The Globalist Long Game – Redefine Liberty Activism As Evil “Populism”

Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

One of the most favored propaganda tactics of establishment elites and the useful idiots they employ in Marxist and cultural-Marxist circles is to relabel or redefine an opponent before they can solidly define themselves.  In other words, elites and Marxists will seek to “brand” you (just as corporations use branding) in the minds of the masses so that they can take away your ability to define yourself as anything else.

Think of it this way: Say you want to launch an organization called “Movement Blue,” and you and others have gone through great struggle to grow this organization from the ground up.  However, just as your movement is about to achieve widespread recognition, someone else comes along, someone with extensive capital and media influence, and they saturate every outlet with the narrative that your movement is actually more like “Movement Red,” and that Movement Red is a terrible, no-good, bad idea.  They do such a good job, in fact, that millions and millions of people start calling you “Movement Red” without even knowing why, and they begin to believe all the negative associations that this label entails.

Through the art of negative branding, your enemy has stolen your most precious asset — the ability to present yourself to the public as you really are.

Negative branding is a form of psychological inoculation.  It is designed to close people’s minds to particular ideas before they actually hear those ideas presented by a true proponent of the ideas.  But beyond that, negative branding can also be used to trick groups and movements into abandoning their original identity.

For example, the concept of economic freedom for individuals –the freedom from overt government interference or government favoritism for certain people over others, the freedom to compete with ideas and ingenuity to build a better business and a better product, the freedom to retain the fruits of one’s labor — used to be widely referred to as “free markets”, as defined by Adam Smith.  The very basis of free market philosophy was to remove obstruction and economic oppression from the common man in order to inspire a renaissance in innovation and prosperity.  The problem is, you rarely hear anyone but libertarians talk about traditional “free markets” anymore.

Though Karl Marx did not coin the term “capitalism,” he and his followers (and editors) are indeed guilty of the pejorative version now used.  It has always been Marxist propagandists who have sought to redefine the idea of “free markets” in a negative way, and the use of the term capitalism is how they did it.  They have been so effective in their efforts that today even some free market proponents instead refer to themselves as “capitalists.”

While “free markets” denote freedom of the common man to pursue a better life through productivity and intelligence and merit, “capitalism” denotes a monstrous and blind pursuit of wealth and power without moral regard.  One gives the impression of fairness, the other gives the impression of tyranny.

Is there even such an animal as “capitalism?”  I can’t really say.  What I do know is that the system we have today, a hybrid mutation of corporatism and socialism, is certainly NOT a free market system if we are to follow the true definition and the original intent.  Yet, whenever cultural and economic Marxists attack the notion of economic freedom, they use the system we have now as an example of the failures of “free market capitalism.”

This is the magic of negative branding, and it is used in every facet of social life and geopolitics.

Now, before I get into the term “populist,” I recognize that people opposed to my position will immediately spring into a tirade about how liberty and sovereignty champions brand those against our ideals “in the exact same way.”  This is not quite true, though.

When we refer to “globalists” in a negative manner, we are taking a pre-existing label, something that they often call themselves, and pointing out that their philosophy is flawed and highly destructive based on historical evidence and verifiable facts.  We are not seeking to redefine them as anything other than what they already are.  We are merely exposing to the public what they OPENLY promote and believe and then offer our side and our evidence as to why their beliefs are wrong.

This is not what they do to us.  Instead, globalists and their cronies prefer that the public does not get to hear our views directly from us.  They rarely, if ever, actually use our publications as a source for their attacks on our principles.  They would much rather tell the public what we are and what we believe before they are ever exposed to us.  This is why you will often find that many participants in protest groups at events held by anti-globalists like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos have never actually seen or heard a single speech by the men in question.  They have no idea what we really stand for.  In fact, they protest our speakers, groups and movements based on what they were told we stand for by other biased sources.

This brings us to “populism.”

There has been a deep and concerted propaganda campaign taking place against liberty activists, sovereignty champions, anti-globalists, anti-SJW groups, and conservatives in general.  I noticed this particular campaign accelerating at the beginning of 2016, and it was the primary reason why I chose to take a hard stance on my predictions for Brexit passage and a Trump election win.  The propaganda narrative could be summarized as follows:

Since early 2016 (according to globalists and the mainstream publications featuring their opinions), there has been a rising tide of nationalists and “populists” in western nations.  This sudden surge in “populism” is inexorably tied to the Brexit movement and the support for candidates like Donald Trump.  Populism will overrun the existing “stability” of globalism and cause severe economic crisis in numerous countries.  It finds its roots in the “less educated” portions of the population, as well as in older generations that think they have something to lose if globalism succeeds.  It is also driven by an “irrational fear” of economic change, global interdependence and multiculturalism.  Populists are predominantly naive and desperate for “strongmen” leaders to fight for them.  Some of them are motivated by self interest, while others are motivated by racism.

You can see these sentiments expressed bluntly in numerous mainstream media outlets.  The Guardian has no qualms about linking the Brexit to “racism” and populism, for example.  The Washington Post also has had no problem linking the Tea Party and Trump supporters to racism and populism as well.

Beyond the paper-thin accusations of racism, the general thrust of the negative branding is clear; if you are against globalism (or elitism) and its major tenets, then you are a “populist.”  This is reiterated in recent articles from Bloomberg and The Guardian.

But in such publications, the most egregious argument is the one that is not directly made.  The insinuation is that “populism” is not just defined by a fear of corruption through organized elitism, but that this fear is UNFOUNDED.  Meaning, anyone who argues against the mechanizations of globalists, for instance, is not only redefined as a “populist,” but he/she is also, essentially, ignorant or insane.  See how that works?

The populist label is often used to describe a political movement built on the cult of personality, a sycophantic love affair with a celebrity dictator that tends to have ulterior motives.  Thus, the philosophical underpinnings of that particular movement are further eroded because they don’t even know why they are doing what they are doing; they are only playing a foolish game of follow the leader.

So, to recap, according to the establishment and their “press,” conservatives and sovereignty activists are actually “populists.” Our concerns over uncontrolled immigration and open borders are not based on rationalism and historic evidence of social and economic instability as well as the highly evidenced threats of terrorism; they are based on “xenophobia.”

Our concerns over the increasing fiscal weakness generated by the economic interdependence of globalism and our lack of self reliance are not based on math and logic, but our “lack of understanding” on how interdependence makes everything better.

Our concerns over rampant organized elitism and the corruption this entails are not based on numerous concrete examples, not to mention exposed documentation and the words of elitists themselves; they are based on a “fantasy world” of “tinfoil hatters” who just make stuff up while consuming heaping helpings of “fake news”.

If this is the case, then I suppose I should fasten my own tinfoil hat tightly and note that this narrative is part of an ongoing long-game by globalists.  They are not attempting to achieve the demonization of conservatives and sovereignty advocates today or tomorrow.  This is about preparing the public for a near future, perhaps five to 10 years from now, after they have sufficiently sabotaged the global economy and scapegoated us for the crisis this will cause.

Not possible, you say?  By all means, read my article ‘The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017’ for further explanation.  If we are not careful, we will be redefined not just by establishment propaganda, but by a global calamity that will be gift wrapped with our name on it and tied around our collective necks.

In the meantime, how do we fight back against this disinformation campaign?

One factor that a “populist movement” generally does not have is the ability to remain self-critical.  Populism, at least according to the mainstream media, requires a mentality of mass blind faith in a cause that is misunderstood or a leader that is dishonest.  The liberty movement and conservative groups still have some members who are not afraid to point out when we are going astray in our logic or our actions.

We have not been silenced by our own peers, yet.  Given enough crisis, it is hard to say how people will react.  A major terrorist attack, an economic panic, a war; these kinds of rip-tides can inspire a lot of intolerance for contrary views.  We are not there at this point, and as long as members of our movement are able to retain a critical eye, we will never be “populists.”

Another method is to refrain from adopting the “branding” that the establishment tries to use against us.  Beware of anyone within our groups and organizations who begins referring to himself or us as “populists” as if this is a label of which we should be proud.

In the long run, people with ill intent will call us whatever they want to call us.  The real issue is, will those labels stick?  Will we help them to stick by losing our composure and acting the way the propagandists always said we would?

Negative branding is about burning a hole in the historical record, because memes last far longer than people.  In 100 years, how will we be remembered?  This is what the globalists value most — future impressions of today by generations not yet born.  Because wars are not just fought in one moment over one piece of ground or over one idea; they are fought in ALLmoments, for days not yet passed, for the posterity of all ideas, even those not yet thought of.  If we do not fight back with this in mind, winning will be impossible. [1]

The Ability to Remain Self-critical. The irony is painfully obvious.

Meet Yvette Felarca. She’s a proud advocate of violent thuggery in the pursuit of shutting down speech that she deems unacceptable. If she decides you fit her definition of a fascist – a word she very clearly doesn’t have a handle on – she is in favor of using any and all methods to silence you. If that means assault, rioting, and vandalism, so be it.

The irony is painfully obvious.

Because her position is so patently absurd, I don’t really have a lot to say about it. All I’ll add is the following: As you watch the clip, keep two things in mind.

1. This woman is a public school teacher. Given her inability to see the flaws in her own arguments, I doubt she’s much of an educator. …But it’s important to remember that this is the sort of person who has sway over your kids for around eight hours a day.

  1. She offers a terrible definition of fascism. It’s not even close to correct. However, let’s put that aside. Let’s pretend her definition is correct. How can she not recognize that immediately after she stakes her claim about fascists, she proudly self-identifies as one? She is, inarguably, precisely what she claims to be silencing.

Exit question: In an era where virtually every school on Earth has a zero-tolerance policy toward violence, how can a school have a violence-advocate on staff?

Berkeley Unified School District: Fire Yvette Felarca

                                                           Petition 

Source: [1] http://canadafreepress.com/article/tucker-takes-on-a-proud-violent-berkeley-protester.-it-goes-…badly-for-he

Posted in Activism | Tagged | Leave a comment

Was There Once a Different Hebrew Script?

Ketav Ivri vs. Ketav Ashurit

Question

I recently read about some ancient writings that were in a script called Proto-Hebrew, which the Jews supposedly used to write in before the current Hebrew script. What’s up with that? Which Hebrew is the authentic Hebrew, and in what script was the original Torah written?

Reply

Indeed, there are two scripts. One is ketav Ivri (“Hebrew script”), also called Phoenician or Proto/Paleo-Hebrew. This is the “alternative” form of Hebrew you have discovered. This script was still widely in use during the age of the Mishnah, and was well known to the sages. The other script, ketav Ashurit (“Assyrian script”), is the one we know today as the Hebrew alphabet.

While this may be a fascinating revelation for some, your question regarding the script the Torah was written in is not a new one. In fact, the Talmud itself discusses this very question, and gives three opinions:1

a) Mar Zutra (some say Mar Ukva) said: “Originally, the Torah was given to Israel in Ivri letters and in the sacred (Hebrew) language. Later, in the times of Ezra, the Torah was given in Ashurit script and the Aramaic language. Finally, they selected for Israel the Ashurit script and the Hebrew language, leaving the Ivri characters and the Aramaic language for the commoners.” Who are the “commoners”? Rav Chisda said, “The Cuthites (Samaritans).” What is ketav Ivri? Rav Chisda said, “Libonaah2script [i.e., the ancient Hebrew].”

b) It was taught: Rebbi said: “Torah was originally given to Israel in Ashurit script. When they sinned, it was changed to roetz (Ivri script). When they repented, Ashurit script was reintroduced . . .”

c) R’ Shimon ben Elazar said in the name of R’ Eliezer ben Parta, who said in the name of R’ Elazar Hamoda’i: “This writing was never changed [i.e., it was always in Ashurit script].”

This is a page of the scripture of the Samaritans, who still use Ivri writing.
This is a page of the scripture of the Samaritans, who still use Ivri writing.

So seemingly, opinions (b) and (c)hold that the Torah was originally written in Ashurit, and opinion (a) holds that it was in Ivri. But it’s not so simple, as we shall see when examining the Tablets.

Miraculous Letters

The Talmud describes the miraculous script of the Tablets:

Rav Chisda said, “The letters mem and samech of the Tablets stood in place only by a miracle.”3

The Talmud explains that the letters were engraved all the way through the stone to the opposite side. Now, since the letters samech and (final) mem are completely closed, the section of stone in their centers was unattached to the body of the Tablets, and could have remained in place only through a miracle. This, however, is true only with regard to ketav Ashurit. In ketav Ivri, neither the mem nor the samech are completely closed.

What is especially difficult with this passage is that its author, Rav Chisda—who is effectively saying that the Tablets were given in ketav Ashurit—is the very same rabbi who agrees with and elaborates upon the first opinion above, that the Torah was given in ketav Ivri!

What complicates things even further is that there is an opinion in the Jerusalem Talmud that it was the letter ayin that was held in place miraculously. This would imply that it was written in ketav Ivri and not Ashurit, since the letter ayin in Ivri—as opposed to Ashurit—is indeed a closed letter.

See below how the samech and mem are closed letters in Ashurit, and the ayin is closed in Ivri:

Special Script vs. Common Script

To resolve this, Rabbi Yom Tov al-Ishbili, known as Ritva (approx. 1250–1330), explains that the Tablets and the Torah scroll that was kept in the Holy Ark were written in ketav Ashurit. This was considered a sacred script. However, neither Moses or the Israelites wished to use this holy script for mundane purposes. This reverence extended even to the Torah scrolls that were written for purposes of study by the masses, so they were written in ketav Ivri.4

Or as Rabbi Yehudah Loewe, known as Maharal of Prague (d. 1609), puts it, while the Tablets and the original Torah scroll were written in the beautiful Ashurit script (ashurit can be translated to mean “beautiful”), it is only logical that the Torah for the masses would be given to them in the script the people were familiar with.5

Rabbi David ibn Zimra, known as Radbaz (c. 1479–c. 1573), explains that when we say that the Tablets were written in Ashurit script, this is only the first Tablets, the ones about which the verse states, “Now the Tablets were G‑d‘s work, and the inscription was G‑d’s inscription, engraved on the Tablets.”6 The second set of Tablets, however, the ones about which G‑d tells Moses, “Inscribe these words for yourself,”7 were written in the script of the masses, i.e., ketav Ivri. Thus, the Babylonian Talmud is referring to the first set of Tablets, while the tradition in the Jerusalem Talmud is referring to the second set.8 However, the debate in the Talmud about the script of the Torah concerns which letters the Jews themselves used.

