The Conspiracy to Destroy Israel (Jews)

By Ted Belman

A few months ago I wrote The Conspiracy to Shrink Israel in which I argued that the US, EU and the Arab League want to force Israel to go back to the green line.

In this article, I want to go even further and argue (remember this is only an argument) that the ruling class, i.e. the elites of the New World Order, want to destroy Israel and sooner than you think. “Why?”

According to Francisco Gil-White, who has studied the matter, The Crux of World History” is the interplay between fascism and enlightenment whose first arena was the conflict between the Greeks, lead by Alexander the Great, and the Persians.

Gil-White in the first few chapters of his work goes to great lengths to prove that the Greeks were fascist and the Persians much more enlightened.

The Persians were nice in general (p 28)

But Persian compassion was not limited to the slaves. The Persian kings fostered a multicultural and religious tolerance that, unlike Alexander’s, was real rather than fictional. In the societies overseen by the Persians kings—who did not micromanage— people mostly got along. I quote again Bleiberg’s comment about life under the Persians in Elephantine, a Nile island in Upper (i.e. southern) Egypt, which included a large Jewish community in addition to Persians and Egyptians:

    Elephantine in the fifth century BCE was one of the last communities to thrive before political antisemitism arose in the Hellenistic period and marred the lives of both Jews and gentiles. The religious tolerance that had been fostered and practiced by the ancient Near Eastern peoples remains an ideal for the modern world.—Bleiberg (2002:21).

So people got along under the Persians. It was the Greeks who ruined everything, introducing political antisemitism to boot.

The East gave birth to many of the great religions of peace like Buddism, and Zoroastorianism.

    “Struggle for good against Evil With Humata (good thoughts), Hukta (good words) and Havarshta (good deeds).

Thus spoke Zoroaster, the great prophet of Iran to his followers who in India are known by the name of Pasis.

    “There is but one path, the path of ASHA. All other paths are false paths” – YASNA

This quotation from Yasna sums up the teachings of Prophet Zoroaster. Asha is a path of action – good thoughts, good words and good deeds – with emphasis on service to the suffering humanity. Every living being according to this religion is believed to posses the eternal principle of FRAVASHI.

Is this not the essence of Judaism? Although the Jews came from Egypt in about 1300 BCE they shared the cultural environment of the East or perhaps were a great influence on it.

The Babylonian captivity, or Babylonian exile, is the name generally given to the deportation and exile of the Jews of the ancient Kingdom of Judah to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. After the overthrow of Babylonia by the Persians, Cyrus gave the Jews permission to return to their native land (537 BCE). Many believe that the Torah was written thereafter to reflect the values the Jews had taught, shared or learned. The Babylonian Talmud was developed in this environment also.

And this the Greeks under Alexander the Great, destroyed. Recall how King Antiochus attempted to destroy the Jewish religion giving rise to the Maccabee victory. Similarly, the Romans when they succeeded the Greeks, also tried to dominate the Jewish religion and people.

First, in order to understand important anthropological laws that determine history, Gil-White argues,

    the production of a totalitarian and eugenicist ruling class that creates a police state mobilizing a militarized ‘citizenry’ to make war in order to get slaves for the aristocrats, all of which the ancient Greeks have in common with the modern Nazis (the fact that the slaves of the Nazis were working in camps and factories, whereas the Greek slaves worked in mines and fields strikes me as an entirely cosmetic difference). If one is interested in why totalitarian and eugenicist police states mobilizing militarized ‘citizenries’ to make war in order to get slaves arise, then it is better to think of ancient Greece and the German Nazi Third Reich as variants of ‘the same thing,’ the better to search for common patterns that will elucidate the nature of the anthropological laws involved.

This “thing” he calls fascism.

    In “the Hellenistic period,” (by contrast to the Persian world that contained ethnic and religious tolerance), political antisemitism was introduced. Why? Naturally, because the Greco-Macedonian ruling class could see that Jewish ideology was a great threat to their fascist system (more on this later), just as the equally fascist Romans would conclude the same, producing their own antisemitic propaganda, and culminating in the anti-Jewish genocide of the first and second centuries.

