land they stole via terrorist ethnic cleansing in 1948, or Nazi-style war of aggression in 1967. They aren’t even going to be satisfied with the whole area between the Nile and the Euphrates that they think their tribal idol Yahwe granted them.
Zionism, let’s face it, is a world domination scheme concocted by the Rothschilds and their bankster buddies. They’ve brainwashed those who identify as Jews to imagine themselves as a persecuted “chosen people” who need a ruthless and powerful state to protect them. And they’ve brainwashed Christians and secularists to join or acquiesce. Just as the Egyptian Pharoahs brainwashed ordinary Egyptians into building the pyramids, the Zionists are brainwashing ordinary Jews and Christians and secularists into building their New World Order.
Sianism is a very different kind of world takeover scheme.
Unlike Zionism, Sianism does not posit a superior race of “chosen people.” In Islamic Andalusia, Jews, Christians and Muslims lived side-by-side, generally with a considerable degree of mutual tolerance and respect.
Speaking of the Muslim rulers of Islamic Spain, Washington Irving wrote:
“As conquerors, their heroism was only equalled by their moderation, and in both, for a time, they excelled the nations with whom they contended. Severed from their native homes, they loved the land given them as they supposed by Allah and strove to embellish it with everything that could administer to the happiness of man. Laying the foundations of their power in a system of wise and equitable laws, diligently cultivating the arts and sciences, and promoting agriculture, manufactures and commerce, they gradually formed an empire unrivaled for its prosperity by any of the empires of Christendom, and diligently drawing round them the graces and refinements that marked the Arabian empire in the East at the time of its greatest civilization, they diffused the light of Oriental knowledge through the western regions of benighted Europe.” (Tales of the Alhambra, 52-53).
Andalusia was crushed by the brutal Christian fanatics who gave us the Inquisition. Maria Menocal’s book The Ornament of the World: How Jews, Christians and Muslims Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain shows that our supposedly tolerant modern world is in many ways a totalitarian descendent of Inquisition-style Christianity.
For example, here in the USA, all 300 million of us are forced at gunpoint, under pain of kidnapping and torture, to have basically the same marriage rules and drug preferences. We Muslims, who consider alcohol an abomination far worse than heroin and cocaine, can’t stop people from drinking, selling, serving and advertising alcohol in our own streets and neighborhoods and cities; in fact, we have a hard time even making it known to our non-Muslim friends and acquaintances that drinking in front of us is just as shocking and abominable to us as shooting up heroin or cocaine would be to them.
It isn’t just Muslims who are strapped to the procrustean bed of other people’s drug preferences. Those who consider marijuana, peyote, or sacred mushrooms to be gifts from God are kidnapped and brutalized by uniformed thugs if they practice what they preach.
Likewise, there is a totalitarian movement afoot to force the entire USA to accept something that very few of the tens of thousands of human cultures that have existed on earth have ever accepted: gay marriage. Yet polygamy, accepted (though not necessarily a norm) in the vast majority of cultures known to ethnologists, is banned – even for those whose religion allows for it.
In a million other ways – zoning ordinances, tax codes, surveillance systems, factory-style education, and on and on – the modern world is built on a totalitarian, one-size-fits-all model. If any group wants to live their own way, be they hillbillies making moonshine, Mormons marrying multiple wives, primitivists living in simple mod-con-free dwellings, hippies growing marijuana, gypsies living in temporary roadside camps, street vendors selling where they choose, occupiers setting up encampments in public spaces, or Branch Davidians preaching oddball religious interpretations – they are brutally suppressed by goons dressed up in silly uniforms, and nobody even blinks.
The totalitarian, Inquisition-built West not only lacks freedom, but beauty as well. And it’s getting uglier all the time. Every day more of the earth is paved and overrun by noisy, toxin-farting metal beasts. Houses get more and more hideous every generation. Totalitarian lawns, with the same virtually-identical blade of grass repeated billions of times thanks to pesticides and chemicals, are our answer to Andalusia’s lush gardens. Half the population is overweight, and the other half is undernourished from eating plastic food. People spend their time frying their eyeballs with cathode-ray tubes. Nobody, except for a few specialists, knows how to tell a story or make music.
We Sianists – far more than Bin Laden Construction & Demolition Enterprises Ltd. (a branch of the US Army Corps of Engineers & Negev Desert Enterprises Ltd.) – are the real threat to this wonderful Western way of life.
We want a world in which people spend their time doing something useful, such as: growing and preparing healthy, nutritious food; building simple dwellings that blend with rather than obliterate the landscape; embellishing the beauty of nature rather than paving it over; entertaining and enjoying each other, not being “entertained” (i.e. lobotomized) by corporations; communing with and getting closer to God or whatever word we’re using for Him/Her/It; making our own decisions by participating in families and small communities, rather than letting the government (elected or unelected) make decisions for us; and so on.
The supreme art, in the Andalusian way of looking at things, is that of gardening. The word paradise (in Arabic, jinna) means garden. But “gardens” in the Middle Eastern languages that gave us the garden as the image of paradise aren’t just vegetable and flower gardens. The words orchard and park and forest need to be invoked as well. Gardening in this larger sense means embellishing nature (i.e. God’s creation) by working with it rather than against it. Ideally, the whole world should be “gardens” (largely natural areas embellished judiciously by humans) interspersed with plenty of wild nature (God’s creation unblemished by human hands). And the people living in harmony with this planetary garden should respect and enjoy each others’ different ways of life and paths to God.
Christian culture has inherited a loathing of nature. Today’s totalitarian “pave the earth” culture is the direct descendant of the doctrine of Original Sin and the Fall: Nature, including human nature (especially its wildest component, sex) is evil and fallen and needs to be cleaned up, covered up, paved over, plasticized, homogenized, covered with clear plastic wrap and sold for a dollar ninety nine at your local convenience store.
Post-Christian culture is even worse. The Faustian, satanic strand of post-Enlightement culture hates God, Creation and humanity just about equally. While pretending to a certain “humanism,” this is really just another egotistical “I am the greatest, everybody and everything else sucks” chosen-people-ism. Today’s specialists are trained to think they are better than everyone and everything else, so they have the right to blasphemously build nuclear devices, artificial life, and God knows what next. They may have already killed our planet – one of the nicest ones for zillions of miles around.
We Sianists obviously have our work cut out for us.
But so did the Zionists back in, say, 1890. Their world takeover scheme was at least as crazy as ours. And it had the disadvantage of being so unpleasant that it could only be sold through lies.
Sianism – call it the “planet garden” project – is a whole lot more reasonable…and more fun.
This will become more obvious as the old system comes crashing down.
Maybe we won’t even need to buy up the media, the government, and the UN – or blow up any skyscrapers – to sell it.
What you think you know about Christianity is a lie. The gospels we use now are “rehashed” Roman Empire propaganda, not the pure word of Christ.
As much of Christ’s real words as possible were destroyed.
The real Gospels, Nag Hammadi, Thomas, Magdalene, some from the Dead Sea Scrolls, never to be released or translated, kept like nuclear secrets, Christianity today is a game.
The real Christian world is the Middle East. The first real Christians were from Palestine, all Jews who converted. Very few Jews left Palestine, there is no record of it, no “exodus” to the remote areas of the Roman Empire to live among the Visigoths in 200AD.
This is cartoon religion and less than cartoon history.
Christianity in the Western Empire, Rome, Britain, Gaul, disappeared. It first returned with St. Patrick in Ireland and Irish monks returned Christianity to what we call Britain, France and even Italy.
There was no pope in Rome. There was no Rome. Go there. It had been taken down stone by stone, abandoned, no water, no food supply, nothing left.
The Visigoths visit Rome to do their thing
Ninety five percent of the world’s Christians lived in the Middle East, Judea or Palestine, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Persia. For hundreds of years there was no Muslim religion.