Radbaz further points out that until the Babylonian exile the Jews were referred to as Hebrews (Ivri’im), and their script may well have been the Hebrew (Ivri) script. However, after the Babylonian exile they were no longer called Hebrews, perhaps because at this time the beautiful ktav Ashurit script was taught by the prophets.9

These coins, with Ivri writing, were minted during the Mishnaic era in the years following the destruction of the Second Temple.
These coins, with Ivri writing, were minted during the Mishnaic era in the years following the destruction of the Second Temple.

Belshazzar and the Writing on the Wall

Some commentators posit that this is why, when the writing appeared on the wall during Belshazzar’s feast,10 none of the Jews present were able to interpret it. Most Jews were only familiar with ketav Ivri; only Daniel, a leader and the wisest Jew at the time, was familiar with ketav Ashurit. After this incident, the script became somewhat better known.11

King Josiah and Moses’ Torah Scroll

The above explanation also sheds light on another historical incident. In the course of the repairs to the Holy Temple in King Josiah’s reign, the high priest Hilkiah found a Torah scroll, and the Jews turned to a scribe to have it read. In the verses, Hilkiah describes finding not “a” but the” Torah scroll, i.e., the Torah scroll written by Moses himself.12 The reason many couldn’t read it was because it was written in ketav Ashurit.13

Script But Not Language

Although there are differing opinions as to the type of script the ancient Jews used, it is important to keep in mind that there is no disagreement regarding the language itself—all agree that the language of the Torah was Hebrew, the holy tongue, the language of creation.14

FOOTNOTES
1. Talmud, Sanhedrin 21b.
2. According to Rashi, this means “large characters, such as are employed in amulets.” According to Tosafot, it is the name of a certain locale.
3. Talmud, Shabbat 104a.
4. See Ritva and Rashba to Talmud, Megillah 2b.
5. See Rabbi Yehudah Loewe, Tiferet Yisrael 64.
8. Responsa of Radbaz 3:883 (442).
9. Responsa of Radbaz ibid.; see also Rabbi Yehuda Loewe, Tiferet Yisrael 64.
10. Daniel, ch. 5.
11. Responsa of Radbaz ibid.; see also Rabbi Reuven Margoliot, Hamikra Vehamesorah, “Ketav Ashuri.”
13. See Rabbi Reuven Margoliot, Hamikra VehaMesorah ibid.

The content in this page is produced by Chabad.org, and is copyrighted by the author and/or Chabad.org. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you do not revise any part of it, and you include this note, credit the author, and link to http://www.chabad.org. If you wish to republish this article in a periodical, book, or website, please email permissions@chabad.org.

Posted in Hebrew Script | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How the Gospels were created. What the Church doesn’t want you to know?

Repost from FORGED ORIGINS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
By Tony Bushby.

In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine created a composite god, and commissioned the writing and compilation of the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament.

It has often been emphasized that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities. The Church agrees, saying:

“Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted.”
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, “the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled” (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels “do not go back to the first century of the Christian era” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6). This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that “the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD” (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7). That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time.

It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorized the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament. After the death of his father in 306, Constantine became King of Britain, Gaul and Spain, and then, after a series of victorious battles, Emperor of the Roman Empire. Christian historians give little or no hint of the turmoil of the times and suspend Constantine in the air, free of all human events happening around him. In truth, one of Constantine’s main problems was the uncontrollable disorder amongst presbyters and their belief in numerous gods.

The majority of modern-day Christian writers suppress the truth about the development of their religion and conceal Constantine’s efforts to curb the disreputable character of the presbyters who are now called “Church Fathers” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1). They were “maddened”, he said (Life of Constantine, attributed to Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335, vol. iii, p. 171; The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, cited as N&PNF, attributed to St Ambrose, Rev. Prof. Roberts, DD, and Principal James Donaldson, LLD, editors, 1891, vol. iv, p. 467). The “peculiar type of oratory” expounded by them was a challenge to a settled religious order (The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature and Art, Oskar Seyffert, Gramercy, New York, 1995, pp. 544-5). Ancient records reveal the true nature of the presbyters, and the low regard in which they were held has been subtly suppressed by modern Church historians. In reality, they were:

“…the most rustic fellows, teaching strange paradoxes. They openly declared that none but the ignorant was fit to hear their discourses … they never appeared in the circles of the wiser and better sort, but always took care to intrude themselves among the ignorant and uncultured, rambling around to play tricks at fairs and markets … they lard their lean books with the fat of old fables … and still the less do they understand … and they write nonsense on vellum … and still be doing, never done.”(Contra Celsum [“Against Celsus”], Origen of Alexandria, c. 251, Bk I, p. lxvii, Bk III, p. xliv, passim)

Clusters of presbyters had developed “many gods and many lords” (1 Cor. 8:5) and numerous religious sects existed, each with differing doctrines (Gal. 1:6). Presbyterial groups clashed over attributes of their various gods and “altar was set against altar” in competing for an audience (Optatus of Milevis, 1:15, 19, early fourth century). From Constantine’s point of view, there were several factions that needed satisfying, and he set out to develop an all-embracing religion during a period of irreverent confusion. In an age of crass ignorance, with nine-tenths of the peoples of Europe illiterate, stabilizing religious splinter groups was only one of Constantine’s problems. The smooth generalization, which so many historians are content to repeat, that Constantine “embraced the Christian religion” and subsequently granted “official toleration”, is “contrary to historical fact” and should be erased from our literature forever (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. iii, p. 299, passim). Simply put, there was no Christian religion at Constantine’s time, and the Church acknowledges that the tale of his “conversion” and “baptism” are “entirely legendary” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xiv, pp. 370-1).

Constantine “never acquired a solid theological knowledge” and “depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions” (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. xii, p. 576, passim). According to Eusebeius (260-339), Constantine noted that among the presbyterian factions “strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state”, but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god factions (Life of Constantine, op. cit., pp. 26-8). His advisers warned him that the presbyters’ religions were “destitute of foundation” and needed official stabilization (ibid.).

Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion, neutral in concept, and to protect it by law. When he conquered the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious adviser, Osius of Crdoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. The mission failed and Constantine, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates “be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea” in the Roman province of Bithynia in Asia Minor. They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies they orated to the rabble, “bound in leather” for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea (The Catholic Dictionary, Addis and Arnold, 1917, “Council of Nicaea” entry). Their writings totaled “in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty-one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them” (Life of Constantine, op. cit., vol. ii, p. 73; N&PNF, op. cit., vol. i, p. 518).

The First Council of Nicaea and the “missing records”
Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and is today known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual climate prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at the time are difficult to calculate. About four years prior to chairing the Council, Constantine had been initiated into the religious order of Sol Invictus, one of the two thriving cults that regarded the Sun as the one and only Supreme God (the other was Mithraism). Because of his Sun worship, he instructed Eusebius to convene the first of three sittings on the summer solstice, 21 June 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, vol. i, p. 792), and it was “held in a hall in Osius’s palace” (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Paris, 1686, vol. i, p. 598). In an account of the proceedings of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said, “Excepting Constantine himself and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing” (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J. W. Sergerus, 1685, 1897 reprint).

This is another luminous confession of the ignorance and uncritical credulity of early churchmen. Dr Richard Watson (1737-1816), a disillusioned Christian historian and one-time Bishop of Llandaff in Wales (1782), referred to them as “a set of gibbering idiots” (An Apology for Christianity, 1776, 1796 reprint; also, Theological Tracts, Dr Richard Watson, “On Councils” entry, vol. 2, London, 1786, revised reprint 1791). From his extensive research into Church councils, Dr Watson concluded that “the clergy at the Council of Nicaea were all under the power of the devil, and the convention was composed of the lowest rabble and patronized the vilest abominations” (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). It was that infantile body of men who were responsible for the commencement of a new religion and the theological creation of Jesus Christ.

The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are “strangely absent from the canons” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 160). We shall see shortly what happened to them. However, according to records that endured, Eusebius “occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor’s behalf” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, pp. 619-620). There were no British presbyters at the council but many Greek delegates. “Seventy Eastern bishops” represented Asiatic factions, and small numbers came from other areas (Ecclesiastical History, ibid.). Caecilian of Carthage travelled from Africa, Paphnutius of Thebes from Egypt, Nicasius of Die (Dijon) from Gaul, and Donnus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia.

It was at that puerile assembly, and with so many cults represented, that a total of 318 “bishops, priests, deacons, subdeacons, acolytes and exorcists” gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god (An Apology for Christianity, op. cit.). By this time, a huge assortment of “wild texts” (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Edition, “Gospel and Gospels”) circulated amongst presbyters and they supported a great variety of Eastern and Western gods and goddesses: Jove, Jupiter, Salenus, Baal, Thor, Gade, Apollo, Juno, Aries, Taurus, Minerva, Rhets, Mithra, Theo, Fragapatti, Atys, Durga, Indra, Neptune, Vulcan, Kriste, Agni, Croesus, Pelides, Huit, Hermes, Thulis, Thammus, Eguptus, Iao, Aph, Saturn, Gitchens, Minos, Maximo, Hecla and Phernes (God’s Book of Eskra, anon., ch. xlviii, paragraph 36).

Up until the First Council of Nicaea, the Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods-Apollo and Zeus-but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithras (the Romanised version of the Persian deity Mithra). Caesar was deified by the Roman Senate after his death (15 March 44 BC) and subsequently venerated as “the Divine Julius”. The word “Saviour” was affixed to his name, its literal meaning being “one who sows the seed”, i.e., he was a phallic god. Julius Caesar was hailed as “God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life”, and his successor Augustus was called the “ancestral God and Saviour of the whole human race” (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown & Co., Boston, 1952). Emperor Nero (54-68), whose original name was Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (37-68), was immortalized on his coins as the “Saviour of mankind” (ibid.). The Divine Julius as Roman Saviour and “Father of the Empire” was considered “God” among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters’ texts, but was not recognized in Eastern or Oriental writings.

Constantine’s intention at Nicaea was to create an entirely new god for his empire who would unite all religious factions under one deity. Presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion of particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special deity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion. “As yet, no God had been selected by the council, and so they balloted in order to determine that matter… For one year and five months the balloting lasted…” (God’s Book of Eskra, Prof. S. L. MacGuire’s translation, Salisbury, 1922, chapter xlviii, paragraphs 36, 41).

At the end of that time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity but had balloted down to a shortlist of five prospects: Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus and Zeus (Historia Ecclesiastica, Eusebius, c. 325). Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon a new god for them. To involve British factions, he ruled that the name of the great Druid god, Hesus, be joined with the Eastern Saviour-god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus Hesus Krishna would be the official name of the new Roman god. A vote was taken and it was with a majority show of hands (161 votes to 157) that both divinities became one God. Following longstanding heathen custom, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman apotheosis decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new god was proclaimed and “officially” ratified by Constantine (Acta Concilii Nicaeni, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively and legally placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman gods as one individual composite. That abstraction lent Earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire’s new religion; and because there was no letter “J” in alphabets until around the ninth century, the name subsequently evolved into “Jesus Christ”.

How the Gospels were created
Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. His instructions were:

“Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions’ sake.”
(God’s Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

“Make them to astonish” said Constantine, and “the books were written accordingly” (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39). Eusebius amalgamated the “legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one”, using the standard god-myths from the presbyters’ manuscripts as his exemplars. Merging the supernatural “god” stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together “to form a new universal belief” (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story. Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce “fifty sumptuous copies … to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art” (ibid.). “These orders,” said Eusebius, “were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself … we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms” (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36). They were the “New Testimonies”, and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the “word of the Roman Saviour God” (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council “burnt” and declared that “any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders” (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.

Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church.Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended “for four years and seven months” from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title “Great and Holy Synod”, assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century. Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.

The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as “a synod of fools and madmen” and sought to annul “decisions passed by men with troubled brains” (History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871). If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to “affrighted bishops” and the “soldiery” needed to “quell proceedings”, the “fools and madmen” declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him “the great champion of Christianity” which he gave “legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire” (Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86). Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was “self-interest” that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn’t called “Christianity” until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).

Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine’s New Testimonies were expanded upon, “interpolations” were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John “golden-mouthed” Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). The Latinised name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius’s personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying “put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven” (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).

The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying, “Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645). Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also “falsely written” (“The Letters of Jerome”, Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).

The shock discovery of an ancient Bible
The New Testament subsequently evolved into a fulsome piece of priesthood propaganda, and the Church claimed it recorded the intervention of a divine Jesus Christ into Earthly affairs. However, a spectacular discovery in a remote Egyptian monastery revealed to the world the extent of later falsifications of the Christian texts, themselves only an “assemblage of legendary tales” (Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). On 4 February 1859, 346 leaves of an ancient codex were discovered in the furnace room at St Catherine’s monastery at Mt Sinai, and its contents sent shockwaves through the Christian world. Along with other old codices, it was scheduled to be burned in the kilns to provide winter warmth for the inhabitants of the monastery. Written in Greek on donkey skins, it carried both the Old and New Testaments, and later in time archaeologists dated its composition to around the year 380. It was discovered by Dr Constantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874), a brilliant and pious German biblical scholar, and he called it the Sinaiticus, the Sinai Bible. Tischendorf was a professor of theology who devoted his entire life to the study of New Testament origins, and his desire to read all the ancient Christian texts led him on the long, camel-mounted journey to St Catherine’s Monastery.

During his lifetime, Tischendorf had access to other ancient Bibles unavailable to the public, such as the Alexandrian (or Alexandrinus) Bible, believed to be the second oldest Bible in the world. It was so named because in 1627 it was taken from Alexandria to Britain and gifted to King Charles I (1600-49). Today it is displayed alongside the world’s oldest known Bible, the Sinaiticus, in the British Library in London. During his research, Tischendorf had access to the Vaticanus, the Vatican Bible, believed to be the third oldest in the world and dated to the mid-sixth century (The Various Versions of the Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1874, available in the British Library). It was locked away in the Vatican’s inner library. Tischendorf asked if he could extract handwritten notes, but his request was declined. However, when his guard took refreshment breaks, Tischendorf wrote comparative narratives on the palm of his hand and sometimes on his fingernails (“Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?”, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, lecture, 1869, available in the British Library).