    On that note, if we make the comparison to the modern world, a natural hypothesis would be that the German Nazi extermination of the European Jews was not simply a lot of mindless racists gone haywire—it was a political event.

People don’t know about the Roman extermination of the Jews. And herein lies the problem, because the Roman extermination of the Jews is a salient and memorable fact.

Consider that this extermination,

    1) was easily the single most important political policy of the Roman Empire, in its entire existence;
    2) it was horrifying;
    3) it occurred right during the time that Christianity first began spreading like wildfire around the eastern Mediterranean, a period that is obviously of interest to Christians, who are the overwhelming majority in the West; and
    4) in terms of relative population loss, it was comparable in scope to what the German Nazis did in recent memory, which was likewise an unimaginably evil crime, and, moreover, known to everybody.

He argues that the “event—the extermination of the Jews—may have had identical causes in the ancient and modern worlds”. Furthermore, when Christianity was adopted by Rome as the state religion, Christianity accommodated itself to fascism and sought to destroy the Jews.

The reason given by the Church was that the Jews killed Christ but the underlying reason was the preservation of the Roman Empire.

This killing continued until the Enlightenment (1650-1850) which steered the world away from religion and more and more toward secularism, humanism, individualism, rationalism, and nationalism. Thus, the rule of God was replaced by the rule of man. These values originated in Judaism except for “the rule of man.”

Thus was born the French Revolution ostensibly based on these values.

Rabbi Ken Spiro, in an article on the Enlightenment, writes,

Likewise, all the talk of equality of man did not stop Francoise Voltaire from spewing out in his Dictionnaire Philosophique vicious anti-Semitic diatribes and singling out the Jews as “the most abominable people in the world.” Although he did state that Jews ought not to be killed, he cannot contain his hatred:

    “In short we find them only ignorant and barbarous people with long united and most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred of every people by whom they are tolerated…”

In contrast to France, the situation was very different in England (where the Puritan Revolution had a big influence) and in the New World, where again the Puritans figured prominently. The American Revolution came about as a result of the synthesis of very religious Bible-based ideas brought over by the pilgrims and the humanist ideas (such as “the inalienable rights of man”) advanced by John Locke. We see this clearly in the opening sentences of the Declaration of Independence:

    “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

The French Revolution did not have this synthesis. It was purely a secular movement.

Prior to this time, it was the Jewish religion that was hated. Thus if a Jew would convert to Christianity he would be spared. But the secularization of Europe didn’t stop the persecution, it just secularized it. Thus during the holocaust, a Jew couldn’t escape his fate by converting. If you had even 25% Jewish blood, you were exterminated. In reality though the real reasons Jews were oppressed and killed was because they were considered a threat to the establishment.

So why is all this relevant today? Because, according to Gil-White, there are anthropological laws involved. Thus we should expect another “event” in due course. Certainly judging by the resurgence of antisemitism in Europe, the extreme propaganda and hatred emanating from the Muslim world, the complicity of the UN and numerous NGO’s and the media bias, it is not difficult to envisage. And don’t forget Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map.

But what about the USA? Americans, because of their Puritan roots, like Israel and Jews and do not wish them harm. But what about their ruling class? Are they any different from the Nazis or the Greeks or the Romans? Let’s look at the evidence. Gil-White saves me the trouble.

It is important to remember that what is examined here is the behavior of the US foreign policy Establishment, which is secretive. The evidence therefore speaks to what is, and has been, the true position of the US ruling elite with regard to Israel and the Jewish people.

The 1930’s – Negative – The US Establishment helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement.

1939-1945 – Negative –

1. The general policy of the Allies towards the plight of the Jews

2. No US visas for European Jews trying to escape the Nazi slaughter

3. The allies refused to sabotage Hitler’s Final Solution by military means

1945 – Negative – After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals.