Another unpleasant secret. Mohamed the Prophet reformed the Jewish religion, believed Christ to be a primary Prophet of Islam and established his religion on totally Jewish roots but accepting Christ and his teachings as paramount.
When I tour the Middle East, I visit Mosques but I also visit churches, the oldest in the world.
The real pope was the Bishop of Jerusalem but the power of the church increasingly moved to Constantinople, into the hierarchy of the Roman Empire who rewrote religion into politics, threw out holy writings and created a political religion that was designed to meld easily into the cacophony of Roman and Greek mythology, the many gods.
Didn’t Solomon worship many gods? When someone says “hold no other gods above me,” they are polytheistic, not monotheistic. To the Romans, Jupiter was the head god, to Solomon, Yahweh was, to the Greeks it was Jove.
To the Danes it was Odin.
The Twelve Trips
Sorry kids, but these were all polytheistic religions, especially Judaism. The issue was which god was in charge, not how many gods.
The other issue was “graven images” or worshiping animal shapes and pictures. Jews and Muslims are iconoclasts, they don’t do photos with god or the prophets.
The issue, of course, is that, when reviewing the holy books, there is mention of a messiah. Was it Christ? Christians say yes. Jews say Christ lives in “piss and shit” while Muslims believe he was a great prophet.
What reality is, we never are told. There were two Roman empires, one real one, the Eastern one, Greek, Christian after Constantine, somewhat Christian at least.
Constantine would have appointed himself god or at least pope if he had been able to get away with it. He was one of the great liars of all time.
The west was gone, destroyed by the barbarians, nothing remained. There were early Jewish settlements in France but Jews who worshiped Christ and built churches. These became the Cathars and were killed in the holocaust of the Albigensian Crusade. Read about them in something other than the Da Vinci Codes.
Magdalene died in France, according to those there, mother of Christ’s children, wife of Christ and founder of the Church. Millions of Catholics believe this and believe she is the real “Mary.”
Go to Spain or Southern France and learn of Christianity where thousands of years are treated as yesterday.
To Americans who call themselves Christians, they could more appropriately be called “Paulists.” The “Apostle Paul” was never an apostle, nor was “Matthew, Mark, Luke or John.”
Constantine had the real gospels destroyed. Wonder what he didn’t like about them?
Paul was a “convenience,” he fit the Roman religion well and was chosen to be the founder of the polyglot religion that became the Christianity that Muslims rebelled against.
Oh, they didn’t tell you that?
Then there are Jews. None were left in the “holy land.” They didn’t take the bus to Warsaw but converted to Christianity, the official religion of the empire and later, many became Muslims, accepting Mohamed as a Prophet. We call those Jews, pure Semites, “Palestinians.”
Some are Jews, very few, some are Christians but were forced to flee the “holy land” by, well, we aren’t allow to say, and others are Muslims by converting from Christianity to a version of reformed Judaism called Islam which allows Christ to be a great Prophet.
This allows the “messiah” issue to be sidestepped.
There were a few Jews who had settled in Roman cities but those cities were gone, the numbers of Jews we don’t know and the truth about where they settled in Europe very different from what we are told.
Those that remained, I am guessing, stayed near the Mediterranean, moved to Persia and Iraq or Morocco.
This is guessing, there is NO history.
None moved to Germany and Poland and became the current “post-holocaust” settlers of Israel. There is no historical support for that.
Some say that all European Jews were coverts, Khazars who were pushed west by waves of barbarians. All of this, especially attempts at fictional racist history, is pure fabrication.
There is no real study of any of this, politics took it over 2000 years ago and it only got worse and worse.
Everything is lies now.
I have driven hundreds of thousands of miles, visited Mosques and churches, synagogues, lit endless candles, filmed where I can, talked to who I could, read what exists and am still hopelessly ignorant and learning each day.
What is clear is this: Those who talk of religion with few exceptions are nuts. Some are great men. Very few know the difference and this has made religion a bane on mankind, or this is how I see it.
Religion will survive. It is said that the Templars intended to join the 3 religions of the Book, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, into one through a great conclave. Popes have talked about it as have others.
Instead, religion has provided “cover” for terrorism, church bombings, wars between Sunni and Shiite Muslims and Jews against the world.
I wonder how many actually believe any of it. In France, only 11% are actually Catholic. I know many who go to church in America but say it is for “the good of their business.”
Few know their religion and fewer still believe.
The attraction is there, denial of death, eternal life, seeing long lost dead friends, pets, getting back your old cars, all of this is written into fiction about religion, ghost stories, phony fables, “bible stories” with no basis whatsoever and the books themselves, some of them are pure freakishness.
What is the story today? The “holyland” is emptied of Christians, who made up 35% of the population not that long ago. They left for 2 reasons, one being that they feel pressure from the Muslim majority among their own Semites and secondly, that they are recognized as “non Jews” in Israel and subjected to being walled off, apartheid abuses and even violence.
One point I can be clear about, it is an Israeli policy to foster violence against Christians across the Middle East and blame it on Muslims.
Then again, Christians in Lebanon and elsewhere have been discriminated against by Muslims. It is very real and continually lied about. Problem is, it is easy to exploit.
One can see great evil in religions. One of the great ironies of religion is how well Israel gets along, secretly, with the Wahhabist sect which is the most insane form of Islam. They teach that Jews and Christians are monkeys, same as Judaism, under the King Torah, teaches Jews that “goyim” are cattle to be bred and slaughtered.
People who believe this scare the hell out of me.
People who teach these things, all of them, whatever religion, are war criminals and need to be kept away from the public.
There are laws and courts that cover this but only Jews are effective at getting their way. Problem is, they also build the car bombs that blow up churches and mosques that keep the wars going and then sell “security and counter-terrorism” equipment to stop their own deeds.
They have been caught so many times, the funniest spraying swastikas on synagogues, a recruiting method of their organizations.
During WW2, Zionists joined with Hitler because they wanted him to expel Jews to Palestine where they could then kill the British occupiers.
This is in every history book, an iota of truth that stands alone.
Who is to blame? Common men of good will exist in the majority in all religions, and in a greater majority outside all religion entirely. We call that “enlightenment.”
A few profit from war and hate and love to manipulate, breed fear, stage phony acts of terrorism and this has been going on forever. Every peaceful demonstration has “agent provacateurs” ready to throw bombs, always working for the police or that mysterious “New World Order” we hear so much about.
What is the extreme message, what would Christ or Mohamed say, what would a “righteous Jew” say (sic)?
Those who preach hate should die by the sword.
Real international law enforced by real international courts, not the “joke” ICC or the phony United Nations and the gangsters that run well over 100 nations as “elected leaders” will ever take mankind to a world of peace, understanding and plenty.
This is why oligarchy, now called “the 1%” is never called what it really is, organized crime.
It is how “they” got to choose candidates, run the police, own the courts, control the news, twist entertainment into “hate speech” and breed war and fear.
We let them.
The message, of course, is that we can stop, but only if we become educated, if and when we stop lying, when we physically remove those who work to twist our thought, breed hate and live off our blood.
I suspect that if Jesus were ever to return he would nuke the whole place. Religion, as Fr. Malachi Martin once told me, proves only one thing, Satan exists.
He said he wished it were otherwise.
——————–
Malachi Martin, former Vatican Secretary of State and best selling author said the fastest growing religion in the world is Satanism. According to Martin, the most vulnerable populations were Catholic Jesuits, Jews, Evangelical Christians and certain sects of Islam. Iran recognizes Satanists, those who worship or consort with “jinns” as a security threat.
Western security organizations come upon continual references to Satanism and Satanic rituals among America’s oldest and most powerful families, within the military academies and throughout the news and entertainment industry.