Today, there are several other Bibles written in various languages during the fifth and sixth centuries, examples being the Syriacus, the Cantabrigiensis (Bezae), the Sarravianus and the Marchalianus.

A shudder of apprehension echoed through Christendom in the last quarter of the 19th century when English-language versions of the Sinai Bible were published. Recorded within these pages is information that disputes Christianity’s claim of historicity. Christians were provided with irrefutable evidence of willful falsifications in all modern New Testaments. So different was the Sinai Bible’s New Testament from versions then being published that the Church angrily tried to annul the dramatic new evidence that challenged its very existence.

In a series of articles published in the London Quarterly Review in 1883, John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, used every rhetorical device at his disposal to attack the Sinaiticus’ earlier and opposing story of Jesus Christ, saying that “…without a particle of hesitation, the Sinaiticus is scandalously corrupt … exhibiting the most shamefully mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with; they have become, by whatever process, the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders and intentional perversions of the truth which are discoverable in any known copies of the word of God”. Dean Burgon’s concerns mirror opposing aspects of Gospel stories then current, having by now evolved to a new stage through centuries of tampering with the fabric of an already unhistorical document.

The revelations of ultraviolet light testing
In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and “few scholars had set eyes on it” (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as “the oldest Bible in the world” (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.

Before I summarize its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors. Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).

Forgery in the Gospels
When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified. These amendments can be recognized by a simple comparative exercise that anybody can and should do. Serious study of Christian origins must emanate from the Sinai Bible’s version of the New Testament, not modern editions.

Of importance is the fact that the Sinaiticus carries three Gospels since rejected: the Shepherd of Hermas (written by two resurrected ghosts, Charinus and Lenthius), the Missive of Barnabas and the Odes of Solomon. Space excludes elaboration on these bizarre writings and also discussion on dilemmas associated with translation variations.

Modern Bibles are five removes in translation from early editions, and disputes rage between translators over variant interpretations of more than 5,000 ancient words. However, it is what isnot written in that old Bible that embarrasses the Church, and this article discusses only a few of those omissions. One glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying: “The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour”. That is because there never was a virgin birth.

It is apparent that when Eusebius assembled scribes to write the New Testimonies, he first produced a single document that provided an exemplar or master version. Today it is called the Gospel of Mark, and the Church admits that it was “the first Gospel written” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 657), even though it appears second in the New Testament today. The scribes of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were dependent upon the Mark writing as the source and framework for the compilation of their works. The Gospel of John is independent of those writings, and the late-15th-century theory that it was written later to support the earlier writings is the truth (The Crucifixion of Truth, Tony Bushby, Joshua Books, 2004, pp. 33-40).

Thus, the Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the “first” story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus “at about the age of thirty” (Mark 1:9), and doesn’t know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as “the son of God” do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today’s editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a “messianic bloodline” back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called “messianic prophecies” (51 in total). The Sinai Bible carries a conflicting version of events surrounding the “raising of Lazarus”, and reveals an extraordinary omission that later became the central doctrine of the Christian faith: the resurrection appearances of Jesus Christ and his ascension into Heaven. No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).

Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of “resurrection” appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story. Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named “K” by analysts. They are also lacking in the oldest Armenian version of the New Testament, in sixth-century manuscripts of the Ethiopic version and ninth-century Anglo-Saxon Bibles. However, some 12th-century Gospels have the now-known resurrection verses written within asterisks marks used by scribes to indicate spurious passages in a literary document.

The Church claims that “the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available. A resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ is the sine qua non (“without which, nothing”) of Christianity (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), confirmed by words attributed to Paul: “If Christ has not been raised, your faith is in vain” (1 Cor. 5:17). The resurrection verses in today’s Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying “the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine … almost the entire section is a later compilation” (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading “The Evidence of its Spuriousness”; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading “Canons”). Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.

The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus’ resurrection to his disciples. The Church admits: “The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia(NCE), “Gospel of John”, p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

“The Great Insertion” and “The Great Omission”
Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible. Six of those words say of Jesus “and was carried up into heaven”, but this narrative does not appear in any of the oldest Gospels of Luke available today (“Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels”, F. C. Conybeare, The Hibbert Journal, London, vol. 1, no. 1, Oct 1902, pp. 96-113). Ancient versions do not verify modern-day accounts of an ascension of Jesus Christ, and this falsification clearly indicates an intention to deceive.

Today, the Gospel of Luke is the longest of the canonical Gospels because it now includes “The Great Insertion”, an extraordinary 15th-century addition totaling around 8,500 words (Luke 9:51-18:14). The insertion of these forgeries into that Gospel bewilders modern Christian analysts, and of them the Church said: “The character of these passages makes it dangerous to draw inferences” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Pecci ed., vol. ii, p. 407).

Just as remarkable, the oldest Gospels of Luke omit all verses from 6:45 to 8:26, known in priesthood circles as “The Great Omission”, a total of 1,547 words. In today’s versions, that hole has been “plugged up” with passages plagiarized from other Gospels. Dr Tischendorf found that three paragraphs in newer versions of the Gospel of Luke’s version of the Last Supper appeared in the 15th century, but the Church still passes its Gospels off as the unadulterated “word of God” (“Are Our Gospels Genuine or Not?”, op. cit.)

The “Expurgatory Index”
As was the case with the New Testament, so also were damaging writings of early “Church Fathers” modified in centuries of copying, and many of their records were intentionally rewritten or suppressed.
Adopting the decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-63), the Church subsequently extended the process of erasure and ordered the preparation of a special list of specific information to be expunged from early Christian writings (Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Rev. Charles Elliott, DD, G. Lane & P. P. Sandford, New York, 1842, p. 89; also, The Vatican Censors, Professor Peter Elmsley, Oxford, p. 327, pub. date n/a).

In 1562, the Vatican established a special censoring office called Index Expurgatorius. Its purpose was to prohibit publication of “erroneous passages of the early Church Fathers” that carried statements opposing modern-day doctrine.

When Vatican archivists came across “genuine copies of the Fathers, they corrected them according to the Expurgatory Index” (Index Expurgatorius Vaticanus, R. Gibbings, ed., Dublin, 1837; The Literary Policy of the Church of Rome, Joseph Mendham, J. Duncan, London, 1830, 2nd ed., 1840; The Vatican Censors, op. cit., p. 328). This Church record provides researchers with “grave doubts about the value of all patristic writings released to the public” (The Propaganda Press of Rome, Sir James W. L. Claxton, Whitehaven Books, London, 1942, p. 182).

Important for our story is the fact that the Encyclopaedia Biblica reveals that around 1,200 years of Christian history are unknown: “Unfortunately, only few of the records [of the Church] prior to the year 1198 have been released”. It was not by chance that, in that same year (1198), Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) suppressed all records of earlier Church history by establishing the Secret Archives (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xv, p. 287). Some seven-and-a-half centuries later, and after spending some years in those Archives, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux wrote How The Great Pan Died. In a chapter titled “The Whole of Church History is Nothing but a Retroactive Fabrication”, he said this (in part):

“The Church ante-dated all her late works, some newly made, some revised and some counterfeited, which contained the final expression of her history … her technique was to make it appear that much later works written by Church writers were composed a long time earlier, so that they might become evidence of the first, second or third centuries.” (How The Great Pan Died, op. cit., p. 46)

Supporting Professor Bordeaux’s findings is the fact that, in 1587, Pope Sixtus V (1585-90) established an official Vatican publishing division and said in his own words, “Church history will be now be established … we shall seek to print our own account” Encyclopédie, Diderot, 1759). Vatican records also reveal that Sixtus V spent 18 months of his life as pope personally writing a new Bible and then introduced into Catholicism a “New Learning” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. v, p. 442, vol. xv, p. 376). The evidence that the Church wrote its own history is found in Diderot’s Encyclopédie, and it reveals the reason why Pope Clement XIII (1758-69) ordered all volumes to be destroyed immediately after publication in 1759.

Gospel authors exposed as imposters
There is something else involved in this scenario and it is recorded in the Catholic Encyclopedia. An appreciation of the clerical mindset arises when the Church itself admits that it does not know who wrote its Gospels and Epistles, confessing that all 27 New Testament writings began life anonymously:

“It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not traceable to the evangelists themselves … they [the New Testament collection] are supplied with titles which, however ancient, do not go back to the respective authors of those writings.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 655-6)

The Church maintains that “the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship”, adding that “the headings … were affixed to them” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656). Therefore they are not Gospels written “according to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John”, as publicly stated. The full force of this confession reveals that there are no genuine apostolic Gospels, and that the Church’s shadowy writings today embody the very ground and pillar of Christian foundations and faith. The consequences are fatal to the pretence of Divine origin of the entire New Testament and expose Christian texts as having no special authority. For centuries, fabricated Gospels bore Church certification of authenticity now confessed to be false, and this provides evidence that Christian writings are wholly fallacious.

After years of dedicated New Testament research, Dr Tischendorf expressed dismay at the differences between the oldest and newest Gospels, and had trouble understanding…
“…how scribes could allow themselves to bring in here and there changes which were not simply verbal ones, but such as materially affected the very meaning and, what is worse still, did not shrink from cutting out a passage or inserting one.”
(Alterations to the Sinai Bible, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1863, available in the British Library, London)

After years of validating the fabricated nature of the New Testament, a disillusioned Dr Tischendorf confessed that modern-day editions have “been altered in many places” and are “not to be accepted as true” (When Were Our Gospels Written?, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, 1865, British Library, London).Just what is Christianity?
The important question then to ask is this: if the New Testament is not historical, what is it?
Dr Tischendorf provided part of the answer when he said in his 15,000 pages of critical notes on the Sinai Bible that “it seems that the personage of Jesus Christ was made narrator for many religions”. This explains how narratives from the ancient Indian epic, the Mahabharata, appear verbatim in the Gospels today (e.g., Matt. 1:25, 2:11, 8:1-4, 9:1-8, 9:18-26), and why passages from the Phenomena of the Greek statesman Aratus of Sicyon (271-213 BC) are in the New Testament.

Extracts from the Hymn to Zeus, written by Greek philosopher Cleanthes (c. 331-232 BC), are also found in the Gospels, as are 207 words from the Thais of Menander (c. 343-291), one of the “seven wise men” of Greece. Quotes from the semi-legendary Greek poet Epimenides (7th or 6th century BC) are applied to the lips of Jesus Christ, and seven passages from the curious Ode of Jupiter (c. 150 BC; author unknown) are reprinted in the New Testament.

Tischendorf’s conclusion also supports Professor Bordeaux’s Vatican findings that reveal the allegory of Jesus Christ derived from the fable of Mithra, the divine son of God (Ahura Mazda) and messiah of the first kings of the Persian Empire around 400 BC. His birth in a grotto was attended by magi who followed a star from the East. They brought “gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh” (as in Matt. 2:11) and the newborn baby was adored by shepherds. He came into the world wearing the Mithraic cap, which popes imitated in various designs until well into the 15th century.

images-1   images-2

Mithra, one of a trinity, stood on a rock, the emblem of the foundation of his religion, and was anointed with honey. After a last supper with Helios and 11 other companions, Mithra was crucified on a cross, bound in linen, placed in a rock tomb and rose on the third day or around 25 March (the full moon at the spring equinox, a time now called Easter after the Babylonian goddess Ishtar). The fiery destruction of the universe was a major doctrine of Mithraism-a time in which Mithra promised to return in person to Earth and save deserving souls. Devotees of Mithra partook in a sacred communion banquet of bread and wine, a ceremony that paralleled the Christian Eucharist and preceded it by more than four centuries.

Christianity is an adaptation of Mithraism welded with the Druidic principles of the Culdees, some Egyptian elements (the pre-Christian Book of Revelation was originally called The Mysteries of Osiris and Isis), Greek philosophy and various aspects of Hinduism.

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ
It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life. This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:

“It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind … there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels.”
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)
This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:

“We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century.”
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence: the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a “fable” (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters…, op. cit.). [4]

Did The Original Followers of Jesus Vanish Just As Rabbi Gamliel Predicted?

Read more at http://natzrim.blogspot.com/2013/03/update-your-salvation-obey-acts-238.html

Although the belief in the unity of God is taught and declared on virtually every page of the Jewish Scriptures, the doctrine of the Trinity is never mentioned anywhere throughout the entire corpus of the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, this doctrine is not to be found anywhere in the New Testament either because primitive Christianity, in its earliest stages, was still monotheistic. The authors of the New Testament were completely unaware that the Church they had fashioned would eventually embrace a pagan deification of a triune deity. Although the worship of a three-part godhead was well known and fervently venerated throughout the Roman Empire and beyond in religious systems such as Hinduism and Mithraism, it was quite distant from the Judaism from which Christianity emerged. However, when the Greek and Roman mind began to dominate the Church, it created a theological disaster from which Christendom has never recovered. By the end of the fourth century, the doctrine of the Trinity was firmly in place as a central tenet of the Church, and strict monotheism was formally rejected by Vatican councils in Nicea and Constantinople.2

When Christendom adopted a triune godhead from neighboring triune religious systems, it spawned a serious conundrum for post-Nicene Christian apologists. How would they harmonize this new veneration of Jesus as a being who is of the same substance as the Father with a New Testament that portrays Jesus as a separate entity, subordinate to the Father, and created by God? How would they now integrate the teaching of the Trinity with a New Testament that recognized the Father alone as God? In essence, how would Christian apologists merge a first century Christian Bible, which was monotheistic, with a fourth century Church which was not? [2]

Sources: 
[1] http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/lutheran.html

[2] http://www.outreachjudaism.org/articles/jesus-claim-to-be-god.html#footnote2

[3] http://natzrim.blogspot.com/2011/04/constantine-creed.html#urU6idohirzDx9ER.99

[4] http://www.exminister.org/Bushby-forged-origins-NewTestament.html

Posted in Church, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Before Going Viral Was a Thing

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/5101.html

Millions around the world were glued to their televisions and praying for her safety as dozens of rescuers worked night and day to save Jessica McClure from inside an abandoned well.