1947-48 – Mixed to Negative – Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel. e.g. an arms embargo

1949-1953 – Negative – In Israel’s hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel’s mortal enemies.

1955 – Mixed – The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some concessions to the Israelis.

1955-1965 – Positive (in one regard only) – Israel indirectly gets some US weapons.

1958 – Negative – Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when this places Israel in danger, the US does…nothing.

1964 – Mixed – The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why had it been trying to do this?

1964-1967 – Negative – Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.

1967 – Negative – After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense.

1969 – Negative – The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.

1970 – Positive – Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic effort to make Israel withdraw from the territories.

1973 – Positive – The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War. (This was not at first true as Kissinger withheld a resupply of arms.)

1974-1975 – Negative – The US supported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.

1975 – Negative – The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.

1977 – Negative – Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a ‘government in exile,’ and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.

1978 – Negative – When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back.

1979 – Negative – Jimmy Carter began large-scale US sponsorship of antisemitic Islamist terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

1981 – Negative – The US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank against Israeli objections.

1982-1983 – Negative – The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis.

1985 – Negative – 1985 includes more material than other years, so we have divided it into subsections.

1. Shimon Peres acted as a US agent, against Israeli interests.

2. Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti (respectively, the Italian prime minister and foreign minister) committed political suicide for the sake of pushing the PLO. The US was behind them.

3. Ronald Reagan denied the Holocaust

4. Who was in charge of US covert operations in 1985?

1987-1988 – Negative – The ‘First Intifada’ was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed ‘underdogs.’

1989 – Negative – With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the ‘only solution’ to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

1991 – Negative – Bush Sr.’s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.

1994 – Negative – Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat’s henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.

1996-1997 – Negative – The United States exerted such strong pressure on the Netanyahu government (including threats) that, even though Netanyahu had been elected on an anti-Oslo platform, he had the necessary cover to betray the Israeli public that had elected him.

2005 – Negative – Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking ‘peace’ the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.

This remains a work in progress. But we know that Rice keeps forcing Israel to do things not in her interest such as entering the Rafah Agreement or agreeing to contiguity between Judea and Gaza.

The US has a history of supporting Islamism and terrorist groups that grow out of it. It supported al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Iran in its fight against Iraq, the KLA against Serbia and the Chechens against Russia. It also bombed little Serbia setting it back thirty years.

Gil-White quotes Cahill,

    Robert D. Kaplan, [a] contemporary commentator, lionized by American militarists, has even urged in Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos that American foreign policy not allow itself to be constrained by Judeo-Christian morality and that “progress often comes from hurting others.” If we are to maintain our global preeminence, we must, in Kaplan’s view, return wholeheartedly and unashamedly to our pagan Greek roots.—Cahill (2003:46)

Since Kaplan calls for a pagan—namely a Greek—“ethos” (really, a Greek ethics), it matters that his views are in harmony with those of the people who run the world’s most powerful state.

[To be continued and refined.]

March 24, 2007 | 16 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

16 Comments / 16 Comments

  1. Hallo mennyiben and all

    Yes you are correct, it is noy online yet but I could send it to you via email before if you’d send me an email to my address at nospoon@ozu.es

    remember it is in spanish

    else, to RandyTexas, I remember reading Francisco Gil-White commenting about Plato’s list in his Crux… his list was much shorter than the one you insert.

    yet it made me think of fascists, in the sense nazional socialism defines itself as socialism, or as stalinism defines itself as communist… all in all nazis were fascists as stalinism was fascist as well…

    i do not see why applying the term communist to Plato’s goals, even though the list is much alike stalinism and some principles of the early soviets

    in either case, it is very much more interesting -for the sake of sensibleness- providing a basis where we could check the ethical principles of the left compared to those of judaism

    in the end the only difference seems to be -again- that in judaism the setting of something, or someone, that equals all men (egalite) bothers leftist intellectuals, because it is called God.