Most secret societies are Satanists, the groups talked about in blogs as running the world or cultivating new and more “evil” leaders. Their rituals are all Satanic, disguised behind phony tradition and “hazing.” Blood sacrifice, child murder, these are common crimes among the powerful, crimes that surfaced during theFranklin affair. Pedophiles are not the issue, Satanism is… and child kidnapping and murder in Washington, is known of and accepted by all in government.
Does this explain a thing or two?
Almost all Satanists attend regular worship as Christians, Muslims and Jews, the use of “cover” a key part of their belief system.
Fr. Malachi Martin claims that many, some very powerful, some seemingly ordinary, but in numbers beyond imagination, are inhabited by demons and that religion is in denial of this.
If you meet someone “infested or possessed,” they will tell you, or could if they would, that they are the rational ones, the enlightened, that their “god” is the only real god and that “that other guy” went on vacation long ago. This is why so many Jesuits are Satanists, like the coven here in Toledo, look into Father Gerald Miller. Try to get past the edited versions.
I mention this only in passing. When I think of Dr. Aafia, kidnapped, raped, tortured, children killed, all done by American military officers, or of the Rodriguez torture policies or the look of Bush and Cheney I have moments when I fear Martin may be right and that my own rationalism and humanism may be hiding a supernatural world of endless evil that fills our lives every day and can never be described with conventional rational beliefs.
I read the Wikipedia of former General Paul Vallely related to a defense firm today. Is this a total lie, a “hit piece” by Wikipedia or is he “one of them.” If I am wrong about religion then are most religious wrong about something else?
One cannot support the conclusion, “Many may be surprised to read that the Armenian Genocide Holocaust) was perpetrated, not by the Turks, but by Turkish Jewry known as Crypto-Jews.” However, by the selective deletion of facts, a partially informed readership might not dismiss it.
If one studies the history of the era, one will conclude that the Germans, with whom the Turks had strong military ties, had the most influence over the Turks and their genocide of the Armenians. However, this is a topic for another study. By selectively deleting facts and ignoring the overall history one could even claim [again incorrectly] that Freemasonry was responsible for the genocide of the Armenians. Zionist machinations were not insignificant, but they were not aimed at the destruction of the Armenians or to take control of their businesses. Their goal was to populate Palestine with Jews. Better than just Jews populating Palestine would be to have a non-Muslim mandate over the process and Palestine itself. Thus, it was in the interest of Zionists for the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, if simple “equality and brotherhood” as promised by the progressive factions in the Young Turk movement wasn’t realized.
The Young Turk movement contained many elements, with initially Armenians in its ranks. The Young Turks deposed the Sultan and came to power in 1908, After the second Balkan war in 1913, Turkey lost control of its last remaining major areas of the Balkans. The promise of “equality and brotherhood” gave way to a coup by proto-fascists, including Talaat, Jemal, and Enver Pashas, who saw the empire disintegrating especially as the winds of WWI were forming. Young Turk leaders saw the national unifying programs of leaders such as Germany’s Bismarck and Italy’s Garibaldi as role models. The proto-fascists among the Young Turks knew after the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire by European powers, ethnic Turks might be left with only a small patch of real estate that wasn’t majority Arab, Greek, Armenian, or Kurd. Under guise of WWI the Turks began a campaign to remove or forcibly digest those ethnic groups that would be in the way of a new Turkish entity, an entity that was considered the heartland of Ottoman Turkey. That area was Anatolia, and its eastern expanse was the homeland of the Armenians.
The process of Turkifying Anatolia began decades before even the First Zionist Congress and it continues today with the suppression of Turkey’s Kurds. A goal that was initially vague and unsophisticated was catalyzed by the Young Turks and was made the national policy of the Turkish Republic by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The process is quite clear. And what is clear is that today’s Turkish state enjoys the success of that genocide. A shirt made of Turkish cotton could find as its origins an Armenian cotton field or factory.
It is claimed, “Zionists wanted to control the empire by inciting internal ethnic conflicts to get rid of Armenians and to take over their businesses and political positions.” There is no evidence of this claim and moreover nobody but ethnic Turks or Turkifiable Muslim immigrants took over Armenian property and business.
It is claimed, “So they promised Christian Armenian leaders to regain independent Armenia if they help dismantle the empire, and at the same time they promised Muslim Kurdish leaders to form independent Kurdistan if they exterminated Armenians.” Armenian political parties demanded equal treatment before the law and at best demanded autonomy. Zionists could not deliver an independent Armenia to the Armenians – they couldn’t even populate Palestine with a critical mass of Jews! If the Young Turk leaders were indeed Zionists, there is an additional contradiction here.
It is claimed, “The Armenians were duped by Zionists’ promises and publically endorsed the Balfour Declaration hoping that UK would protect them from the Turks and support them in forming an independent Armenian State.” The Balfour Declaration was made in 1917, by 1916 the majority of Armenians had already been murdered.
It is claimed, “Crypto-Jews, then, led Sultan Abdul Hamid to believe that Armenian revolutionaries were conspiring with foreign Christian missionaries to take over the empire, and prompted him to order the Young Turks, mainly crypto-Jews, to commit atrocities against Armenians to put down any revolution. Well, considering it was the Young Turks who overthrew Sultan Abdul Hamid, this would have been quite impossible.
The intent in this comment is not to debase or point out all that is missing but rather to demonstrate the absurdity of a Zionist genocide of the Armenians. In a series of articles in the New York Times, it was reported:
“On Jan. 8, [1915] Jemal Pasha [top leader of the Young Turks along with Talaat and Enver Pasha] ordered the destruction of all Jewish colonization documents within a fortnight under penalty of death. In many cases land settled by Jews was handed over to Arabs, and wheat collected by the relief committee in Galilee was confiscated in order to feed the army. … A proclamation issued by the commander of the Fourth [Turkish] Army Corps describes Zionism as a revolutionary anti-Tukish movement which must be stamped out.”
Jemal Pasha twice tried to expel all Jews from Jerusalem and both times the Germans, top ally of the Turks, intervened. However, in April 1917 8,000 Jews were brutally deported from the Jaffa region. Zionist leaders were terrified that the Turks may be planning for these Jews the same fate as handed the Armenians. This was even before before the pro-British Nili spy ring of Zionist Jews was discovered by the Turks in October, 1917, and its leading figures killed. Why would Zionists need spies to spy on Turkish intention if the Turks were led by crypto Jews? They wouldn’t.
There continues to be no lack of just causes in this world. They all have their legitimate battlegrounds. Identifying the field of battle is part of the challenge.
The neo-conservative cabal entwined in Western governments and media is fond of stating that «Judeo-Christianity,» itself a loaded term, is under assault from «Islamo-fascists» around the world. The record, however, is clear.
From Moscow to Cairo and Damascus to east Jerusalem, Christianity is under assault, not from main stream Islam but from a nexus of Jewish and «Christian» Zionists allied with the disruptive forces of non-governmental organizations financed by global troublemaker George Soros, alias Gyorgy Schwartz.
In Moscow, a feminist rock band called «Pussy Riot» has used trademark Soros disruption tactics against the Russian Orthodox Church. Prior to the recent Russian presidential election, Pussy Rioters staged a sacrilegious, intolerant, and insensitive «concert» during worship services at the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow. After they were imprisoned for hooliganism, the Pussy Riot punkers instantly received support from all the usual suspects that kow-tow to the anti-Gentile line of the Zionists and their deep-pocketed Soros allies: The Washington Post, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Bloomberg News, and Forbes magazine.
Recently, tens of thousands of Orthodox believers took part in a vigil outside Christ the Savior in support of the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill, who, himself came under fire from the propagandists of the West and global Zionism for wearing an expensive wristwatch, a gift from his parishioners.
Almost half of the Russian public surveyed in a poll conducted by the Levada Center agreed that the Pussy Rioters deserve a two- to seven-year sentence for their antics. However, the Soros and neo-conservative/neo-liberal NGOs and media outlets have demanded the immediate release of the politically-active trollops.