680eb578c7d628ecc4298ba2282fa39f

In 1987, Baby Jessica made national news when she fell down a well at just 18 months. During her ordeal, her parents received support in the form of donations. They placed the money into a trust fund, which Baby Jessica was able to collect when she turned 21. Now, Baby Jessica is all grown up and has babies of her own. She says that she has no memories of the incident that made her go viral before going viral was a thing.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218731/Jessica-Morales-Famous-toddler-rescued-1987-married-children.html#ixzz4UvcY4RzG
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

1 of the Main Reasons It’s Still So Hard to Understand Why Hillary Clinton Lost

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you feel devastated and puzzled that while Hillary Clinton received more individual votes than Donald Trump, she will not be the next president, grab a tissue and allow us to explain what happened.

The United States voting process is centered on the electoral college, which is an organized group that elects the president and vice president. Each state gets a certain number of electors (representatives who actually vote) based on the size of its population. Highly populated states like California get more electors (55), while smaller states like Vermont get fewer (three). Most states have a winner-takes-all rule instead of a proportional allocation of votes.

When you voted on Nov. 8, you were actually choosing for electors who will vote on your behalf on Dec. 19. There are 538 electoral votes, and a candidate needs more than half (270) to win.

This means that while more people could have voted for Clinton (they did!), Trump still won because he got more electoral votes. According to The New York Times, Clinton received 62,391,335 votes (48 percent) and Trump got 61,125,956 votes (47 percent), yet she only pulled in 232 electoral votes and he tallied up 290.

This has happened four other times in our history when the candidate who won the popular vote lost the electoral vote and the election. The most recent example was in 2000, when Al Gore received more than half a million votes more than George W. Bush but still did not take the Oval Office.

And yes, sometime electors do go rogue, but according to The New York Times, these “faithless electors,” as they are called, have never changed the final presidential results.

Given the outcome on this election, tens of thousands of people are now signing petitions to abolish the electoral college system. But as the Washington Post points out, Democrats “have virtually no power to make that happen — and even they did have any power, it’d be immensely difficult,” since it is written into our Constitution.

At the end of the day, the Clinton vs. Trump election was extremely close, and if you were on the electoral losing side, know that there are many people (close to 60 million) who likely agree with you on several topics.

This is the time to meet with others (both like minded and not) to discuss the issues, donate to nonprofits you believe in supporting (such as Planned Parenthood), and make your voice heard to your state representatives. Then, in 2018 and 2020, encourage other millennials to vote, because the fate of the country will fall into your generation’s hands.

~ by LAUREN LEVINSON

Source:

Save the Snowflakes is a special project of the Media Research Center with the aim of bringing attention and providing support to precious snowflakes across America, whose feelings continue to be hurt by conservative rhetoric, social triggers, disagreeable opinions or opposing points of view. #SaveTheSnowflakes

The Myth of Hillary’s Popular Vote ‘Victory’

By Tom Trinko

Many modern liberals are fascists at heart who can’t accept losing power; that’s why Bush wasn’t “their” president.

Those liberals are currently bemoaning the fact that Hillary won the popular vote which, according to them, means she should really be president, though were the case reversed we all know they’d be extolling the virtues of the Electoral College.

Driven by a lust for power liberals don’t get that everyone has to follow the rules; demanding the rules change when you lose so that you can win is a sign of immaturity and an unhealthy need for control.

But even if we ignore all that we don’t know if Hillary won the popular vote for the following reasons:

1) It’s the campaign: Trump campaigned to win the Electoral College because that’s how the law works. His people have pointed out that if law was that the popular vote winner won Trump would have spent more time in states that he couldn’t win, like California, in order to get more total votes. In that alternate reality would Trump have won? Neither we nor the Democrats have any idea. But it’s clearly unfair to say that Trump lost because he didn’t follow “rules” that weren’t rules during the election.

2) It’s the voter fraud: Everyone knows that Democrats are the kings of voter fraud. The dead are regular voters in Chicago for example. Similarly, it’s not an accident that California gave drivers licenses to illegals in early 2016 and Obama told illegals that it was safe for them to vote right before the election. A study of the 2008 and 2010 elections shows significant voting by illegals. Take away California and Hillary’s popular vote “victory” disappears. Those states where there are strong movements to let illegals vote, which includes California and New York, went heavily for Hillary. That indicates that voter fraud may have played a more significant role than liberals will admit. No one knows for sure how many people illegally voted, but we can be sure that they voted for Hillary. As a result, no one can say for sure that absent illegal votes Hillary would still have won the popular vote.

3) It’s the uncounted votes: In some states if the number of uncounted ballots is less than the victory margin the ballots are never counted. Hence we can’t know what the actual popular vote total is. That might sound shocking but since the popular vote total doesn’t matter why bother to keep track of it? Uncounted ballots tend to be absentee ballots that tend to favor Republicans that means that it’s quite possible that if all the ballots were counted Trump could win the popular vote.

4) It’s the voter suppression: There is voter suppression in the U.S. but it’s being done by the liberals. In California, there was no Republican candidate for Senate. Because California’s voters passed an initiative that had the two highest vote getters in an open primary face each other in the general election. So there were two Democrats running against each other for the Senate. While racist Democrats claim that Blacks are too stupid to get a photo IDs, those same Democrats think that Republicans being denied a candidate on the ballot won’t keep Republicans from voting. The reality is that in California, which everyone knew Trump would lose, the lack of a Republican Senate candidate meant that some Republicans didn’t bother to vote. We can’t know how many but we can be pretty sure they’d have voted for Trump, reducing Hillary’s supposed lead.

5) It’s the Trump factor: It’s no secret that a lot of people held their noses to vote for Trump. Many people in states that were never going to go for Trump, such as California and Virginia, didn’t vote for Trump because they knew it wouldn’t help Hillary — whom they disliked even more — and it made them feel like they weren’t supporting Trump. If those people knew that their ballots would have counted they would have voted for Trump.

6) It’s the laziness factor: The reality is that many people vote only because of the presidential race. The media worked hard to make it clear to the residents of many states that their vote would have no impact on who was elected president precisely because of the Electoral College. For the liberal media to now argue that all those Republicans who didn’t vote because the media told them their votes were worthless shouldn’t be counted if we suddenly decide to go by the popular vote is typical liberal dishonesty.

Even if we ignore the fact that the election was about the Electoral College, not about the popular vote we have no way of knowing if Hillary did win the popular vote.

Similarly we have no way of knowing that Hillary would have won the popular vote if the voters, and Trump, had known that the winner would be decided by the popular vote.

When your liberal friend starts spouting about the popular vote you’re now ready to explain why the whole popular vote issue is another example of fake news.

Source: 

15541379_10154787287742716_7745101397795439990_n

Posted in Election 2016 | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Open Letter To All Of The Whiny Safe Space Liberals Crying Over Our ‘Racist’ And ‘Sexist’ Country

Chicks On The Right author Hannah Bleau (Red Dawn)

“Donald Trump is America’s middle finger to the media, Hollywood elites, progressive ideologues and everyone else in the world who hates our guts.”

trump-hillary

By Hannah Bleau (Red Dawn)
November 9, 2016

The first half of last night was stressful. I could barely eat. Stupid Florida, always keeping us on the edge of our seats. I switched my networks around last night. I mostly relied on Fox News and Twitter. CNN wasn’t calling states as fast, and MSNBC is a last resort kind of thing. I vowed to stay away from that channel, UNLESS things started shaping up for Donald Trump.

Then the results started coming in. Flyover nation. North Carolina. Ohio. Florida? Wisconsin?!!! That’s when the wheels started falling off their wagon. That’s when I started thinking about Hillary Clinton’s defeat. I never really allowed myself to go there before. I didn’t want to get my hopes up, but my country came through. We the People are not stupid.

We the People defeated MSM. We the People defeated the establishment. We the People saved the Supreme Court. We the People rejected the power-hungry, seahag criminal in a pantsuit.

After they announced Wisconsin, commentators started to change their tune. They looked visibly nervous. Eventually, Mockarena told me it was safe to flip to MSNBC, and it was hysterical. I thought Rachel Maddow’s face was going to fall off.  I flipped back to Fox News. Juan Williams practically peed himself. I watched the cheese slide off his crackers in real time. It was something.

I scrolled through social media. Liberals were melting down. They wrote stuff like, “I don’t know how we consistently underestimated the quiet endurance of racism in America.” They whined over “flagrant sexism.” Others reposted stuff like this:

15000086_10154762542996108_1513096095390502425_o-768x768

And this:

Trump won because he is racist. He won because he is sexist. He won because he is islamophobic. He won because he is homophobic.

And this:

Our country is extremely sexist. And I know it will take a man tweeting this for it to really resonate.

And this:

when you realize millions of people support a homophobic, sexist, racist, hateful person and made him the most powerful man..i’m so sick

And this:

We did not underestimate Trump. We over estimated the sexist, racist, homophobic, incredibly ignorant American voters.

I’m sick and tired of it. I’m sick and tired of these uninformed jackholes telling me that I’m racist, sexist, Islamophobic and homophobic. They have no basis for those claims. They’re consumed by their emotions.  Do they honestly believe Hillary Clinton lost solely because she’s a woman? It couldn’t possibly have anything with her being a pathological liar who’s spent her entire life pursuing political power? It had nothing to do with the fact that America’s not satisfied with her vision for America– an America with open borders, higher taxes and more bureaucratic scumbags in D.C. telling us how to run our lives?

We’re not racist. We’re not sexist. We want people to come into this country legally. That’s not racist. Progressive leadership in the big, urban cities hasn’t pulled the black community out of poverty. It’s worsened it. Liberalism has failed them. We acknowledge that. We want them to prosper. That’s not racist. And as for being sexist? All issues are women’s issues. I have no idea why liberals continue to separate them. Do they really believe we only care about vaginas, boobs and killing our offspring? Liberals assumed we (women) would vote for Hillary based on those reasons alone. THAT’S sexist, if you ask me. Women care about the economy. We care about national security. We care about the almost $20 trillion national debt. We care about the erosion of our freedoms. We care about the future of the Supreme Court. The list goes on and on and on.

I also saw some posts on how Trump’s victory signifies that America hates the LGBT community. NEWSFLASH: We elected a man who wants to keep dangerous anti-LGBT ideologues OUT OF OUR COUNTRY. Those people who want to throw them off rooftops? We don’t want them here. We want to protect the LGBT community. The fact that we stand for traditional family values and don’t want men in the women’s bathroom doesn’t take anything away from that. Not for one second.

We’re not racist or sexist. We’re freaking SICK AND TIRED of the political establishment crapping all over the Constitution and treading on our liberty. We’re sick of them refusing to uphold the rule of law. We’re sick of being told that this is as good as it gets. We want economic freedom. We want to keep more of our hard-earned money. We want healthcare premiums that AREN’T AS MUCH AS OUR MORTGAGES. We want people to enter our country LEGALLY. We believe in peace through strength.  Faith. Freedom. Family. We’re the most kick a** country that has ever existed. All you liberals whining over our “demise,” GET OVER YOURSELVES. You’re clueless. We were founded on the novel idea that we were endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Rights than cannot be given or taken away by a governing authority. This was about individual liberty. We reject government force and coercion. Votes. Favors. Political power. That’s the cycle of every progressive politician. We’re done. We’re sick of it. 

Another part of Ronald Reagan’s 1964 speech, “A Time For Choosing,” comes to mind.

“Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, “What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power.” But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.”

“Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we’re always ‘against,’ never ‘for’ anything.”

But we are. We’re for economic prosperity. Individual responsibility. Fiscal responsibility. Less government. More freedom. We’re sick of the liberal do-gooders shoving their BS agenda down our throats and calling us bigots when we reject their horrid ideas. We’re sick of them scoffing at the principles of liberty.

Donald Trump is America’s middle finger to the media, Hollywood elites, progressive ideologues and everyone else in the world who hates our guts.

I’m drinking the tears of our political enemies in a mug today and loving every minute of it. We defeated them. We have one more chance to prove that our ideas work. We’re right. We always have been.

Source: http://www.chicksontheright.com

Posted in Politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

The left’s radical environmentalist agenda is harming America.

Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

Climate change is an urgent topic of discussion among politicians, journalists and celebrities…but what do scientists say about climate change? Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm? Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world’s leading climatologists, summarizes the science behind climate change.

“We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business,” Hillary Clinton said at a town hall in West Virginia in March. Be sure to watch the last video.
blfd-w-va

area-pictures-001-1

images

bluefield-1

Bluefield,“The Little New York,” was one of the first cities to have a noticable skyline.

a0396d47bf0423e5d8c89ced0ff072e3

f2628772bdeb64fd93928d40cdae2f47

A 1950s Bluefield street scene showing the West Virginia Hotel and the Pinnacle Restaurant with it’s cobalt blue windows.

1492267739_9d980571ef_o

bluefield

Bluefield was once a thriving coal city. It is now virtually a ghost town, as this photo of abandoned buildings in downtown Bluefield shows.

 

Temple University Students for Intellectual Freedom (TUSIF) hosted Ann McElhinney, the Irish documentary film maker behind the documentary film “Not Evil, Just Wrong”, which debunks myths surrounding global warming. Also speaking on the panel were Jennifer Stefano, Director of Energy and Labor Policy, AFP-PA; and Tom Pyle, President, American Energy Alliance. The event concluded with an always-entertaining, outrageous Q&A session. Entertainment provided by the Temple U. Socialists-Feminists, radical leftists.

AFP chose to tour Pennsylvania due to the state’s history in the energy field and their vast resources of shale, crude oil, and coal. This is an opportunity for students to learn about how the left’s radical environmentalist agenda is harming America.