    The problem of the left is that it is wrong when it thinks that delegating responsabilities (excluding certain level of democracy) is a bad thing, therefore they conclude that everything must be common, and commonly decided and commonly shared

    this might happen because most leftists, as most people, do not want to assume decissions, opposite of what a tyrant or a persian ruler (as we can see in Gil-White’s Crux) would do.

    Assume decissions is what a father does (so does God our father -again, read on the Book Of Job in the Crux) who inmediately, if he did his job well, makes a father of his son (in the long run), so becoming he -the son- a father who decides. And because he knows how difficult it is becoming a father -for so deciding implies assuming responsabilities- he has the dignity of being it.

    Judaism settles the basis of such, by giving a God who assumes creating the man, his son, and giving him a law to be followed, a law that would assure the man his son that he will be a father too and will multiply and, most important of all, will let him know that all men are equal for they all are sons of God.

    On the other hand i have not yet seen anywhere in the left such a product, nor a theory, that would help man in this sense

    what then happens is that when left movements succeed, they turn sooner or later into fascism -some men are more equal than others- because there comes an elite that since it has not a law equaling them, they are tempted -and always fall- into designing inequalities.

    There is only a development where i see the possibility of such a theory, but it is needing God to explain it, so i see it coming closer and closer to understanding judaism as i see it and it is in the stream that is growing at Trama y Fondo

    but anyway this is something we should all try

    it seems very interesting the book The French Enlightenment of the Jews, how getting it?

    best

    Jose

  2. Yes, Ted, I thought this was a great read! Glad you enjoyed it too. I have it on loan from the public library, but am thinking to pick up my own copy one of these days. Am presently reading all I can find on French antisemitism and the Dreyfus affair for a paper.

    I totally forgot! I meant to tell Jose Luis Lopez that I look forward to reading the articles he mentions. Am I correct that the article about Orwell is not online yet? I looked for that one at Tramayfondo but couldn’t find it. Regards.

  3. According to Robert F. Byrnes, Antisemitism in Modern France, Volume 1, New Brunswick, 1950, Voltaire’s antisemitism, was the prime source of Karl Marx’s outlook.

    While I appreciate the scholarly article that Francisco Gil-White wrote wherein he revisited Roman history and its persecution of Jews, I direct his attention to a book (out of print and probably hard to find in Spain, but perhaps interlibrary loan or a Jewish source) entitled The French Enlightenment and the Jews by Arthur Hertzberg.

    Secular antisemitism cannot be blamed on Christian roots or fascism. The left and secularism were and are antisemitic because only Jews who want to be “enlightened, new men” are acceptable, i.e., stripped of their Judaism. I’m not speaking of Voltaire here, whose love of hedonism and his love of Greco-Roman philosophy inspired his following the Greek and Romans in their hatred of the Jews (primarily because of their unwillingness to give up their G-d and His commandments), I am speaking of the “pro-Jewish” secular and left. They were only “pro-Jewish” when it applied to “Jews” who were totally secular.

    Prof. Hertzberg writes of the wing of the French Revolutionary left, who adopted the cause of the Jews: “During the Terror for example, the administrators of the Bas-Rhin were outraged to discover that a Jew who had died in Strasbourg was being brought to Rosenweiler “in order to be buried there according to the idiotic laws of rabbinism.” These Jacobins stated very clearly, in a circular letter that they wrote to all the districts under their jurisdiction, that they were angry for more than religious reasons: “we are less concerned in this case about their religious system than about their criminal antipathy to all citizens who do not belong to their ridiculous cult. It is to this that you and we ought to pay particular attention.”

    This desire of a Jewish family to bury one of its members in a Jewish cemetery then became the occasion for a further outburst: “Citizens, redouble your watchfulness and your severity! Make the Jews give up their swindles and extortions….and work with their hands in the workshops and fields…We will put them under the supervision of the National Convention and under its authority; we will institute the most severe measures against the detested remnants of a people which has always been hated and despised.