Last year, a group of women protesters from Ukraine, who call themselves FEMEN and are linked to Soros disruption operations, staged a topless protest inside the Vatican. Although the Catholic Church, as an institution, has much to answer for, the disrespect shown by the action to devout Catholics is in keeping with Soros’s and his supporters’ disrespect for the Christian faith.
Attacks on Christianity are also the norm in illegally Israeli-occupied east Jerusalem and the West Bank. Attempts by some Western media to report on Israel’s gulags in the occupied territories comes at a tremendous price, something that was witnessed by the veteran White House correspondent for Hearst Newspapers, Helen Thomas, after she criticized Israel’s occupation of Palestine to an undercover rabbi who «ambushed» her with a hidden camera on the grounds of the White House. Thomas was pilloried and fired by Hearst after the Zionist/neo-conservative cabal ganged up on the 91-year old Thomas.
In a recent CBS “60 Minutes” piece on Israel’s repression of Arab Christians, Israeli ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told one whopper of a lie but received a free pass on it from the generally Israel-subservient media. Oren, in his answer to a question posed by veteran CBS newsman Bob Simon about Oren having attempted to “spike” a report on the plight of Christians in occupied Israeli territory by interceding with CBS 60 Minutes executive producer Jeff Fager before the segment aired, replied, “There is always a first time.”
Oren knows full-well that it was not the first time that Israel’s international network of hasbara propagandists and Zionist sayanim well-entrenched in media outlets has attempted to kill a story unfavorable to Israel. Oren, alias Michael Bornstein, gave up his American citizenship when he agreed to become Binyamin Netanyahu’s ambassador in Washington. Oren, a life-long Zionist, laughably claims he emigrated to Israel from his native West Orange, New Jersey to escape what he described as “anti-Semitism” rampant among the town’s largely Catholic residents. Oren is a veteran of the Israel Defense Force and served in Lebanon during that nation’s bloody civil war, a war in which Israel took the side of a right-wing Christian President.
In the 60 Minutes piece, the Christians of the Holy Land were referred to as the “invisible people,” with many trying to flee the onslaught of steady and growing Jewish encroachment on traditionally Arab and Christian lands. The broadcast featured a Palestinian Christian family completely surrounded on all four sides by Israel’s separation wall on te West Bank.
Oren and his fellow Jewish Zionists, aided and abetted by so-called “Christian Zionists” like John Hagee and members of groups like Christians United for Israel, which are financed by Israeli interests, do not want Americans to see Christians being treated as second-class citizens in an apartheid state. Former President Jimmy Carter knows the hard way what happens when someone dares speak the truth about Israel’s racist policies, which affect Palestinian Christians and Muslims, alike.
True to form, the anti-Gentile Oren called the 60 Minutes report “outrageous” and “incomprehensible.” Simon said, “I never gotten a reaction before from a story that hasn’t been broadcast yet.”
After the suspicious activities of Israeli “art students” and others suspicious Israelis linked to Israeli intelligence prior to the 9/11 attacks were reported by Fox News, the Associated Press, and others, Israel’s public relations shill in Washington, Mark Regev, dismissed the stories as an “urban myth.” Regev is now the public relations spokesman for Netanyahu’s government. Fox pulled down its four-part series from its website amid a flurry of Israeli and domestic U.S. Jewish criticism. A veteran AP reporter recounted the threatening phone calls his editor received from a Boston-based Israeli-funded media “watch dog” group, CAMERA or the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.
Israel supporters also rallied against CBS, claiming that Christians in Israel are the only Christian community in the Middle East protected from “Islamist terrorists.” That must come as news to Maronites and other Christians in Syria and Copts in Egypt who have been beset by Wahhabist Salafist terrorists supported by Israel’s Lobby in North America and Europe. It is well-known that Syria’s Christians have been protected by Bashar al Assad’s government while Syrian Islamist rebels have received support from Israel and their neo-conservative supporters abroad who nest in such outfits as the American Enterprise Institute and the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC. Attacks on Copts in Egypt, including the bombing of a church in Alexandria, have been determined by Egyptian authorities to have been signature Israeli-style “false flag” attempts to garner support for Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak during his final days in power. The Egyptian Bar Association said Israel was behind the 2011 New Year’s bombing of Saints Church in Alexandria that killed 22 parishioners who were celebrating midnight mass. The world media dutifully reported the attack as the work of Islamist terrorists.
A document prepared by an inter-faith group of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox called Kairos Palestine and issued in 2009, calls Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and east Jerusalem “clear apartheid,” echoing President Carter’s similar charge. Oren and his Zionist colleagues merely dismissed the document and its authors — patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops of the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Coptic, Syrian Orthodox, Maronite, Ethiopian, Greek Catholic, Syrian Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican, and Syrian Catholic churches — as being the work of “anti-Semites.”
Similarly, anti-Gentile invectives have been hurled by Israeli Jewish leaders and Jewish leaders abroad at Christian church leaders who back the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) program against Israel for its draconian apartheid policies in the Occupied Territories. Particular anti-Gentile abuse has been heaped on leaders of the Church of England; the Church of Scotland; five large American denominations – the Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and United Church of Christ; the National Council of Churches of Australia; the Quakers; the Lutheran Church of Sweden; the United Reformed Church of England, Scotland, and Wales; the Protestant Church of the Netherlands; the Church of Norway; the South African Council of Churches; the British Methodist Church; the United Church of Canada; and the World Council of Churches. Personal insults from the hasbara propaganda machine have been thrown at retired South African Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu; retired Swedish Lutheran Archbishop K. G. Hammar; Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams; and President Carter, a Baptist. Some 140 leading Jewish Israelis have also endorsed the BDS policies of the Christian churches, which puts a significant dent in the argument that the movement has «anti-Semitic» intentions.
And to further inflame inter-religious tensions around the world, the Israeli Mossad’s fingerprints can be seen on false flag violence that seeks to inflame Buddhist-Muslim tensions in Thailand and Myanmar; Muslim-Christian tensions in Indonesia, Turkey, the Philippines, Sudan, and Nigeria; Sunni-Shi’a tensions in Iraq, Yemen, and Syria; and Hindu-Muslim tensions in India.
This past Good Friday, as with all Good Fridays since the papacy of Pope John Paul II, saw Franciscan brothers the world over collect donations in Catholic churches around the world for the Holy Land’s besieged Christians and their churches. It was not the actions of Muslims that prompted the appeal for help but the actions of the Jewish state of Israel. That fact was made very clear in the international appeal of the Franciscan order, named for St. Francis of Assisi, who was a sole voice of reason during the infamous Crusades and who earned the respect of the Muslim leader Saladin and his nephew, the Sultan of Egypt Malek al Kamil.
The world is ready for religious leaders to emulate the peace-making of St. Francis, Saladin, and Sultan Malek and not the extremism of Zionists, Christian Zionists, and the catalysts for violence and intolerance endemic in the Soros movement and its agents provocateurs.
So far we have seen that the inspiration of the Bible is unproven. Andwe have seen that the Bible is sometimes mistaken. Now this does not necessarily mean that the Bible is bad. It just means that it is okay to question what we read.
You may be concerned where this is leading. Perhaps to you the Bible is the source of moral judgement. It is your only hope to find your way in life. You may wonder how anybody could attempt to chart his course through life without its moral compass. And you may be concerned that we are undercutting that hope. I can understand your concern. I once had similar views of the Bible. I still find passages in the Bible that are inspiring. But I find many other passages that I would question. And I find other books that are inspiring besides the Bible.
Perhaps you would claim that the comfort and guidance you receive from the Bible puts it in a class of its own, far above any other book. But is this really what we find in the Bible? Let’s see. Let’s take a few minutes to look at the guidance that the Bible offers. Do we need the Bible’s guidance to know what is right?