Collateral Damage: The Forgotten War on Coal

15439793_10155331515010656_724163000814078231_n

The Truth About China – 2,400 New Coal Plants Will Thwart Any Paris #COP21 Pledges

From The GWPF:

China will talk a good game at the UN Climate Conference in Paris, but won’t make any binding commitments, concludes The Truth About China, an important new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation. “China’s Communist Party has as its highest priority its own self-preservation, and that self-preservation depends overwhelmingly on its ability to continue raising the standard of living of its citizens,” states economist Patricia Adams, the study’s author and the executive director of Toronto-based Probe International, an organization that has worked closely with Chinese NGOs for decades. —Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2 December 2015

More than 2,400 coal-fired power stations are under construction or being planned around the world, a study has revealed two weeks after Britain pledged to stop burning coal.

The new plants will emit 6.5 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year and undermine the efforts at the Paris climate conference to limit global warming to 2C. China is building 368 plants and planning a further 803, according to the study by four climate change research bodies, including Ecofys and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. India is building 297 and planning 149. Rich countries are also planning new coal plants. The nuclear disaster at Fukushima has prompted Japan to turn back to coal, with 40 plants in the pipeline and five under construction. –Ben Webster, The Times, 2 December 2015

Adams’s report is worth reading in full not just because of the fascinating light it casts on the Chinese, their economy, their corruption, their political mindset and the tensions between the populace and the Communist party but also because of the very basic fact it underlines about Paris – and about all future COP negotiations. Even if China believed in keeping to emission targets, which it doesn’t, its officials are so corrupt, uninterested and growth-driven they would never police them. So it will be stalemate. Any agreement reached in Paris will be meaningless and toothless. And thank goodness for that. Or rather, thank China. –James Delingpole, Breitbart London, 2 December 2015

New GWPF Report: The Truth About China
Global Warming Policy Foundation, 2 December 2015
China will talk a good game at the UN Climate Conference in Paris, but won’t make any binding commitments, concludes The Truth About China, an important new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

“China’s Communist Party has as its highest priority its own self-preservation, and that self-preservation depends overwhelmingly on its ability to continue raising the standard of living of its citizens,” states economist Patricia Adams, the study’s author and the executive director of Toronto-based Probe International, an organization that has worked closely with Chinese NGOs for decades.

“With China’s economic growth faltering, the last thing the Communist Party wants is to hobble its economy further by curtailing the use of the fossil fuels upon which its economy depends. A major cutback in fossil fuel use represents an existential threat to the Communist Party’s rule. It simply isn’t going to happen.”

Adams’s report includes another important finding: tackling CO2 emissions would do little if anything to curb the serious air pollution – dubbed “airpocalypse” – plaguing China’s major cities. On the contrary, the measures needed to curb China’s smog of life-threatening pollutants such as nitrogen and sulphur oxides – scrubbers on power plants, for example – actually increase CO2 emissions.

“A programme to rapidly reduce pollutants harmful to human health would be at odds with a programme to reduce CO2,” Adams states, noting that human health is unaffected by CO2, a colourless, odourless, tasteless gas. Next to keeping its economy afloat, the biggest challenge to its credibility that the Communist leadership faces is its need to reduce smog.  “I have never heard of a public protest in China against carbon dioxide emissions,” Adams states. “CO2 is a major concern for Western NGOs with offices in Beijing but it’s a non-issue for Chinese citizens and environmentalists at the grassroots.”

All that China will commit to, says the Adams report, is to continue to improve the energy efficiency of its economy as it grows – a goal it has long pursued, independent of global warming concerns. In doing so, China aims to increase its GDP along with its fossil fuel use, and by 2030 or so will depend on fossil fuels for 80% of its energy use, down from today’s 90%. When it reaches 80% 15 years hence, its energy makeup will largely resemble America’s today.
Full report (pdf)

Posted in Global warming, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

10 GREAT THINGS: WHAT TO LOVE ABOUT THE UNITED STATES

park-homestead-fall

Twin Falls State Resort Park is a state park in Wyoming County, West Virginia.

By DINESH D’SOUZA

America is under attack as never before—not only from terrorists but also from people who provide a justification for terrorism. Islamic fundamentalists declare America the Great Satan. Europeans rail against American capitalism and American culture. South American activists denounce the United States for “neocolonialism” and oppression.

Anti-Americanism from abroad would not be such a problem if Americans were united in standing up for their own country. But in this country itself, there are those who blame America for most of the evils in the world. On the political left, many fault the United States for a history of slavery, and for continuing inequality and racism. Even on the right, traditionally the home of patriotism, we hear influential figures say that America has become so decadent that we are “slouching towards Gomorrah.”

If these critics are right, then America should be destroyed. And who can dispute some of their particulars? This country did have a history of slavery and racism continues to exist. There is much in our culture that is vulgar and decadent. But the critics are wrong about America, because they are missing the big picture. In their indignation over the sins of America, they ignore what is unique and good about American civilization.

As an immigrant who has chosen to become an American citizen, I feel especially qualified to say what is special about America. Having grown up in a different society — in my case, Bombay, India — I am not only able to identify aspects of America that are invisible to the natives, but I am acutely conscious of the daily blessings that I enjoy in America. Here, then, is my list of the 10 great things about America.

America provides an amazingly good life for the ordinary guy. Rich people live well everywhere. But what distinguishes America is that it provides an impressively high standard of living for the “common man.” We now live in a country where construction workers regularly pay $4 for a nonfat latte, where maids drive nice cars and where plumbers take their families on vacation to Europe.

Indeed, newcomers to the United States are struck by the amenities enjoyed by “poor” people. This fact was dramatized in the 1980s when CBS television broadcast a documentary, People Like Us, intended to show the miseries of the poor during an ongoing recession. The Soviet Union also broadcast the documentary, with a view to embarrassing the Reagan administration. But by the testimony of former Soviet leaders, it had the opposite effect. Ordinary people across the Soviet Union saw that the poorest Americans have TV sets, microwave ovens and cars. They arrived at the same perception that I witnessed in an acquaintance of mine from Bombay who has been unsuccessfully trying to move to the United States. I asked him, “Why are you so eager to come to America?” He replied, “I really want to live in a country where the poor people are fat.”

America offers more opportunity and social mobility than any other country, including the countries of Europe.America is the only country that has created a population of “self-made tycoons.” Only in America could Pierre Omidyar, whose parents are Iranian and who grew up in Paris, have started a company like eBay. Only in America could Vinod Khosla, the son of an Indian army officer, become a leading venture capitalist, the shaper of the technology industry, and a billionaire to boot. Admittedly tycoons are not typical, but no country has created a better ladder than America for people to ascend from modest circumstances to success.

Work and trade are respectable in America. Historically most cultures have despised the merchant and the laborer, regarding the former as vile and corrupt and the latter as degraded and vulgar. Some cultures, such as that of ancient Greece and medieval Islam, even held that it is better to acquire things through plunder than through trade or contract labor. But the American founders altered this moral hierarchy. They established a society in which the life of the businessman, and of the people who worked for him, would be a noble calling. In the American view, there is nothing vile or degraded about serving your customers either as a CEO or as a waiter. The ordinary life of production and supporting a family is more highly valued in the United States than in any other country. America is the only country in the world where we call the waiter “sir,” as if he were a knight.

America has achieved greater social equality than any other society. True, there are large inequalities of income and wealth in America. In purely economic terms, Europe is more egalitarian. But Americans are socially more equal than any other people, and this is unaffected by economic disparities. Alexis de Tocqueville noticed this egalitarianism a century and a half ago and it is, if anything, more prevalent today. For all his riches, Bill Gates could not approach the typical American and say, “Here’s a $100 bill. I’ll give it to you if you kiss my feet.” Most likely, the person would tell Gates to go to hell! The American view is that the rich guy may have more money, but he isn’t in any fundamental sense better than anyone else.

People live longer, fuller lives in America. Although protesters rail against the American version of technological capitalism at trade meetings around the world, in reality the American system has given citizens many more years of life, and the means to live more intensely and actively. In 1900, the life expectancy in America was around 50 years; today, it is more than 75 years. Advances in medicine and agriculture are mainly responsible for the change. This extension of the life span means more years to enjoy life, more free time to devote to a good cause, and more occasions to do things with the grandchildren. In many countries, people who are old seem to have nothing to do: they just wait to die. In America the old are incredibly vigorous, and people in their seventies pursue the pleasures of life, including remarriage and sexual gratification, with a zeal that I find unnerving.

In America the destiny of the young is not given to them, but created by them. Not long ago, I asked myself, “What would my life have been like if I had never come to the United States?” If I had remained in India, I would probably have lived my whole life within a five-mile radius of where I was born. I would undoubtedly have married a woman of my identical religious and socioeconomic background. I would almost certainly have become a medical doctor, or an engineer, or a computer programmer. I would have socialized entirely within my ethic community. I would have a whole set of opinions that could be predicted in advance; indeed, they would not be very different from what my father believed, or his father before him. In sum, my destiny would to a large degree have been given to me.

In America, I have seen my life take a radically different course. In college I became interested in literature and politics, and I resolved to make a career as a writer. I married a woman whose ancestry is English, French, Scotch-Irish, German and American Indian. In my twenties I found myself working as a policy analyst in the White House, even though I was not an American citizen. No other country, I am sure, would have permitted a foreigner to work in its inner citadel of government.

In most countries in the world, your fate and your identity are handed to you; in America, you determine them for yourself. America is a country where you get to write the script of your own life. Your life is like a blank sheet of paper, and you are the artist. This notion of being the architect of your own destiny is the incredibly powerful idea that is behind the worldwide appeal of America. Young people especially find irresistible the prospect of authoring the narrative of their own lives.

America has gone further than any other society in establishing equality of rights. There is nothing distinctively American about slavery or bigotry. Slavery has existed in virtually every culture, and xenophobia, prejudice and discrimination are worldwide phenomena. Western civilization is the only civilization to mount a principled campaign against slavery; no country expended more treasure and blood to get rid of slavery than the United States. While racism remains a problem, this country has made strenuous efforts to eradicate discrimination, even to the extent of enacting policies that give legal preference in university admissions, jobs, and government contracts to members of minority groups. Such policies remain controversial, but the point is that it is extremely unlikely that a racist society would have permitted such policies in the first place. And surely African Americans like Jesse Jackson are vastly better off living in America than they would be if they were to live in, say, Ethiopia or Somalia.

America has found a solution to the problem of religious and ethnic conflict that continues to divide and terrorize much of the world. Visitors to places like New York are amazed to see the way in which Serbs and Croatians, Sikhs and Hindus, Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants, Jews and Palestinians, all seem to work and live together in harmony. How is this possible when these same groups are spearing each other and burning each other’s homes in so many places in the world?

The American answer is twofold. First, separate the spheres of religion and government so that no religion is given official preference but all are free to practice their faith as they wish. Second, do not extend rights to racial or ethnic groups but only to individuals; in this way, all are equal in the eyes of the law, opportunity is open to anyone who can take advantage of it, and everybody who embraces the American way of life can “become American.”

Of course there are exceptions to these core principles, even in America. Racial preferences are one such exception, which explains why they are controversial. But in general, America is the only country in the world that extends full membership to outsiders. The typical American could come to India, live for 40 years, and take Indian citizenship. But he could not “become Indian.” He wouldn’t see himself that way, nor would most Indians see him that way. In America, by contrast, hundreds of millions have come from far-flung shores and over time they, or at least their children, have in a profound and full sense “become American.”

America has the kindest, gentlest foreign policy of any great power in world history. Critics of the United States are likely to react to this truth with sputtering outrage. They will point to long-standing American support for a Latin or Middle Eastern despot, or the unjust internment of the Japanese during World War II, or America’s reluctance to impose sanctions on South Africa’s apartheid regime. However one feels about these particular cases, let us concede to the critics the point that America is not always in the right.

What the critics leave out is the other side of the ledger. Twice in the 20th century, the United States saved the world — first from the Nazi threat, then from Soviet totalitarianism. What would have been the world’s fate if America had not existed? After destroying Germany and Japan in World War II, the United States proceeded to rebuild both countries, and today they are American allies. Now we are doing the same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq. Consider, too, how magnanimous the United States has been to the former Soviet Union after its victory in the Cold War. For the most part America is an abstainingsuperpower; it shows no real interest in conquering and subjugating the rest of the world. (Imagine how the Soviets would have acted if they had won the Cold War.) On occasion the United States intervenes to overthrow a tyrannical regime or to halt massive human rights abuses in another country, but it never stays to rule that country. In Grenada, Haiti and Bosnia, the United States got in and then it got out. Moreover, when America does get into a war, as in Iraq, its troops are supremely careful to avoid targeting civilians and to minimize collateral damage. Even as America bombed the Taliban infrastructure and hideouts, U.S. planes dropped food to avert hardship and starvation of Afghan civilians. What other country does these things?

America, the freest nation on Earth, is also the most virtuous nation on Earth. This point seems counterintuitive, given the amount of conspicuous vulgarity, vice and immorality in America. Some Islamic fundamentalists argue that their regimes are morally superior to the United States because they seek to foster virtue among the citizens. Virtue, these fundamentalists argue, is a higher principle than liberty.

Indeed it is. And let us admit that in a free society, freedom will frequently be used badly. Freedom, by definition, includes the freedom to do good or evil, to act nobly or basely. But if freedom brings out the worst in people, it also brings out the best. The millions of Americans who live decent, praiseworthy lives deserve our highest admiration because they have opted for the good when the good is not the only available option. Even amid the temptations of a rich and free society, they have remained on the straight path. Their virtue has special luster because it is freely chosen.

By contrast, the societies that many Islamic fundamentalists seek would eliminate the possibility of virtue. If the supply of virtue is insufficient in a free society like America, it is almost nonexistent in an unfree society like Iran’s. The reason is that coerced virtues are not virtues at all. Consider the woman who is required to wear a veil. There is no modesty in this, because she is being compelled. Compulsion cannot produce virtue, it can only produce the outward semblance of virtue. Thus a free society like America’s is not merely more prosperous, more varied, more peaceful, and more tolerant — it is also morally superior to the theocratic and authoritarian regimes that America’s enemies advocate.

“To make us love our country,” Edmund Burke once said, “our country ought to be lovely.” Burke’s point is that we should love our country not just because it is ours, but also because it is good. America is far from perfect, and there is lots of room for improvement. In spite of its flaws, however, American life as it is lived today is the best life that our world has to offer. Ultimately America is worthy of our love and sacrifice because, more than any other society, it makes possible the good life, and the life that is good.