    This was the language of the extreme Jacobinism in eastern France; it was to be the post-Christian secularized rhetoric of at least one wing of the revolutionary left in France and all over Europe in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The idea that the Jew was irretrievably alien and that any new order for all of society had to defend its purity agaisnt him was to recur many times, and in ever more dangerous forms, in the next age.

    The debate about the Jewish question question on the way to the Revolution, during it, and after it happened, thus produced not only new, modern Jewish intellectuals and an intelligentsia that was willing to accept them. This has been obvious, well known, though our analysis has qualified these conventional assertions with a description of the many ambiguities that surrounded the Emancipation. What has not been noticed is that an anti-Jewish, left wing intelligentsia arose at the same time. The liberal age in Europe was, indeed, made by the new intellectuals who first appeared in power in the French Revolution. It was to be devastated by the heirs and successors to the anti-Jewish intelligentsia that appeared in the very midst of these events.

    The outline of all the modern versions of the “Jewish question” as it was to be defined in the future by both Jews and gentiles, existed in 1791. The glories and the tragedies to come had already been conceived. (Arthur Hertzberg, 1968 Columbia University Press)

    I see this leftist enlightened version of antisemitism, totally free of any influences of false Christianity or fascism, as the reason that Israelis hate the pious most

  4. You are correct Jose but it goes back beyond Nietzche – only helped to revive it.

    Steve Ferrell wrote in Technology, sovereignty and the Third Wave

    ….[I]n his pro-communist work, “The Republic.” Plato called the “third wave” that “largest and most dangerous [wave of all]” wherein the pro-communist philosopher king overthrows the existing order, either by “smooth” persuasion or by brute force. The Third Wave was the transitional phase from any form of government, free or otherwise, to total statism under the leadership of an elite class of individuals called “philosopher kings.” (2)

    Setting the standard for Third Wavers and Third Wayers today, Plato didn’t call his revolutionary plan for tyranny ‘tyranny.’ Who would? Rather, he cloaked every item of revolutionary change in more palatable terms like ‘justice,’ ‘the Heavenly ideal,’ ‘the pursuit of the good,’ and ‘the love of truth.’ He believed in and practiced double-talk. So much so, that even today Plato succeeds in convincing casual readers that they are mulling over a Judeo-Christian appeal to virtue. A hard look at Plato’s definition of virtue reveals something else, however. Virtue, he taught, is whatever sustains or brings about the ideal city. And such an ideal city was his! Communist, through and through.

    Consider Plato’s list of virtues.