Let’s begin by looking at Deut 22:11. It says, “You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.” Do you follow that rule? Did you check the labels before you dressed this morning? I think you ignored this commandment today, just like I did. Why do we ignore it? I neglect it because I think it is unreasonable. Why did you neglect it? If the Bible is your source of guidance, why do you simply ignore this rule, and live as though it doesn’t exist? This rule is not reasonable, is it? Why would God care if we wore two kinds of fabric together? If you and I let reason override this rule, then it seems to me that reason, not the Bible, is our ultimate guide.
Many Christians have never read the whole Bible, and are not aware of the moral teachings that are found in it. Let’s look at some. Exodus 23:19 tells us we cannot cook a baby goat in it’s mother’s milk. Do you worry about keeping this commandment? Gen. 17:14 tells us a child is to be punished when his parents neglect to have him circumcised. Is that fair? Ex. 20:8-11, 31:15-17, 34:21, and 35:1-3 tell us that no work may be done on the Sabbath (Saturday) not even the lighting of a fire. The penalty is death. Do you recommend that we kill people who light a fire in their fireplace on Saturday? [1] Lev. 3:17 tells us that we may never eat fat. So how is it that we eat hamburgers without guilt? Lev. 27:1-7tells us that males are more valuable than females. Do you agree? If you are female, do you think males are more valuable than you are? No? Than these verses are mistaken, aren’t they? Num. 5:12-31, tells us that if we suspect our wife has committed adultery, she is to be tested by making her drink water mixed with dirt. If she gets sick, she is guilty. Do you recommend that we implement this test procedure? I don’t. Interestingly, there is no such test given for men. Is this fair? Deut. 22:5 tells us we may not wear clothing of the opposite sex. Do you think it is a sin for a woman to wear her husband’s shirt? No? Then you disagree with Deuteronomy. Deut. 23:1 tells us that a man whose testicles are crushed may not enter the assembly of the Lord. Should we set up an inspection station at the church doors, asking every man to kindly drop his drawers for inspection, so we can keep injured people out? Or should we just pretend this verse isn’t there? Deut. 25:11-12 tells us that a wife who grabs her husband’s attacker by his private parts must have her hand cut off and is to be shown no pity. It does not matter that she was only trying to rescue her husband. Do you agree? I could give many more examples. [2]
When I mention these Old Testament laws, I am often told that the Law of Moses was not intended to make us good, but to show us our sinfulness and our need of Christ. But how could a frivolous and immoral law prove we were sinful? If you want to measure moral character, do you not need a reliable moral standard? You surely do not think that the laws mentioned above represent a high standard of conduct, do you? For if you thought they were wise, I think you would be following them. If they are faulty, how can they be used to prove our sinful state? If the inspection gauge in the factory is faulty, you could not use it to prove the whole production run is flawed, could you? And isn’t this whole view of the-law-as-teacher callused to the needs of the people before Christ? Why would God leave them with an inadequate law for centuries just to prove a point to us that would follow later on? Could it be that the Law of Moses did not come from God, but was, instead, an early attempt of primitive man to define morality?
Besides, if Jehovah did give the Law of Moses, and we find that this first system of his to be faulty, does that prove that his second plan, the gospel, is good? If an engineer gives you a defective design, and the building collapses, would you trust him with the redesign? If he told you he deliberately gave you a deficient design in order to prove that you really needed his improved design, would you buy his argument? I think not. You would look elsewhere. So if Jehovah’s first covenant, the Law of Moses, is not good, why not look elsewhere? Why give Jehovah a second chance? (But I find no reason to believe this law was given by God. It seems more likely to me that it was an early attempt by primitive people to define morality.)
Christians that are quick to distance themselves from the Old Testament are apparently unaware of how closely the Old Testament [3] is tied to the New Testament. For instance Matthew 23:1-3 says,
Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
Do you follow these verses? They tell you to do all that the Pharisees command you from the Law of Moses. Do you do everything the teachers of the law teach? And what about Matthew 5:18-20, which teaches that we should follow even the minor laws,
“For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
Is the law that forbids the mixing of fabrics one of the least of the laws? According to these verses, if you ignore the least of the laws, you will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. So why do you ignore them?
Some say that Matthew 5 does not apply, for all “was accomplished” by Jesus. But if the author was trying to teach that this only applies until the death of Jesus, he used most unclear language. Besides, the book of Matthew was not written until years after Christ died. Why did Matthew even bother to write this? Is it not clear that when Matthew was writing this he expected his readers to believe they needed to keep the law if they wanted to be great in the kingdom of heaven? And so it appears that Matthew, writing long after the death of Christ, still expects that his readers need to keep the law in order to be great in the kingdom of heaven.
Even Paul writes, “Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.” (Rom 3:31) He also says, “For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.” (Romans 2:13) So the New Testament simply does not distance itself from the Old Testament the way many hope.
Slavery
Let’s look at something more substantial than clothes or goat meat–the issue of slavery. Look atExodus 21:2-7.
“If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve for six years; but on the seventh he shall go out as a free man without payment. “If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the husband of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him. “If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone. “But if the slave plainly says, ‘I love my master, my wife and my children; I will not go out as a free man,’ then his master shall bring him to God, then he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost. And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him permanently. If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.
Do you have an opinion on the morality of this passage? Is it right to buy slaves, even if the period is limited to six years? What do you think about the poor women slaves? If the men could go free after six years, why should the women be slaves for life? And look at the condition that was placed on these male slaves obtaining their freedom. If a slave had married while in slavery, his wife and children could not leave with him. Only the man could leave. Should a decent man accept this offer and abandon his family as slaves? What kind of family values is that?
Do you have an ounce of respect for the father who takes his little girl–the one that cuddles in his lap at night and calls him “Daddy”–and sells her into lifelong slavery? Why does the Bible allow it? Is it really moral to sell one’s own daughter, knowing that she and her children will become slaves for life? I can’t even imagine a person thinking this is acceptable. Help me out here. What am I missing? Isn’t it immoral to treat your daughter like this?
You may suggest that conditions were different back then, so God had different rules. But do you really believe that? Suppose you are watching a movie. You see the story of a slave owner who buys young ladies and young men as slaves. You watch as a man sells his own daughter to be a slave. You watch as the slave-owner “gives” this young girl to another slave as his wife. You watch as her slave “husband” walks off after six years, free of all responsibility, leaving her and the children as slaves. You watch their wretched, abandoned lives as slaves without a committed father or husband. How would you react? Do you approve of these actions? I think not. Would you approve if the movie was set in the 500 BC time frame, but disapprove if it was set at a later date? What does it matter when the movie was set? Slavery is slavery, no matter when it happens. And it seems to me that slavery is wrong. Do you not agree?
Look, the movie is still playing. Here comes the slave-girl’s father walking down the path. Look closely, I think I see something. Yes, look at his coat. See it? It is pure wool! He has obeyed Deuteronomy 22. He has not mixed two kinds of fabric in his coat. Does this change your view of this man? Does the material of his coat change your attitude toward him? No? Then why does the Bible condemn people who wear the wrong combination of fabrics, while allowing slavery to continue? Do you really believe there was a time when slavery was fine but mixing materials in your clothing was sinful?
One of the worst practices conceived by humans was the act of owning slaves. And yet the Bible allows it. Although term limits were imposed on male Hebrew slaves, the same rights were not given to people of other nations. In Lev. 25:44-46 we read:
44‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have–you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. 45‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. 46‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
Is not something very wrong with this book? How can you carry a book to church that allows slavery? Do you want your children to read this book?
Death
There is a long list of sins in the Old Testament that carry the punishment of death, including homosexuality, adultery, and cursing parents. For instance:
9‘If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his bloodguiltiness is upon him. 10If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death…13‘ If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Lev. 20:9-10,13)
Do you suggest that we follow these commands, and kill such people? And do you suggest that we follow the law and not mix fabrics? No? Then Isaiah says you have no dawn. For Isaiah calls us to the law saying, “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.”(Isaiah 8:20 ) So Isaiah explains your problem. He says you have no dawn. You disagree with Isaiah, don’t you?