Source: http://www.dineshdsouza.com/news/10-great-things-what-to-love-about-the-united-states/

 

Posted in History, Western civilization | Tagged , | Leave a comment

“Stop Worshipping Me, I Am Not The Real Jesus” ~Actor Robert Powell

 

14516368_10208982871386389_5521337215863366273_n

“I will bow to this King, said Steven.”

Since he played the character, Jesus, in the 1977 movie, Jesus of Nazareth, Robert Powell’s photos are hung in churches, homes, cars, schools, offices and many holy grottos all over the world to drive off evil forces and attract good fortunes.

However, Powell has cried out in the social media that he is not Jesus and that people should stop worshiping him. Rather, they should respect the true Jesus and worship God. His is among the most trending stories on social media in January 2016.

In his words: “I never cease to say and I repeat it to the world since 1977. I am not Jesus Christ, I am just an actor and British comedian. I am tired of seeing my photos displayed in places of worship and other places for worship. I just make a film for a living. Burn my picture and worship the only God in truth ! I am just an actor…Jesus is Lord!*”

Another actor who played Jesus is Jim Caviezel. According to clipd.com, “Jim is arguably one of the most famous portrayals of Jesus in acting history. He played Jesus in Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion Of The Christ,’ which is the greatest selling Christian movie of all time. Jim won one award for his portrayal as Jesus, and several other nominations.” He too may soon beg people to stop worshipping him like Powell.

robert-powell-as-jesus-e1454152426441

HITLER’S BODYGUARD Combining archival footage, period photography, captured SS documents, and eyewitness interviews, and more… the expert commentary continually being presented by the narrator, Robert Powell

unnamed

*Passages on the Unity of God

I believe with perfect faith that God is one.
There is no unity that is in any way like His.
He alone is our God.
He was, He is, He will be.

Exodus 20:2-3 – The First of the Ten Commandments

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, and of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me.” (See also Deuteronomy 5:7)

Numbers 23:19

“God is not a man that He should lie, nor a mortal that He should change His mind.”

Deuteronomy 4:11-12

“You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. Then the Lord spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no image; there was only a voice.”

Deuteronomy 4:35

“You are the ones who have been shown, so that you will know that God is the Supreme Being, and there is none other besides Him!”

Deuteronomy 4:39

“Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the Lord, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other!”

Deuteronomy 6:4

“Hear O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one.”

Deuteronomy 6:14

“You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you!”

Deuteronomy 32:39

“See, now, that I, I am He – and no god is with Me…”

I Samuel 2:2

“There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none beside Thee; neither is there any Rock like our God.”

I Samuel 15:29

“The Eternal One of Israel will not lie nor change His mind: for He is not a man that He should change His mind.”

I Kings 8:27

“For will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain Thee; how much less this house that I have built?”

I Kings 8:60

“So that all the nations of the earth may know that the Lord is God and that there is no other!”

II Kings 19:19

“Now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand, so that all kingdoms on earth may know that You alone, O Lord, are God.” (Psalm 113:5)

Isaiah 40:18

“To whom then will you liken God? To what likeness will you compare unto Him?”

Isaiah 40:25

“To whom will then you liken Me, that I should be his equal?” says the Holy One.

Isaiah 42:8

“I am the Lord, that is My name, and My glory will I not give to another. Neither My praise to graven images!”

Isaiah 43:10-11

“You are My witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and My servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe Me and understand that I am He. Before Me no god was formed, nor will there be one after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.”

Isaiah 44:6-8

This is what the Lord says, Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty, “I am the first and I am the last; apart from Me there is no God! Who then is like Me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before Me…Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are My witnesses. Is there any God besides Me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”

Isaiah 44:24

So said the Lord, your Redeemer, the One who formed you from the womb, “I am the Lord Who makes everything, Who stretched forth the heavens alone, Who spread out the earth by Myself.”

Isaiah 45:5-6

“I am the Lord, and there is no other; besides Me there is no God… I will strengthen you…I order that they know from the shining of the sun and from the west that there is no one besides Me; I am the Lord and there is no other!”

Isaiah 45:18-19

For this is what the Lord says – He who created the heavens, He is God; He who fashioned and made the earth, He founded it; He did not create it to be empty, but formed it to be inhabited – He says: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, from somewhere in a land of darkness; I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, ‘Seek Me in vain.’ I, the Lord, speak the truth; I declare what is right.”

Isaiah 45:21-22

“…who announced this before, who declared it from the distant past? Is it not I, the Lord, and there is no God apart from Me, a righteous God and Savior; there is none but Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other!”

Isaiah 46:5

“To whom shall you liken Me and make Me equal and compare Me that we may be alike?”

Isaiah 46:9

“Remember the first things of old, that I am God and there is no other; I am God and there is none like Me.”

Isaiah 48:11

“…And My honor I will not give to another.”

Hosea 13:4

“And I am the Lord your God, Who brought you out of Egypt. You shall acknowledge no God but Me, no Savior except Me!”

Joel 2:27

“And you shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and I am the Lord your God, there is no other; and My people shall never be ashamed.”

Malachi 2:10

“Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why should we betray, each one his brother, to profane the covenant of our forefathers?”

Psalm 73:25

“Whom have I in heaven but You? And earth has nothing I desire besides You.”

Psalm 81:8-9

“Hear, O My people, and I will admonish you; O Israel, if you would listen to Me! Let there be no strange god among you; nor shall you worship any foreign god.”

Psalm 146:3

“Do not put your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no salvation!”

Nehemiah 9:6

“You alone are the Lord; You made the heavens, the heavens of the heavens and all their host, the earth and all that is upon it, the seas and all that is in them, and You give life to them all, and the heavenly host bow down before You.”

I Chronicles 17:20

“O Lord, there is none like You, neither is there any God beside You, according to all that we have heard with our ears!”

Here Powell’s profile as published by Wikipedia:

rober-powell-as-jesus-of-nazareth

Robert Powell as Jesus of Nazareth

“Robert Powell (born 1 June 1944) is an English television and film actor, best known for the title role in Jesus of Nazareth (1977) and as the fictional secret agent Richard Hannay. He is also known for his role as Mark Williams in BBC One medical drama, Holby City, and as David Briggs in the sitcom The Detectives alongside Jasper Carrott.

His distinctive voice has become well known in advertisements and documentaries, especially in World War II documentaries such as World War II in HD Colour, Hitler’s Bodyguard, The Story of the Third Reich and Secrets of World War II.

Powell was born in Salford, Lancashire, the son of Kathleen (née Davis) and John Wilson Powell. Powell was educated at Manchester Grammar School (where one of his classmates was the actor Ben Kingsley), then a direct grant grammar school for boys in the city of Manchester in North West England, and later at the Royal College of Advanced Technology in Salford.

Powell took up acting while an undergraduate. He had aspired to become a lawyer and in 1963-4 attended an external London University LLB degree Course at the Manchester College of Commerce but at the same time quietly took acting roles under Trevor Nunn. At the College of Commerce he swapped roles with Bernard Brandon in a week-long College Revue of Comedy Sketches to see which role gave him “the best laughs”. This early comedy experience was later to be fulfilled with Jasper Carrott. After this he secured a post at a repertory theatre in Stoke-on-Trent.His first film part was in Robbery when he played the driver of the driver who is coshed in the Stanley Baker film about the great train robbery. He had a small role in the original film version of The Italian Job (1969) playing one of the gang, but had to wait a few years for his first success, playing scientist Toby Wren in the BBC’s science fiction series, Doomwatch in 1970. Having been killed off in the last episode of the original series, at his request, Powell became a pin-up and a household name, following up with starring roles in several BBC serials, including television adaptations of the novels Sentimental Education (1970) and Jude the Obscure (1971). He also appeared in the 1975 series Looking for Clancy, based on the Frederic Mullally novel Clancy.

For several years Powell continued as a television regular, with occasional forays into film, as the Austrian composer Gustav Mahler in the Ken Russell biopic Mahler (1974) and Captain Walker in Russell’s film version of Tommy (1975). His role in Tommy had no lines at all and apart from a few early scenes during the overture with Ann-Margret, he is primarily seen through the mind of his son as played by Barry Winch (Young Tommy) and Roger Daltrey. In one of those scenes Captain Walker is shown in a crucifixion pose.

He then played Jesus Christ in Jesus of Nazareth (1977) following a successful second audition with Franco Zeffirelli. The two-part television film had an all-star cast, including Laurence Olivier, Ernest Borgnine and Stacey Keach, Christopher Plummer, Rod Steiger and James Mason. For this role, Powell was nominated for a BAFTA award, and collected the TVTimes Best Actor award for the same performance.

In 1975, Powell married his girlfriend, the Pan’s People dancer Babs Lord, shortly before he was due to start filming for Jesus of Nazareth on location in Morocco. On 23 November 1977, they had their son, Barney, followed in 1979 by a daughter, Kate.

In 1978, Powell took the leading role of Richard Hannay in the third film version of The Thirty Nine Steps. It met with modest success, and critics compared Powell’s portrayal of John Buchan’s character favourably with his predecessors. His characterisation proved to be enduring, as almost ten years later a television series entitled simply Hannay appeared with Powell back in the role, (although the Buchan short stories on which the series was based were set in an earlier period than The Thirty-Nine Steps). Hannay ran for two seasons.

In 1980, Powell appeared in the film Harlequin, playing the Harlequin of the title who seems to have the power to cure the son of a powerful politician. For this performance, he won the Best Actor Award at the Paris Film Festival. In 1982, he won Best Actor at the Venice Film Festival for his role in Imperativ.

Powell then agreed to a request from his old friend and golf partner, comedian Jasper Carrott, taking the part of an incompetent detective in a succession of sketches that formed part of Carrott’s television series. The Detectives was so popular that it was turned into a sitcom, Powell’s first and only venture into this genre.

In 1984, Powell made his U.S. film debut in What Waits Below (as known as Secrets of the Phantom Caverns).

In 1986, Powell narrated and co-starred in William C. Faure’s popular miniseries Shaka Zulu, with football legend Henry Cele in the title role. In 1992, he starred in the New Zealand World War I film Chunuk Bair, as Sgt Maj Frank Smith. In 1993-1995, he was the voice actor of Dr Livesey in The Legends of Treasure Island.

Nowadays Powell appears in person less often, but his distinctive voice is frequently heard on voice-overs, advertisements and as a narrator of television programmes such as Great Crimes and Trials and The Century of Warfare and World War II in HD Colour. He read the novel Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez for BBC Radio 4’s Book at Bedtime, and has also narrated many audio books including The Thirty Nine Steps, abridged versions of many of Alan Garner’s books, and several abridged novels for ‘The Talking Classics Collection’. Powell has also lent his voice to musical works, such as David Bedford’s album The Rime of the Ancient Mariner,[4] or the 2002 rock opera The Hound of the Baskervilles, by Clive Nolan and Oliver Wakeman, where he played the role of John Watson. He also narrated on two rock albums by Rick Wakeman called Cost of Living and The Gospels (1987).

On 29 October 2001, a state-of-the-art theatre named after him was opened at the University of Salford.[5] He became a patron of 24:7 Theatre Festival in 2004, and continues to operate in this capacity as of 2014. In early 2005 he became a regular in the UK TV medical drama, Holby City, where he remained for six years before departing to return to theatre.[6] On 9 February 2008, he performed as narrator in Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf with the Huddersfield Philharmonic Orchestra with conductor Natalia Luis-Bassa in the North of England.[7] He currently has a regular spot narrating literary passages on BBC4’s The Book Quiz and will appear in Aladdin at the Malvern Theatre this winter .

On 20 December 2014, he took on the role of “Ebenezer Scrooge” in Neil Brand’s BBC Radio 4 adaptation of A Christmas Carol.”

Other actors who have played Jesus in movies are:

Jeffrey Hunter, Max von Sydow, Jeremy Sisto, Chris Sarandon, Claude Heater, Henry Byron Warner, Christian Charles Philip Bale, Willem Dafoe, John Rubinstein, Brian Deacon and Cameron Mitchell.

Jesus is Not the Jewish Messiah Part 1

Source: http://thenewsnigeria.com.ng/2016/01/actor-robert-powell-stop-worshipping-me-i-am-not-the-real-Jesus/

Passages on the Unity of God   http://outreachjudaism.org/unity-of-god/

Posted in idolatry, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Protocols

The Protocols Of The Learned Elders of Zion is a book which purports to be a record of the wicked plans and tactics the Jewish elders use to take over the world. The Protocols were actually written in Paris sometime between 1895 and 1899 by an agent of the Russian secret police though Anti-semites don’t think so. In particular, within the last few years there have been several TV series on Arab TV which have assumed this book to be true. I think the whole thing is funny in a sad and twisted wierd way – so here’s my take on it…~Rav Shmuel

THE INTERNATIONAL JEW AND THE FORD MODEL T  The ethnic or “racist” variant of political Jew-hatred

The “Protocols” and the “Great Hoax”

13728912_179032942502102_4320385771374229824_nIf your hero’s were Adolf Hitler and Henry Ford you’ll like the video by an anti-Semite named William Pierce – Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion Explained – Oct. 30, 1999 Thanks, John Paterson, proof, when a person reaches this level of ignorance there’s really not much can be done. The Protocols are a complete forgery most of which was copied from an obscure satire on Napoleon III by Maurice Joly called “Dialogue aux Enfers entre Montesquieu et Machiavel” (“A Dialogue in Hell Between Montesquieu and Machiavelli”).

For anyone not familiar with the facts behind the [exposed forgery] of the Protocols of Zion, the influence Henry Ford had on antisemitism and Jew hatred during the turn of the century in America, may you find this re-post enlightening.

“Schizophrenics? Jamaicans? Negroid rythmns?” ~Dr. William Pierce, a bigoted asshole selling hatred sandwiches

The “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”

In the 21st Century

by Arthur Wailer

Thoughts on the Roots of Anti-Semitism in Europe

Ancient Menorah

Ancient Menorah

The beginning of violent European anti-Semitism is often traced to the Crusades at the end of the eleventh century. Others claim it commenced in 1010 with organized mass murders of Jews in France, followed by massacres in areas that are now part of Germany. For almost a thousand years the many versions of religious anti-Semitism have been accompanied by other manifestations of Jew-hatred in political, economic, and cultural spheres.