    The ‘Virtuous’ Aims of Plato’s Third Wave

    * Private property must be abolished, the wealthy hated, and their wealth redistributed by state mandate. (3)
    * Children belong to, and are born to serve, the state. The influence of parents is noxious and disruptive to the interest of the state; therefore, every child should be raised in government nurseries, far from home, without knowledge of who its parents are, and without the parents having knowledge of who their offspring are. Every child becomes the common property of every parent in the city, who possess the collective duty to watch over them. (4)
    * Private education, like traditional parenting, is at the very headwaters of falsehood and social strife. It must be eliminated and replaced by a closely monitored state school system. (5)
    * Old values, passed down through song, history and children’s storybooks, are equally a source of trouble. These should be rewritten to discredit and erase the old virtues and to exalt and enthrone the new. (6)
    * Frivolous children’s games make for foolish children. New games should be developed which emphasize law and order. (7)
    * Private industry is self-serving. The state has a moral obligation to move toward the absolute control of all industry for the benefit of the whole. (8)
    * Class mobility is a revolutionary idea which threatens the stability of the state and the pre-eminence of true philosophy. A strict caste system and the elimination of career choice is the answer. (9)
    * Talent must never be allowed to wander or be wasted. Early on, children must be identified and channeled by the state, for the benefit of the state, into careers selected by the state, with only a “few” promising students selected for career or class crossover. (10)
    * Equality is preposterous and dangerous, but useful during the Third Wave. During this phase, extreme views on equality are to be promoted by the state and by wise opportunists in order to, all the more quickly, overthrow the existing order. (11)
    * Under the guise of equality, women ought to be exploited in the same way. First to foment “class war” during the Third Wave (women’s roles are reversed to men’s). Next, to be promptly put into their place as part of a “community of women” to be shared collectively by male guardians, war heroes and rulers for pleasure or offspring. (12)
    * Selective breeding is beneficial to the state (13), as are the legalization and encouragement of recreational sex and rape across class lines.
    * Unwanted babies, inferior babies, deformed babies (14) and the adult handicapped are an unnecessary drag on the prosperity and well-being of society. They should be left to die. Unproductive adults, likewise, should be terminated. (15)
    * Homosexuality is morally acceptable, and homosexual rape of lower-class males and boys is a right of rulers, guardians and war heroes. (16)
    * Only a very few men are foreordained to understand life and the higher good. All the rest are the equivalent of dumb sheep. A few “wise” ones should be appointed “philosopher kings,” even “saviors,” by the state, and given absolute power to control every facet of the helplessly lost lives of the masses. (17)
    * Absolute loyalty to the government is vital for the success and safety of society. Thus, the establishment of a state-sanctioned KGB-like network is an essential good. Citizens and leaders must be watched and intentionally goaded into committing crimes against the state, into taking advantage of sexual opportunities, and into being tried by every method imaginable in order to weed out those who are not loyal and not fit for duty, from those who are. (18)
    * Wealth is not essential to the safety of the state. When at war with free states, the enemy will display economic superiority. But not to fear. Their wealth is their weakness, and can and will be used against them. The divide and conquer/class warfare tactic is the choice of the virtuous. (19)
    * Lastly, virtue rejects troublemaking democracy (pure or direct democracy) as an end, yet shrewdly identifies it as the quickest, surest route to promoting the communist view of equality of ends. (20) During the transitional phase, the virtuous reformer will utilize democracy to:

    1. Degenerate traditional morality and foster fierce intolerance against it.

    2. Lead the dumb masses (like “dumb asses”) by the nose to trample on each other’s rights in the blind pursuit of their own supposed rights.

    3. Legitimize the government’s “creeping into houses” through the creation of “new” rights which must be monitored.

    4. Create moral chaos, mob and factional spirit, revolution (21) and anarchy.

    5. Eventually, bring about such a violent state of uncertainty and fear that the people will, out of necessity, vote themselves the most absolute of tyrannies (22), that of the democratic king, in order to restore order, peace and security. (23, 24)

    These were the ultimate goals, the communist goals, of Plato’s Third Wave, the place where all this Third Wave/Third Way business began……

    The same vision re-emerges from generation to generation in the thoughts of the high-minded. There are those who work for it and those who strive against it.

  5. Dear Ted, Francisco and readers

    It’s been along time. I have not had the time to update myself on your news. Today I do and find a living debate on Gil-White’s brilliant explanation of what has happened and fearing what is to come.

    The only thing I can add to this article is a small reflexion which I have published in last number of spanish magazine Trama y Fondo (you can check it at http://www.tramayfondo.com, yet present number cannot be checked until some time is passed due to comprehensive editorial interests -you can buy it and read it in any library ruled by spanish gov)

    The whole number deals with the holocaust; something impressive when first one notices that most of the writers are universitarian teachers (where I can now -and this is news- include myself), and second, the usual areas of interest of the magazine deals with media and psichology. Shame that the articles are all in spanish, and only avalaible in paper until june or so. But numbers already published can be already read in pdf format.

    A small abstract of my article could be that, since God is the only one that makes all men equal, when God is taken away by Nieztsche’s sick assertion -basical to fascisms- that God is dead and therefore the superman is born, then not all men are equal, and some men are more equal than others (as in Animal Farm).