Oh, you will tell me that Isaiah’s message was temporary, that the Old Testament system was given only to help people out until the gospel would arrive. If the Old Testament was temporary, why doesn’t it say so? Repeatedly the Old Testament declares that this system is to last forever. For instance:
Psalm 119:60 The sum of Your word is truth, And every one of Your righteous ordinances is everlasting.
2 Kings 17:37 The statutes and the ordinances and the law and the commandment which He wrote for you, you shall observe to do forever ; and you shall not fear other gods.
Of course the law referred to in the above verses is the only law they had, that of Moses. But you disagree with these verses, don’t you? You don’t think that the law against wearing mixed fabrics or the law commanding the killing of those who curse parents is eternal, do you? So the verses are wrong that say these ordinances are everlasting, aren’t they?
The New Testament
Let’s look at an example from the New Testament. Luke 6:30 says, “Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.” Do you give to everyone that asks of you? If not, then you ignore this instruction. If you do follow this, and give to everybody that asks of you, then I will ask you for a thousand dollars, thank you. I suspect that everybody will ignore my request. It doesn’t matter what Luke says, does it? Common sense says this is not a good command. So we ignore the written code, and go by our common sense. This indicates to me that our ultimate source of moral guidance comes from reason, not from the Bible.
Many will tell me Luke does not mean to give to everyone that asks–even though he says so–but that he is only asking us to be generous. Well, I agree that we should be generous. If this was the point, than that is what the writer should have said. He said, “give to everyone who asks”. In that he must surely be mistaken.
New Testament morality has many problems. Luke 14:26 tells us we cannot be disciples unless we hate our father, mother, and children. What kind of family values is that? (And you cannot get around that verse by telling me that it means “love less” instead of “hate.” If the author meant “love less” why didn’t he say what he meant?) Matt.10:34 says, “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” Do you agree that the world needs yet another sword?
How should a guest treat a host? Some might respond by asking, “What would Jesus do?” Well, whatwould Jesus do?
Now when He had spoken, a Pharisee asked Him to have lunch with him; and He went in, and reclined at the table. When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal. But the Lord said to him, “Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and of the platter; but inside of you, you are full of robbery and wickedness. You foolish ones, did not He who made the outside make the inside also?” ( Luke 11:37-40a)
So we find that, if Luke is to be believed, Jesus was sitting as a guest in a man’s home, and his host was surprised that Jesus did not ceremonially wash his hands. And we are told that Jesus insulted his host. Is this the proper way to treat your host? You do not turn on your host with insults like this, do you? Is this the way you want your children to act when they are away from home?
And then there is the command of Romans 13:1-2 to obey the government, all government.
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
If we were to follow this passage, then we would be forced to always obey our government. And so it would have been wrong for the Northern Alliance to defy the Taliban, the American revolutionaries to declare independence from the British, and the people of the Soviet Union to resist the Communists. But most of us seem to honor someone who rebelled against a government. It seems to me that we allow them to ignore the verses because we know reason is a better source of moral instruction than biblical literalism.
Some will tell me that these verses are only a general rule to follow government, and that the command to obey God rather than man can override this rule. But notice the language of Romans 13.Every person is to be in subjection…There is no authority except from God…whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God. That clearly includes everyone and every government. Now if the author had intended to say that most people should be in subjection to most governments, that mostauthority is from God, and that most people who resist the authority resist God, he could have said that. If he was trying to convey that idea with the words he wrote, than the author was incompetent. He should have said what he meant. He does not say there are a few authorities not from God. He says there is no authority except from God. When he emphasizes the universality of the command multiple times, how can people just ignore it and say he is only referring to some authority? But if it applies to all authority, then it is saying that the French Resistance to Hitler, and the American Revolution from England were wrong.
And so it goes. People regularly ignore the Bible if it is not to their liking. They assume it must not mean what it clearly says. Wouldn’t it be more honest to accept that it means what it says, but it is wrong?
Atrocities
It gets worse.
Imagine that your child comes home from Sunday school and shows you the handout he was given. It says, “How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.” It shows a picture of a baby being thrown against a rock with his head splitting open. How do you react? I am sure that you would be upset with that literature. You would never want your children to be taught this, would you? But, if your children carry a Bible to church, they carry those verses with them (Psalm 137:8-9). And those verses teach that the act of throwing babies against rocks is blessed. Those are two of the verses your children carry with them in the little black book they carry to Sunday School. Don’t worry, your child will never actually be taught those verses in Sunday school. Those verses never seem to make the cut.
How can a holy book praise people that smash babies against the rocks? Yes, I understand that the writer was angry against his Babylonian captors. I can feel for his anger against the soldiers, slave drivers, and political leaders. I understand the hurt. But how can he say it was blessed to kill Babylonian babies? You surely do not approve of going to your enemy and killing his baby as an act of revenge, do you? Isn’t that an act of terrorism? Why does the Bible praise this? I would say that this writer is morally confused. I would say he is praising something wrong.
Steve Allen was not only an entertainer, but he was also a serious thinker. Read his observations about the Bible.(click on the book)
If this were the only problem, I might be able to overlook it. But there are so many morally troubling verses. Do you doubt that? I have a suggestion. Tonight, start at Genesis and start reading. Ignore the commentaries. Ignore the chapter headings. I am asking you to do what your pastor would ask you to do. Get into the word. Read it for yourself. You will be surprised.
Remember the story of the Passover? Moses keeps asking Pharaoh to let the people go from their bondage. Pharaoh refuses. Finally, according to the story, God comes up with a plan that breaks Pharaoh’s will to fight. It involves sending an angel to kill all of the firstborn in Egypt. And we are told that this is exactly what happened–”There was a great cry in Egypt, for there was no home where there was not someone dead.” (Ex.12:30) No home survived? What a terrible slaughter. Maybe I should not play Monday morning quarterback–I was not there–but an idea comes to mind. Wouldn’t it have been easier to threaten to kill Pharaoh? If he doesn’t respond, kill him. Suppose his successor maintained the evil bondage. Ok, then you kill the next Pharaoh. How many Pharaohs do you need to kill until one of them will listen and end the brutal slavery? How do you like that plan? Isn’t that more humane than killing thousands of innocent babies? Why not?
Imagine that you are watching the evening news. You see a picture of a missile being skillfully guided so that it misses the enemy bunker and slams into an orphanage. The reporter tells you that this is exactly where the missile was supposed to hit. The reporter describes the precision that was necessary to avoid the tanks and hit the babies. He tells you that these tactics will demoralize the opposition leaders, and cause them to submit to our requests. How would you react? You would be outraged, wouldn’t you? When civilized countries fight modern warfare, they take special precautions to avoid killing babies.
But what happened in Exodus? If we believe the Bible, the big blow deliberately missed Pharaoh, missed the army command-and-control, and missed the slave drivers. Instead, we are told it was aimed specifically at the children. This is good? This is moral? Can you understand how I have come to the opinion that the writer of this passage was mistaken?
The slaughter of babies was a constant theme in the Old Testament. Repeatedly we are told that God sanctioned the slaughter of babies. For instance, In I Samuel 15 we read:
1Then Samuel said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you as king over His people, over Israel; now therefore, listen to the words of the LORD. 2“Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3 ‘Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
Can you imagine the gruesome scene (assuming it actually happened as recorded)? Hundreds of children would have been killed with the sword as they fled or cowered into a corner. Can you support such actions? Can you not see that it would be wrong to kill the infants in this way? Can you not see why many people think the Bible is mistaken to sanction such things?
Some will tell me that the killing of babies was okay, for God sanctioned it. But how do they know God sanctioned it? Isn’t it possible that the writer was mistaken when he wrote that God said this?