The beginning of violent European anti-Semitism is often traced to the Crusades at the end of the eleventh century. Others claim it commenced in 1010 with organized mass murders of Jews in France, followed by massacres in areas that are now part of Germany. For almost a thousand years the many versions of religious anti-Semitism have been accompanied by other manifestations of Jew-hatred in political, economic, and cultural spheres.

A close study of the history of anti-Semitism shows that it is first and foremost an expression of political and cultural opposition to Jewish ideals. The earliest known anti-Semitic writings emanated from the ruling class of the Hellenistic empires of the Middle East, specifically the Ptolemaic empire based in Egypt and the Seleucid empire based in Syria.

From that time to the present, anti-Semitism in its most virulent manifestations has been consistently associated with one empire or would-be empire after another.

The ethnic or “racist” variant of political Jew-hatred began in the late 19th century in Germany. At that time the term anti-Semitism first appeared. Fed also by the religious variety, this culminated in the genocide of the Holocaust.

Anti-Semitism is an extreme form of irrational hate, which should not be confused with strong criticism. Jews have been demonized for millennia and defined as the source of all evil. Other recourses to ancient history are often used in Europe to “point to an immutable negative Jewish character. Jews have also been discriminated against in many societies while, simultaneously, having double moral standards applied to them.

Often enough anti-Semites will point to a refusal on the part of Jews to assimilate to national cultures or “identity” in the geographical locales of which Jews have settled and nurtured successful communities.

  • Jews are bidden to be “a light unto the nations.” (Isaiah 42:6) A light stands separate from that which it illuminates. The Divine charge to the Jewish people is to “be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.” (Ex. 19:1) This is a mission from which we cannot resign because it is embedded in the Covenant between God and the nation of Israel.
  • “A nation that will dwell in solitude and not be reckoned among the nations.” (Numbers 23:9)

The Covenant, which God introduced in His promises to the Patriarchs, which was accepted by the entire Jewish nation at Sinai (where all Jewish souls were present), and which was renewed on two other occasions in Jewish history, stipulates the following:

On God’s side, He promised:
That the Jewish people will never cease to exist (Gen.17:7).
That He will never totally abandon the Jewish people (Lev. 26:44).
That the Jewish people will inherent the Land of Israel (Gen.12:7; Gen.15:18).

On Israel’s side, we promised:

That we will be faithful to God and keep His Torah (Ex.24:7).

According to the Torah, unlike most covenants, this one is unconditional. Even if the Jews renege on their obligation, God, in the merit of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, will never annul his covenant with the Jews.

This belief has sparked much debate with varying opinion and it’s not the purpose of this editorial to examine the religious dogma, however many learned intellectuals have made comments of one form or another:

“The Jew is that sacred being who has brought down from heaven the everlasting fire, and has illumined with it the entire world. He is the religious source, spring, and fountain out of which all the rest of the peoples have drawn their beliefs and their religions.”
–Leo Tolstoy
“It was in vain that we locked them up for several hundred years behind the walls of the Ghetto. No sooner were their prison gates unbarred than they easily caught up with us, even on those paths which we opened up without their aid.”
–A. A. Leroy Beaulieu, French publicist, 1842
“One of the gifts of the Jewish culture to Christianity is that it has taught Christians to think like Jews, and any modern man who has not learned to think as though he were a Jew can hardly be said to have learned to think at all.”
–William Rees-Mogg, former Editor-in-Chief for The Times of London and a member of the House of Lords

The “Protocols” and the “Great Hoax”

FrenchEditions of the Protocols

French editions of the Protocols

The conceptual inspiration for the Protocols can be traced back to the time of the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century. At that time, a French Jesuit named Abbe Barruel, representing reactionary elements opposed to the revolution, published in 1797 a treatise blaming the Revolution on a secret conspiracy operating through the Order of Freemasons. Barruel’s idea was nonsense, since the French nobility at the time was heavily Masonic, but he was influenced by a Scottish mathematician named Robison who was opposed to the Masons.

In his treatise, Barruel did not himself blame the Jews, who were emancipated as a result of the Revolution. However, in 1806, Barruel circulated a forged letter, probably sent to him by members of the state police opposed to Napoleon Bonaparte’s liberal policy toward the Jews, calling attention to the alleged part of the Jews in the conspiracy he had earlier attributed to the Masons. This myth of an international Jewish conspiracy reappeared later on in 19th century Europe in places such as Germany and Poland.

The Protocols are a complete forgery most of which was copied from an obscure satire on Napoleon III by Maurice Joly called “Dialogue aux Enfers entre Montesquieu et Machiavel” (“A Dialogue in Hell Between Montesquieu and Machiavelli”).

Elements of the text in the Protocols appears to be plagiarized from an 1864 pamphlet, Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu (Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu), written by the French satirist Maurice Joly. Joly’s work attacks the political ambitions of Napoleon III using Machiavelli as a diabolical plotter in Hell as a stand-in for Napoleon’s views.

Joly himself appears to have borrowed material from a popular novel by Eugène Sue, The Mysteries of the People, in which the plotters were Jesuits. Jews do not appear in either work. Since it was illegal to criticize the monarchy, Joly had the pamphlet printed in Belgium, then tried to smuggle it back into France. The police confiscated as many copies as they could, and it was banned. After it was traced to Joly, he was tried on April 25, 1865, and sentenced to fifteen months in prison. Joly committed suicide in 1878.
The story of the Protocols then continues with a chapter in a novel called “Biarritz” by a German bureaucrat named Hermann Goedesche.  In the chapter, “The Jewish Cemetery in Prague and the Council of Representatives of the Twelve Tribes of Israel”, Goedsche wrote about a nocturnal meeting between members of a mysterious rabbinical cabal, describing how at midnight, the Devil appears before those who have gathered on behalf of the Twelve Tribes of Israel to plan a “Jewish conspiracy”.

In 1871, the story was being presented in France as serious history. In 1872, the “The Jewish Cemetery in Prague”, translated into Russian, appeared in St. Petersburg as a separate pamphlet of purported non-fiction. François Bournand, in his Les Juifs et nos contemporains  (1896), reproduced a speech from the chapter as that of a Chief Rabbi “John Radcliff”.

In 1901 a Russian official in the Chancery of the Synod of Moscow named Sergei Alexandrovich Nilus published a strange work entitled, “The Great in the Little and the Antichrist as a Proximate Political Possibility”. Nilus expressed the view that only the Holy Russian Empire could save the world from the rule of Antichrist.

protocols_english1978printing

The Victor Mardsen Translation

The idea behind the book was to bolster the absolute authority of the Czarist regime. In 1905 a second edition of the book appeared with one significant addition – the Protocols!

A secret investigation ordered by the newly appointed chairman of the Council of Ministers Pyotr Stolypin soon determined that the Protocols were authored by operatives of the Okhranka in Paris. The details were not made public to avoid compromising the chief of secret service Pyotr Rachkovsky and his agents, but when Nicholas II learned of the results, he requested:

“The Protocols should be confiscated, a good cause cannot be defended by dirty means”. Despite of the order, or because of the “good cause”, numerous reprints proliferated.

Nilus circulated several editions of the Protocols in Russia as part of an anti-Semitic campaign. Though the early prints were in Russia, the Protocols quickly spread to the rest of Europe by Russian expatriates after the 1917 revolution. Some of them claimed that it provided proof that the Jews were behind the Russian Revolution. Another expatriate Russian, Boris Brasol, brought it to the United States around 1920 where it became the core of Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic program. By the time Nilus died, Europe had been saturated by millions of copies of the Protocols

.

180px-1934_Protocols_Patriotic_Pub

American Edition of the Protocols

Living the Lie

Just after its appearance in London in 1920, Lucien Wolf exposed the Protocols as a plagiary of the earlier work of Joly and Goedsche, in a pamphlet of the Jewish Board of Deputies. The following year, in 1921, the story of the forgery was published in a series of articles in the London Times by Philip Grave, the paper’s correspondent in Constantinople.

A whole book documenting the forgery was also published in the same year in America by Herman Bernstein. Nevertheless, the Protocols continued to circulate widely. They were even sponsored by Henry Ford in the United States until 1927, and formed an important part of the Nazis’ justification of genocide of the Jews in World War II.

During an interview published in the New York World February 17, 1921, Mr. Henry Ford put the case for the “Protocols of Zion” tersely and convincingly. He said:

“The only statement I care to make about the Protocols is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. They fit it now.”

He made this statement when Jewish leaders and the Jewish Press in America were fulminating against a series of articles printed in Ford’s newspaper The Dearborn Independent during the years 1920 to 1922. After some years of pressure such as only organized Jewry can conceive or inflict, Henry Ford was made to apologize to Jewry in a letter addressed to Louis Marshall, then leader of the American Jewish Committee, dated June 30, 1927. Ford’s apology was abject, but neither then nor since did he ever deny the truth of the articles.
Adolf Hitler also wrote on the Protocols in his infamous book Mein Kampf. From Chapter XI: Nation and Race — Volume I: A Reckoning:

. . . To what extent the whole existence of this people is based on a continuous lie is shown incomparably by the Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion, so infinitely hated by the Jews. They are based on a forgery, the Frankfurter Zeitung moans and screams once every week: the best proof that they are authentic. What many Jews may do unconsciously is here consciously exposed. And that is what matters!

It is completely indifferent from what Jewish brain these disclosures originate; the important thing is that with positively terrifying certainty they reveal the nature and activity of the Jewish people and expose their inner contexts as well as their ultimate final aims. The best criticism applied to them, however, is reality.

Anyone who examines the historical development of the last hundred years from the standpoint of this book will at once understand the screaming of the Jewish press. For once this book has become the common property of a people, the Jewish menace may be considered as broken.

Spreading the Lie

After the Second World War, proponents of The Protocols often charged that Jews had affirmatively encouraged the Holocaust. Typical of the genre was a Mexican reprint with a cover depicting a Jewish hand behind Nazism—and behind Masonry, Communism, and religious and financial powers. A common charge was the Jews instigated the murder of six million of their co-religionists in an effort to secure the world’s sympathy, whether for the creation of the state of Israel or for other secret objectives.

German version of the Protocols

While there is continued popularity of The Protocols in nations from South America to Asia, since the defeat of Nazi Germany and fascist Italy in the Second World War governments or political leaders in most parts of the world have generally avoided claims that The Protocols represent factual evidence of a real Jewish conspiracy. The exception to this is the Middle East, where a large number of Arab and Muslim regimes and leaders have endorsed them as authentic.

As popular opposition to Israel spread across the Middle East in the years following its creation in 1948, many Arab governments funded new printings of the Protocols, and taught them in their schools as historical fact.

They have been accepted as such by many Islamist organizations, such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Reportedly, Arabic editions issued in the Middle East were found on sale as far away as London. There are at least nine different Arabic translations of the Protocols and more editions than in any other language including German.

The Protocols also figure prominently in the anti-Semitic propaganda distributed internationally by the Arab countries and have spread to other Muslim countries, such as Pakistan, Malaysia, and Indonesia.

During the presidency of Gamal Abdel Nasser, Egypt was the main source of internationally distributed antisemitic propaganda. In 1960, the Protocols were featured in an article published by Salah Dasuqi, military governor of Cairo, in al-Majallaaa, the official cultural journal.

In 1965, the Egyptian government released an English-language pamphlet titled Israel, the Enemy of Africa and distributed it throughout the English-speaking countries of Africa. The pamphlet used the Protocols and The International Jew as its sources and concluded that all the Jews were cheats, thieves, and murderers.

In a foreword to a translation of Shimon Peres’ book The New Middle East, the Egyptian state-owned publisher al-Ahram editorialized in 1995:

“When The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were discovered, some 200 years ago, and translated in various languages, including Arabic, the World Zionist Organization attempted to deny the existence of the plot, and claimed forgery. The Zionists even endeavored to purchase all the existing copies, in order to prevent their circulation. But today, Shimon Peres proves unequivocally that the Protocols are authentic, and that they tell the truth.”

Spanish version

The first Iranian edition of the Protocols was issued during the summer of 1978 before the Iranian Revolution after which the Protocols were widely publicized by the Iranian government. A publication called Imam, published by the Iranian embassy in London, quoted extensively from the Protocols in its issues of 1984 and 1985.

In 1985 a new edition of the Protocols was printed and widely distributed by the Islamic Propagation Organization, International Relations Department, in Tehran.

The Astaneh-ye Qods Razavi (Shrine of Imam Reza) Foundation in Mashhad, Iran, one of the wealthiest institutions in Iran, financed publication of the Protocols in 1994.

Parts of the Protocols were published by the daily Jomhouri-ye Eslami in 1994, under the heading The Smell of Blood, Zionist Schemes. Sobh, a radical Islamic monthly, published excerpts from the Protocols under the heading The text of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion for establishing the Jewish global rule in its December 1998–January 1999 issue, illustrated with a caricature of the Jewish snake swallowing the globe.

Iranian writer and researcher Ali Baqeri, who researched the Protocols, finds their plan for world domination to be merely part of an even more grandiose scheme, saying in Sobh in 1999:

“The ultimate goal of the Jews… after conquering the globe… is to extract from the hands of the Lord many stars and galaxies”.

The Great Hoax today

The Protocols continues to be published and distributed in many nations, and via the internet. A Japanese edition displayed at the exhibition attests to the fact that the actual presence of Jews is not necessary for charges of a Jewish conspiracy to take hold.

Meanwhile, the forgery has found traction in much of the Middle East. Televised dramatizations of The Protocols have appeared on Egyptian television in October-November 2002 and on Al-Manar (Hezbollah) television in 2003. The latter version included scenes depicting Jews  draining the blood of a Christian child as an ingredient in matzah (unleavened bread consumed by observant Jews during the Passover holiday; the actual ingredients are flour and water only).

In 2003, the manuscript library at Alexandria, Egypt reportedly displayed an Arabic edition of The Protocols as an example of a Jewish holy book.

In 2005, Iranian booksellers displayed copies of The Protocols and The International Jew at the Frankfurt (Germany) Book Fair, the world’s largest.