    A big lot of so called filosofy was born following Nietzsche. In my article I analyze 1984 by Orwell, for it is a very good example of what a leftist turns out to be in the long run when God is taken away. A fascist.

    Which is what Jews do not. That is why they, leftists as they are, are to be exterminated -when not assimilated.

    By the way, since you comment on Freud, Freud evolved a lot. His last works include interesting reflexions on judaism, where he seems to find himself back with God, and the law of Moses. A part of my investigations deal with this. It is very much like what happened to deconstructivist Derrida, a jew, too, who, in his last works found out how to build some sense in western culture, but only through judaism.

    best, Jose Luis Lopez

  6. Religion VS Relationship

    Religion is only man’s attempt to assuage God with his lip service, demanding that God accept him without change.
    God desires obedience which requires a relationship rather than religion.
    Only a relationship with God will result in change in the spirit of mankind, making them acceptible to God. Religion never changed anyone.
    Freud and Jung may not have been wrong about religion, But they ignored man’s need for God’s forgiveness.

  7. Prof Richard Rubenstein, whose area of expertise is religion, wrote to urge extreme caution with this theory or argument. He asks , if the Romans wanted to exterminate the Jews , why did they allow Rabbi Yohannan to set up an academy? Good question.

    Maybe it’s a good question but I don’t see it conflicting with this theory.

    The Romans sought to expand their kingdom through multicultrualism. They did not wish to eliminate religion if it could be used as a means to control a group of people, but of course this meant that religion would have to some extent become a servant of the state. In fact, it was later the power of religion that became the main facilitator of Rome’s authority over the people.

    This was the case in Judea before the revolt and the destruction of the temple where Rome attempted to create a puppet by allowing practice of a compromised Jewish faith whose leaders were subservient to Rome. However, for many Jews there could be no compromise and there was a revolt.

    Why do you think that the temple was destroyed in the manner it was? – Because it was the symbol of rebellion and the symbol of an Authority greater than Rome. This was not the first time the temple was destroyed and desecrated for that very reason.

    The symbol of Rome was the fasces which was comprised of a bundle of branches or rods representing many divers groups (including religious). These were bound together in a bundle around an ax with red cords – the ax representing Roman authority and superiority over the rods being that the ax can cut any of them to pieces. This is the origin of the word fascism, it is a collective society of many under a strict authoritarian or totalitarian rulership.

    Today the attack on religion is only to destroy it to the extent needed for control, for religious faith is still too widespread and embraced by too many to eliminate from society. Ancient Rome faced this problem also and after attempting to destroy Christianity and failing, Rome determined to incorporate it as a state religion in order to control and use it – “If you can’t beat them join them”

    As for Ted’s statement:

    Freud or someone else wrote that the Christians want to destroy the Jews as a means to destroy God.

    It goes further than that – The attempt is not merely to destroy God but to supersede God, and it is not just “Dark Age Christianity,” but any form of collective totalitarianism. It can be secular or religious and it can even occur in Judaism in the name of God – It takes place anytime and anywhere there is an attempt to supersede God by depriving people of their inalienable rights and freedom of conscience in order to control their lives. Faith can be virtuous, but if it is controlled by others other than the individual whose faith it is, watch out.

    Religion (specifically, Jewish and Christian faith)has been the greatest force for good and for of civilizing the world. Even great many men who were not religious came to greatness by embracing principles which were first ignited by Judeo-Chrinian values and people of faith.

    Conversely, when religion ceases to be a faith of free will and becomes a means of control and power in the hands of tyrannical rulers it is capable of destruction on an unparalleled scale – Also take heed, religion need not be based on God or gods, for it can just as well be and today is a secular mass movement.

    Religion of itself is not necessarily evil, it is collective totalitarianism which can take place under ANY form of power.

    Today the extreme polls are closing in on the middle in the forms of Islam and secular humanism.

  8. All true Christians support Jews and do not want to destroy them. Freud was an occultist whose methods were used by the Marxists and globalists to brainwash the masses. He is not a credible source.

    Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

    …politicians and policymakers learned to use Freud’s ideas in their desire to control the masses … Death by Propaganda

    A humanist is a satanist.

    Probably the two biggest names in psychotherapy are Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung. Freud called religion inherently evil and said it was a form of neurosis. Jung called religion a mental illness and said it was just an imaginary coping mechanism. Both of these men dabbled in mysticism and the occult. Adler, Maslow, Fromm, Rogers, Janov – not a one believed in Jesus Christ. Their theories were based solely on their own opinions of how they thought they could change people without God. – Christianity v. Psychology.

  9. Read Foxe’s Book of Martyrs to see that most of the “Christians” killing others were blood-thirsty Catholics who were not Christian then and are not today. Warning: it makes for nauseous reading like reading about the Holocaust. Catholics murdered Christians as well as Jews. While there are many fine people who are Catholics today, their hierarchy doesn’t even call itself Christian and what they teach is another gospel, but not Christian. The Pope, as you know demonstrated that he converted to Islam by praying in a mosque with Muslims. A true Christian lives a righteous life and keeps the commandments.

    Jews are hated by the world because G-d gave the oracles to the Jews and everyone who hates G-d hates those who represent Him, Jew and true Christian alike. Further the media is the flood from Satan’s mouth and the mouthpiece and propaganda arm of the globalist elite who have taken over a large part of the world. The media had 6 years before Hitler to deceive the Germans. It has now had 60 years to deceive the rest of the world and mind-control it into hating Jews and Christians. Read Stan Goodenough’s excellent piece First we dehumanize you, then we can destroy you.

  10. Prof Richard Rubenstein, whose area of expertise is religion, wrote to urge extreme caution with this theory or argument. He asks , if the Romans wanted to exterminate the Jews , why did they allow Rabbi Yohannan to set up an academy? Good question.

    For that matter, why does the US government protect Israel in many ways. Are their policies just a reflection of self interest? You know, keep Israel strong enough to fight for the US interests or use it as a bargaining chip when it suits the same interests.

    Britain didn’t sacrifice Czechoslovakia because she wanted it dead but because she wanted to appease Hitler.

  11. Ted,

    This is excellent work of which I share many of same perspectives. Fascism (a form collectivism) is the source of war, oppression and anti-Semitism. Elitists seek peace and stability through fascism/collectivism. This concept of a collective society was the ideology that ancient Rome was built upon as symbolized by the fasces

    I have also argued that the philosophy of a collective society, where rights of the individual are replaced by what is seen as the common good of the majority or of a particular class, is the force behind every great atrocity by a ruling power throughout history. Call it fascism or collectivism or whateverism; it drove ancient Rome it drove Mussolini and Hitler, it drove Roman Catholicism in the Dark Ages and it not only drives Islam today but it is driving the radical left and elitists with both the rightist and leftist philosophies.

    Today the resurrection of this same destructive force is manifest in multiculturalism and it is an attempt to consolidate all powers regardless of the virtue and morality or lack thereof of those powers.

    Where powers conflict one of them must concede or be sacrificed. This is the conflict with Israel now and this is why Israel faces such a grave threat – and freedom and liberty in the USA and other democracies are threatened by this as well.

    Interestingly, this nefarious force exists and prospers in Godless nations and nations that reject the concept: “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

    Therein lies the crux.

    Collective societies must have a group identity in order to establish control. Once that identity is established all others who do not conform will be persecuted and purged, and that society will become oppressively totalitarian. This repeats itself constantly throughout history but today there are many competitors vying to be that power which rules the world (i.e. nations/politicos, people/elitists, religion/Islam and corporate powers).

    These all find common a common enemy in Israel which by nature defies their vision of a collective world, as do the free-minded citizens who also defy their global visions – by all of these are the battle lines drawn today.

    Ted, do continue work on this; I find it a most fascinating and relevant topic which not only is a window into the past, but into the present and the future.

Comments are closed.