Defenders of the Bible often resort to extreme moral relativism when they try to defend such verses. They try to declare that there is no intrinsic difference between right and wrong, and that all that matters is obeying God. So if the voice of God were to sanction rape, murder, slavery, or torture, they see no problem with doing those things. To them morality is all about obeying the rules, and has nothing to do with what is best. But if this is the attitude they have, then they would equally follow an evil tyrant God as they would a good God. For if there is no intrinsic difference between right and wrong, if all that matters is that we perform our duty as directed from above, if there is no value in questioning whether the act is right, one would then be forced to follow a God even if he commanded the most horribly depraved deeds.
No, it seems to me that some things are indeed bad. Killing innocent babies is bad. And this passage commands the killing of innocent babies. Is not this passage wrong?
If a friend told you he heard a voice from the sky claiming to be God and telling him to kill babies, you would not tell him to do it, would you? You would doubt that it really was God who was speaking, wouldn’t you? You would demand overwhelming evidence. Why do you not have the same skepticism when you approach I Samuel 15? For we have found no reason to assume this passage is inspired by God. Is it possible that this writer was mistaken when he thought God was sanctioning the killing of babies? Which is more likely? That the author was mistaken when he thought God was commanding him to kill babies, or that a sovereign God of the universe was commanding the slaughter of innocent babies?
So it seems to me that the writers of the Bible sometimes presented a depraved morality.
You may want to tell me that the Bible has many good parts. I agree. But much of the good teaching of the Bible is also found in other books that were written before the Bible. For instance here is the Golden Rule as taught by others before Jesus:
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary. (Talmud, Shabbat 31a – thirteenth century B.C.)
Surely it is the maxim of loving kindness: Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you. (Analects 15:23 – sixth century B.C.)
May I do to others as I would that they should do to me. (Plato, fourth century B.C.)
So we find that many people taught the Golden Rule long before Jesus. The Bible was not original when it proposed this idea. There have been many good books about morals.
I am for high moral standards. I am in favor of kindness, and love, and the rule of law. I am not convinced that the standard of morality that I see in the Bible is better than the standard that I reach by reason. That is why I choose reason.
An edited extract from Francis’s Legacy, by E. Michael Jones.
(Pictures, captions, and Talmudic quotes supplied by Lasha Darkmoon).
“If you come down from the cross, we will accept you as our Messiah.” — The Jewish high priests Annas and Caiphas to Jesus
If what is left of the WASP establishment wants to do something effective in the culture wars, they will have to understand just who the enemy is.
In order to understand this, they will have to go back well beyond the 1960s. In fact, they will have to go back beyond the 18th century: to be precise, 1800 years before that, right back to the opening shot in the culture wars.
This war began 2000 years ago at the foot of the cross, when the Jewish high priests, Annas and Caiphas, said to Jesus Christ, “If you come down from the cross, we will accept you as our Messiah.”
Needless to say, Jesus did not come down from the cross. And because he didn’t, the Jews rejected Him. Instead, they choseBarabbas, a bandit who had been condemned to death for his revolutionary activities.
At once, by doing this—by preferring a notorious criminal to a man of spotless innocence who had come to redeem them—the Jews became revolutionaries themselves: condemned to seek heaven on earth by following one false Messiah after another from Simon bar Kokhbar to Shabbetai Zevi, from Alex Portnoy to Paul Wolfowitz.
As my friend Sam Francis used to say, Who is the real enemy?
To answer that question, we need to turn first to Professor Kevin MacDonald’s analysis of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples (NAACP), the premier organization of the Jewish-Black alliance.
Kevin MacDonald, America’s premier racial theorist, says pretty much the same thing as Benjamin Ginsberg in an article on the Jewish-Black alliance which appeared in Race and the American Prospect, the book my friend Sam Francis was editing before he died:
The record [MacDonald writes] shows quite clearly that Jewish organizations as well as a great number of individual Jews contributed enormously to the success of the movement to increase the power of blacks and alter the racial hierarchy of the United States. (p. 221).
Jews have played a prominent role in organizing blacks beginning with the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909. The NAACP was founded by wealthy German Jews, non-Jewish whites and blacks led by W.E.B. Dubois. The Jewish role was predominant.
By mid-decade, the NAACP had something of the aspect of an adjunct of B’nai B’rith and the American Jewish Committee. . . . By 1920, Herbert Seligman was director of public relations and Martha Greuning served as his assistant. . . . Small wonder that a bewildered [Black Nationalist leader]Marcus Garvey stormed out of NAACP headquarters in 1917 muttering that it was a white organization.
The NAACP, in other words, purportedly a black organization for the advancement of black civil rights,was in fact a Jewish organization.
It was a Jewish organization that mobilized America’s blacks to fight racial discrimination insofar as this was congruent with Jewish goals. Benjamin Ginsberg is remarkably frank in discussing the terms of the Jewish-Black alliance:
By speaking on behalf of blacks as well as Jews . . . Jewish groups were able to present themselves as fighting for the abstract and quintessential American principles of fair play and equal justice rather than the selfish interests of Jews alone. This would not be the last time that Jewish organizations found that helping blacks could serve their own interests as well.
[LASHA DARKMOON SAYS: A valued correspondent, Dick Chardet, has this morning sent me the following extremely apt 1912 quotation by ISRAEL COHEN which reinforces all the points made above. At his request, I add the quote here:
We must realize that our party's most powerful weapon is racial tensions. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.
— Israel Cohen, ''A Racial Program for the Twentieth Century'', 1912.
Also in the Congressional Record, Vol. 103, p. 8559, June 7, 1957]
It turns out, then, that there is much more to this Black/Jewish alliance than that of simply fighting discrimination.
By allying themselves with the blacks, the Jews found that they could covertly attack the people they perceived as their main political enemies and weaken if not destroy their political influence, i.e., the power and cultural values of the WASPs—an ethos based on 2000 years of Christianity.
And so the real enemy, it turns out, was the old enemy who has dogged our footsteps for the last 2000 years: The Revolutionary Jew
* * *
The Revolutionary Jew, it must be emphasized, is not our enemy because of some occult racial inheritance. The Revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he has rejected Logos. This means that Jews, to the extent that they honor and revere Logos, are not our enemies.
Note. “Logos” may be defined as the Christ Principle, or the rule of law in a divinely ordered universe. Thus the Logos would seem to be an intrinsic feature of all the great world religions with the notable exception of Judaism—especially in its bizarre Talmudic manifestation. (LD)
There are Jews who accept Logos fully by sincerely accepting baptism, and there are Jews who accept it in some lesser capacity by their docility to the truth. We all know Jews like this, and they should not be excluded from our fellowship, especially since many of them have suffered at the hands of “the Jews” themselves.
As the Gospel of St. John makes clear, the Jews became “the Jews” the minute they rejected Christ. As such, their only identity is negative. The minute they rejected Logos, which means reason, order, speech, and word, they became revolutionaries, determined enemies not only of Christ and the Christian social order, but any order in any society not of their own revolutionary making.
Thirty years after rejecting Christ, the Revolutionary Jew rose in rebellion against Rome. Seventy years later they united under Simon bar Kokhbar, one of their many messiahs, and tried the same thing again. Having failed to destroy Rome, they attempted to destroy the Europe which St. Benedict created out of the ruins of the Roman Empire and to replace it with one of their many deadly Utopias.
What does Jerusalem under Simon bar Kokhbar—what does the Soviet Union under Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamanev, and Radek—what does the short lived Soviet Republic of Bavaria under Kurt Eisner and Eugene Levine—what does Hungary under Bela Kun—what does the racial apartheid state known as Israel under terrorists like Menachem Begin or Itzhak Shamir—what does the neocon Never-Never Land known as the “free and democratic Iraq”—what do all these miserable abortions have in common?
Death is what they have in common!
Lots of people have to die to bring about the Revolutionary Jew’s version of heaven on earth.
Key figures in the Bolshevik Revolution (1917), and the subsequent Soviet Union of the Stalinist era, which claimed the lives (according to Solzhenitsyn) of 66 million Russian Christians between 1917-1953.
“With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders.” — WINSTON CHURCHILL.
(Note. Churchill was unaware that even Lenin was partly Jewish).
* * *
The West which we seek to preserve is based on docility to Logos, the order of the universe which makes discourse possible. The essence of Jewish Messianic politics which seeks to create heaven on earth, is rejection of Logos. It has nothing to do with DNA.
The essence of this Jewish rejection of Logos is found and known in the Talmud, which is anti-Logos in every sense of the word, from hatred of Christ all the way down to rejection of the practical logos known as morality.
We saw a good example of Talmudic thought in action during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon (2006) when Charles Krauthammer and the Jewish rabbinic council attacked the Just War theory—in particular its ban on killing noncombatants and the principle of proportionality. This was apparently a “Christian” ideal and therefore non-applicable to Jews.
Christians, if they choose, may spare the lives of civilians and kill their enemies in a restrained manner—“proportionality”—but there is no obligation on Jews to copy the compassionate Christians.
Charles Krauthammer, torture advocate, argues in the Weekly Standard(December 5, 2005) that it is not only permissible to hang a suspect up by his thumbs to extract information from him, but that it is a “moral duty” to do so, provided Israel’s security and the lives of a million imaginary people are at stake. Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor and torture expert, would have approved. He suggests it might be a good idea to torture suspects, even the innocent ones, by sticking needles under their fingernails.
The principles of the Just War theory are of course the basic principles of civilized conduct, the bedrock of human decency. Those who refuse to abide by these basic rules are barbarians and deserved to be treated as such. No country can implement Talmudic thought—as America has—and not suffer the catastrophic consequences of Logos rejection: that is to say, the rejection of reason, human rights, and the fundamental ethical principles that are inseparable from civilized behavior.
In France, in 1890, in the wake of the one hundredth anniversary of the French Revolution, the Jesuits who wrote for Civilta Cattolica explained how widespread rejection of Logos, in the form of the French Revolution, led to bondage: in particular, bondage to Jews.
The same thing is true of our country in the wake of the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s. We swallowed the bait of sexual liberation and ended up being enslaved by our enemies.
Lest anyone misunderstand me, I am saying that the Jews are our enemy insofar as we are partisans of Logos and they are not. They are the enemies of Logos, because their religion is based on hatred of Logos. And nothing makes this clearer than the Jews’ “holiest” book, the Talmud, a compendium of the most diabolical principles ever conceived by the mind of man.
Yeshiva student being taught the Talmud
Opening the Talmud at random, here are a dozen pearls of wisdom the impressionable young student is likely to encounter: (1) “It is permitted for Jews to cheat Gentiles. All lies are good.” (2) “If a Jew has stolen something from a Gentile and the Gentile discovers it and demands it back, the Jew should simply deny it all. The Jewish court will stand by the Jew.” (3) “A Jew need not pay a gentile the wages owed him for work.” (4) “When a Jew murders a gentile, there will be no death penalty. What a Jew steals from a gentile he may keep.” (5) “Gentile girls are in a state of niddah (filth) from birth. Gentiles prefer sex with cows.” (6) “Adam had sexual intercourse with all the animals in the Garden of Eden.” (7) “A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old … When a grown-up man has intercourse with a litte girl it is nothing.” (8) “A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated … A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl.” (9) “A Jewish man is obligated to say the following prayer every day:Thank you God for not making me a gentile, a woman or a slave.” (10)“When the Messiah comes, every Jew will have 2800 slaves.” (11) “Jesus is in hell, being boiled in hot excrement.” (12) “If a Jew is tempted to do evil, he should go to a city where he is not known and do the evil there.”
Lytton Strachey and his friends once referred to the subversive movement we call Bloomsbury as the “higher sodomy.” Taking a page from his book, I will refer to Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular as the “higher Logos.”
Those of us who follow the higher Logos know, however, that the only proper response we can make to our enemies is to love them, and the clearest manifestation of that love is our desire to bring them to the Truth, otherwise known as the Logos.
We should therefore work for their conversion to the Higher Logos.
* * *
At this point, it should be obvious that I am not just talking about Jews as the enemies of Logos. I am also talking about Christians who want to live and act like Jews. And lest this statement of mine be distorted and presented as evidence of my “anti-Semitism”, let me add that I firmly believe that there are many Jews who are better Christians than quite a few Christians are!
The Puritans spring immediately to mind as “bad Christians”, thanks to the toxic Judaizing influence they had on America from the moment of its birth.
I am also thinking of the many non-Jewish character assassins and apologists for usury, pornography and other Jewish forms of social control. Their name is Legion. They earn their money by poisoning the public mind.
I am thinking of the likes of Alfred Kinsey, a nominal Christian, who to my mind was a far more evil influence than Sigmund Freud, an atheist Jew. (See “The Case Against Kinsey”, here).
I repeat: the revolutionary Jew is our enemy because he is a rejecter of Logos, not because of his DNA.
We are not anti-Semites because we oppose the machinations of the Revolutionary Jew. No, we are true Christians because of that, as the Church from the time of St. Peter onward has proclaimed.
Like St. Peter and St. Paul, we are suffering at the hands of the Jews, “the people who put the Lord Jesus to death, and the prophets too. And now they have been persecuting us, and acting in a way that cannot please God and makes them the enemies of the whole human race” (1 Thess 1: 15).
We are now engaged in a war which has ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but the sides in this war have not changed. What has changed are the odds. The Jews have never been stronger. The Christians, specifically the Catholics, have never been weaker.
The outcome of this particular war however—and the war for the soul of the West, as Tolkien knew, is a spiritual war—is rarely predictable, no matter what the odds are.
If St. Paul, representing the Christian position, has to say, “When I am weak, I am strong,” (2 Corinthians 12:10) then the Revolutionary Jew, representing the opposite polarity, has to say, “When I am strong, I am weak.”
We are outgunned on every front in the culture wars, but that is no reason for despair.
If we follow the Logos that St. Paul followed, who was outgunned by the Jews too, outgunned but not undone, we can say with St Paul: “We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down but not destroyed.” (2 Corinthians 4:8)
And so, as Theoden said, “We come to it in the end, the great battle of our time, in which many things will pass away. But at least there is no longer need for hiding.” (See Lord of the Rings, here.)
Nor, we might add, is there any place to hide.
Many of us are have already had our careers destroyed by the Revolutionary Jew and his goyische front men. The Jews spy on us through our computers. They suborn fellow Christians to betray us, get us fired, prevent us from speaking out.
Our backs are to the wall. We have never been weaker. And our enemies have never been stronger. But that is no reason for despair, because as Elrond says, “this quest may be attempted by the weak with as much hope as the strong.” And why is that? Because “such is the course of deeds that move the wheels of the world: small hands do them because they must, while the eyes of the great are elsewhere.” (See Lord of the Rings, here.)
We have no common past. We have no royal family waiting in the wings. We have no established religion which can act as a source of order and identity. We have no racial identity. We have no common DNA. I am almost tempted to say that we have no We. We are a nation of nations, and that is all we have ever been.
All we have is various ethnic traditions and communities, united by the frail bonds of Logos, as perceived by the human soul beset by human passions.
If our souls are weak, remember that Logos is not. Logos is the glue that binds the universe together.
And so it is strong enough to unite us as Americans—whether it be the higher Logos which acknowledges Christ as Lord of the universe, or the lower Logos which honors him by detecting order in the works of creation and beauty in the moral law.
We are the party of Logos, and it is only as such that we can think of surviving.
If we do not survive, how can we hope to prevail over our enemies?
A PALESTINIAN MOTHER AND HER CHILD
“What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.”— Friedrich Nietzsche