Syrian Edition circa 2005

 

The American retail chain, Wal-Mart, was criticized for selling The Protocols of the Elders of Zion on its website with a description that suggested it might be genuine. It was withdrawn from sale in September 2004, as ‘a business decision’. It is distributed in the United States by Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.
In 2002, the Paterson, New Jersey-based Arabic-language newspaper The Arab Voice published excerpts from the Protocols as true. The paper’s editor and publisher Walid Rabah defended himself from criticism with the protestation that “some major writers in the Arab nation accept the truth of the book.”

No matter where the “Protocols” appear in contemporary society the resounding theme by anti-Semites is that they continue to ring true, that the text somehow “fits” into current world events and International Jewry. Even should some kind of “fit” be found to current events, the Protocols are very general in their descriptions.

They describe plans for wars, political unrest, and economic crises. It’s not too hard to predict the occurrence of any of these things in a general sense, and one observes that these things have occurred more or less continually throughout human history. Thus, the fact that these general facts fit any particular period does not speak to the authenticity of the Protocols in any way. It certainly does not validate the more specific but less demonstrable claims of secret plots and evil conspirators.

Hell, even Nostradamus is more specific in his quatrains then the protocols are to any specific event. Should we continue to worry?

Hmmmmmmmmm. I still often wonder
-Arthur Wailer

The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu

The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu  (in the original French Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu ou la politique de Machiavel au XIXe siècle) is a political satire written by French attorney Maurice Joly in protest against the regime of Napoleon III, a.k.a. Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte.

The piece uses the literary device of a dialogue of the dead, invented by ancient Roman writer Lucian and introduced into the French belles-lettres by Bernard de Fontenelle in 18th century. Shadows of the historical characters of Niccolo Machiavelli and Charles Montesquieu meet in Hell in the year 1864 and dispute on politics. In this way Joly tried to cover up a direct, and then illegal, criticism of Louis-Napoleon’s rule.

Dialogue aux enfers, 1864

Joly relates in his 1870 autobiography that one evening thinking of Abbé Galiani’s treatise Dialogues sur le commerce des bleds and walking by Pont Royal, he was inspired to write a dialogue between Montesquieu and Machiavelli. The noble baron Montesquieu would make the case for liberalism; the Florentine politician Machiavelli would present the case for despotism.

Machiavelli claims that he “… wouldn’t even need twenty years to transform utterly the most indomitable European character and render it as a docile under tyranny as the debased people of Asia”. Montesquieu insists that the liberal spirit of the peoples is invincible. In 25 dialogues, step by step, Machiavelli, who by Joly’s plot covertly represents Napoleon III, explains how he would replace freedom with despotism in any given European country: “… Absolute power will no longer be an accident of fortune but will become a need” of the modern society. At the end, Machiavelli prevails. In the curtain-line Montesquieu exclaims “Eternal God, what have you permitted!…”.

The book was published anonymously (par un contemporain, by a contemporary) in Brussels in 1864 and smuggled into France for distribution, but the print run was seized by the police immediately upon crossing the border. The police swiftly tracked down its author, and Joly was arrested. The book was banned. On 25 April 1865, he was sentenced to 18 months at the Sainte-Pélagie Prison in Paris. The second edition of “Dialogues” was issued in 1868 under Joly’s name .

Campaigning against Napoleon III at the French constitutional referendum, 1870, Joly wrote an epilogue to his “Dialogue”. It was published at Le Gaulois and La Cloche magazines.

In the beginning of 20th century Joly’s book was used as a basis for The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an infamous Russian-made antisemitic literary forgery. There is an abundance of evidence that The Protocols were lavishly plagiarized from Joly’s book.

Ford’s Anti-Semitism

13592296_10210088169507637_6617444432332813036_n

Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic views echoed the fears and assumptions of many Americans in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Anti-Semitism in America saw a change in expression and virulence when increased immigration from Europe brought millions of Jews to the U.S. during Ford’s childhood in the latter half of the 19th century. It reached its peak during the mid-1920s: a time when Ku Klux Klan membership had reached four million, Prohibition restricted alcohol consumption, and discriminatory immigration policies were enacted favoring immigrants from northern and western Europe over other parts of the world.

A close friend recalled a camping trip in 1919 during which Ford lectured a group around the campfire. He “attributes all evil to Jews or to the Jewish capitalists,” the friend wrote in his diary. “The Jews caused the war, the Jews caused the outbreak of thieving and robbery all over the country, the Jews caused the inefficiency of the navy…”

In 1918, Henry Ford purchased his hometown newspaper, The Dearborn Independent. A year and a half later, he began publishing a series of articles that claimed a vast Jewish conspiracy was infecting America. The series ran in the following 91 issues. Ford bound the articles into four volumes titled “The International Jew,” and distributed half a million copies to his vast network of dealerships and subscribers. The rhetoric was not unusual for its content, as much as its scope. As one of the most famous men in America, Henry Ford legitimized ideas that otherwise may have been given little authority.

In 2012, American Experience interviewed Hasia Diner, the Paul and Sylvia Steinberg

henryford_diner

Hasia Diner

Professor of American Jewish History and Professor of Hebrew and Judaic Studies at New York University, and Director of the Goldstein-Goren Center for American Jewish History to ask her about Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic views and the impact of his public expression of them. Diner is a prolific author and has written many books about American Jewish history, including her 2004 book, The Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000. Here are excerpts from her interview.

What is the climate of anti-Semitism in America during the late 19th century?
By the 1870s in Europe and the United States, the argument shifts to the Jews as defective. Not Judaism as defective, but the Jew as a particular social type who had defective mental and moral abilities. All sorts of attributions were made to “the Jews.” The Jews killed Christ, the Jews do not want to accept the truth of Christianity, the Jews made money off the war, the Jews are profiteers, the Jews cheat you in business. The Jews have a certain phenotype: the Jew has a hook nose, the Jew is loud, the Jew talks with his hands.

Anti-Semitism came from the top down from elite sources, and from the bottom up from populist sources. It came from the right, and the left. Small towns were no more hotbeds of anti-Semitism than large cities. It could be pretty much anyplace.

What exposure might Henry Ford have had to anti-Semitism when he was growing up on a farm in rural Michigan in the 1870s and 1880s? 

The world that Henry Ford grew up in was one that very likely offered him certain themes about the Jews. He might have heard about them in church, that they were responsible for the crucifixion. He could have heard about them when somebody grumbled about having shopped in a Jewish-owned store and felt that they didn’t get the right price, or that they were sold shoddy goods, that the Jewish shopkeeper was too aggressive in trying to talk them into buying something. There were many places, without being able to put your finger on a specific one in a specific town, in which “the Jew” serves as, at that point of time, almost both a theological and a kind of racialized symbol of forces that people considered to be nefarious.

What kind of things did Henry Ford blame on Jews?
Throughout The Dearborn Independent, Ford published articles that would refer to Jews in every possible context as at the root of America and the world’s ills. Strikes: It was the Jews. Any kind of financial scandal? The Jews. Agricultural depression? The Jews. So “the Jew,” in a way, became the symbol of a world that was being manipulated and controlled.

To me, that’s one of the really crucial forces in this rhetoric — that things didn’t just happen; but rather somebody is orchestrating these developments, and it’s the Jews who are doing it for their benefit. They’re doing it in order [to] gain the twin-linked goodies of power and wealth.

Ford also republished the Protocols of the Elders of Zion — what is that?
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a notorious forgery that originally came from Russia, and [was] translated into English. [It] claimed the existence of an international Jewish conspiracy — that a group of Jews got together and basically planned the fate of the world, be it financial catastrophe, be it war. The world was controlled by this little cabal of Jews. [This forgery was] printed in The Dearborn Independent as a factual piece. And so someone reading it would take this to be the news.

What separates Ford from other people who were publishing anti-Semitic material during this time?
There are lots of small town newspapers that publish scurrilous anti-Semitic material, so it wasn’t unusual in that way. But what’s notable about The Dearborn Independent is that it was also spread through the Ford Motor dealerships. And so that there’d be stacks of them in a dealership in California, dealership in Massachusetts, a dealership in Iowa. In some places, the dealership would actually put copies of the newspaper in the car, so that when you drove off with your Model T, there you had on the seat next to you a copy of The Dearborn Independent.

And because The Dearborn Independent was published by Ford, it meant that other newspapers would pick up on what he said, and if only in reporting on an article that appeared in The Dearborn Independent, it meant that it got much greater currency than if it had just been a small-town newspaper in some equivalent sized town in Wisconsin or Montana. But this was Henry Ford’s newspaper, and pretty much anything Henry Ford did was news.

What Henry Ford says, people stop and listen. There are people who talked about him as a potential presidential candidate in the 1920s. Some local tavern keeper makes a anti-Semitic remark over the bar, well, nobody cares. Somebody may listen, and maybe repeat it, but it has a very limited span. But Henry Ford’s ability to gain a national audience with his words made him a very dangerous person.

What did the Jewish community think about Ford’s paper?
For the Jews who are reading Ford’s rants in The Dearborn Independent, this is very frightening. Jewish publications in English and in Yiddish are reporting on the material that comes out in The Dearborn Independent. They’re really tracking this.

They’re frightened, I think, for two reasons. One, which is haunting, which is they’re aware of what’s going on in Germany. They see the rise of the National Socialist Party, and they’re tracking that at the same time. And while it’s at a very early date in Hitler’s career, they are really paying attention to what’s happening. It’s also frightening because it’s going on in their home in the United States, where they want to feel like they really belong and that they have served their country and that they are citizens and that they are viewed as real Americans.

And Ford is just about the most popular American, certainly one of the wealthiest; here’s the person whose money and whose influence commands tremendous attention, spewing stuff that’s no different than what Hitler is saying in his beer hall meetings in Munich at the same time.

For the Jews, I think it causes them to really question how really they’re being accepted as Americans. I think it had psychic damage. I think it caused a kind of inward turning, a kind of fear of the larger society. I think it caused them to feel that they had to prove themselves, that it wasn’t just enough that they were sober, honest, hard-working citizens. They had to make these pronouncements about how American they were.

In 1938, Ford received an award from the Nazi regime called the “Grand Cross of the German Eagle.” How do we make sense of this award? What does it mean?
The Germans honor Ford, we could say, for a couple reasons. For one thing, they’re very taken with the whole assembly line technological modernization. The Model T and Volkswagen are sort of similar cars. The idea of the Volkswagen, the people’s car, was to be affordable to the average German. It’s kind of like the Model T of its day; that the automobile shouldn’t just be something for the elite, but it should be a car that the ordinary German could afford. So the Ford Model T and Volkswagen, we might think of as sort of in a similar category.

From the point of view of anti-Semitism, Hitler could look at Ford as somebody who was — let’s call him an age-mate. They were both in the 1920s beginning to write and disseminate information about what they both considered to be this great powerful threat, “the Jew.”

And Hitler was very much inspired by Ford’s writing. And the idea that this could happen in the United States, I think, was very important to Hitler as well, because as people in the United States were speaking out against Nazism and were using a kind of rhetoric, “Well, it could never happen here,” and “We are the bastions of democracy,” I think Hitler would have derived a degree of satisfaction to be able to point to Ford as, in a way, just as good an anti-Semite as he was.

Is it possible to quantify the damage Ford wrought?
It’s hard to say how much damage Ford did. People may have been anti-Semitic without Ford. It’s only intriguing as to the degree to which he may have been responsible, rather than the degree to which he corroborated ideas that were floating out there from other sources.

Hitler was very aware of Henry Ford, of Henry Ford’s writings, and praised them. He turned to the same documents. There’s a common thread. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a cherished text for both. And there were certainly business connections between Ford Motors and the Nazi regime.

The question is always asked: What did American Jews do in response to the escalating crisis in Europe, after Hitler’s rise to power? And while I think there’s no question they did a lot, they were very active, they were agitated and agitating, to some degree their behavior was tempered. Their sense of what they could do was tempered by the knowledge of how pervasive anti-Semitism was in America. If somebody like Henry Ford, with such power and such wealth, could be such an outspoken anti-Semite — and we know Hitler was very impressed by Henry Ford — then it must be that lots of Americans share those attitudes. And therefore there’s really a limit to what we can do.

If there had been no Henry Ford, would they have been more aggressive? We can’t know that. But I think in their calculus, “How aggressive can we be, pressing for the cause of the Jews of Europe?” “How much can we try: pressure Congress, editorials in newspapers, demonstrations, for example to allow in more German Jewish refugees, or then Polish Jewish refugees?” They were very much aware of the extent of anti-Semitism and the degree to which they-their options were really limited by that attitude out there, in a way, embodied by Ford.

127195208020100422hitler

HITLER AT FAULT FOR MORE OF OUR PROBLEMS

Book blames Nazis for Islamic anti-Semitism

Although, as Liel Liebovitz wrote in his article on Hitler as internet meme (aphenomenon that may be a thing of the past, as the production company behind Downfall, the much-spoofed film that sparked the trend, has filed copyright claims and removed most videos from YouTube), “we know—we feel!—that there could never really be another Hitler to terrify and enrage us so purely as the original once had,” more evidence continues to stoke our furies against the one true Führer.

In his recent book Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World, Jeffrey Herf claims that “The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians would have been over long ago were it not for the uncompromising, religiously inspired hatred of the Jews that was articulated and given assistance by Nazi propagandists and continued after the war by Islamists of various sorts.” One example comes from a 1942 message broadcast to the Middle East in which Hitler announced: “Your only hope for rescue is the destruction of the Jews before they destroy you!” The transcript for this and 6,000 other broadcasts were held as classified by Washington until 1977, and two years ago Herf became the first scholar to examine them.

Roots of Islamic Fundamentalism Lie in Nazi Propaganda for Arab World, Book Claims [Telegraph]

Sources: HolocaustResearchProject.org and WGBH Educational Foundation

THE INTERNATIONAL JEW: THE WORLD’S FOREMOST PROBLEM Part 1 Abridged from the original as published by the world renowned industrial leader, HENRY FORD, SR. Appearing originally in the periodical published by the Ford Motor Co. “The Dearborn Independent.”

The Song for this video is on the Album called by the same name: Protocols – released by JMG (www.jewishmusicgroup.com) on Oct. 31, 2006

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment