Judaism discovered

80

opinions of leading halachic authorities from the Middle Ages, such as Nachmanides, and those of the modern era, such as Rabbi Ya'acov Emden, and showed that many permitted sexual relations without marriage. In an arrangement sanctioned by Jewish law, according to these opinions, the woman becomes a pilegesh, or concubine. Neither the man nor the woman has any obligations or rights, but both must adhere to family purity (Niddah) laws in accordance with Halacha."

When "traditional Catholics" promote a press release of an Orthodox rabbi, they are symbolically telling the world that they accept the Papal-Vatican/Protestant-fundamentalist equation, that there are common values shared by Judaism and Christianity (i.e. the "Judeo-Christian ethos"). What insanity. What fellowship hath light with darkness? (2 Cor. 6:14). What connection is there between Jesus Christ and the promoters of the Talmud? How many times do these facts have to be expounded before people will take them to heart? Is there no one in the social-conservative, "family-values" Christian world that can understand that rabbis are often deceivers and dissimulators? Why do Right wing Protestants and traditional Catholics build up the prestige of chameleon-like followers of the Father of Lies? Why do "Christian conservatives" ever, for any reason, take what rabbis say at face value? Yet, this happens repeatedly.

In an interview that was prominently circulated on the Internet by "family values conservative" Catholics in the spring of 2008, concerning the conversion in Rome of a supposed Muslim to Catholicism, Orthodox Rabbi Yehuda Levin, in an act of outrageous effrontery, is said to have claimed that Christian conversion efforts don't trouble the Orthodox Judaics, they only bother Judaics who are not so religious. The rabbi allegedly further stated that Talmudic Judaics pray on behalf of non-Judaics on Talmudic holidays! This sinister nonsense is an insult to the intelligence of any informed gentile. We challenge Rabbi Levin to produce the text of the supposed prayer(s) that he claims, according to John-Henry Westen, that Orthodox Judaics allegedly say on behalf of gentiles. In fact, the 12th Amidah prayer curses Christians. In fact, Orthodox Judaics are ordered to curse Christian graves, curse Christian houses of worship and curse the crucifix. These facts are notorious among Talmudic rabbis. Levin's remarks were not only not challenged, they

81

were praised and amplified, first by Mr. Westen in the interview itself and then, beginning March 29, on the website of a conservative Roman Catholic newspaper where it appeared as a "guest column." As of May 1, 2008, in spite of protests, the column containing Rabbi Levin's Talmudic disinformation, continued to be featured prominently on the newspaper's website:

"...conservative pundit Ann Coulter spoke on air with CNBC's Donny Deutsch about her desire for all people, Jews included, to become Christian...Deutsch called Coulter's comment uneducated, 'hateful and anti-Semitic'...But why the hue and cry about Christians hoping the Jews will convert? Wouldn't it be obvious that Christians, true Christians, who believe in and follow Christ as 'the way, the truth, and the life' would want all people to know the truth? It would be obvious to true believers of any religion, but not to relativists. Orthodox Jewish Rabbi Yehuda Levin, the spokesman on moral issues for some 1000 Rabbis, explained this to me once in an interview on the Coulter kerfuffle. Rabbi Levin noted that Coulter's remarks could not be construed as anti-Semitic and that Jews who practice their faith were not scandalized by the remarks. 'The Orthodox are very comfortable in their beliefs of their religion and their practices/ he said. 'The Jews who would be more offended by this are those that are not involved in day to day practice of Judaism' ....Levin pointed out moreover that true followers of Judaism, like true Christians and sincere believers in several other religions, feel they have the fullness of truth, and thus in charity hope for a day when all people will embrace the fullness of truth. He explained that especially on Jewish holidays special prayers are said, even several times a day, especially for non-Jews, that they will come to accept the truth."

Many non-Judaics find it hard to grasp the magnitude of rabbinic charlatanry and their penchant for retailing the Big Lie publicly and shamelessly. Unwary gentiles find it hard to accept that any pious religious leader could be so hypocritical as to tell lies with such absolute boldness. This credulity holds sway because many gentiles don't believe that the New Testament applies to rabbis today (Matt. 23:27), and they don't appreciate the range of chutzpah within Judaism. What precisely is this chutzpah? The

82

best definition comes not from a lexicon but from an old Yiddish proverb: "Chutzpah is when a Jew who kills both his parents throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he's an orphan."

Some people love to be fooled. They go from defeat to defeat because of a need to obtain and share in some of the prestige the world confers on rabbis, which they imagine will deflect criticism and advance the campaign for conservative family values. This is not only profoundly defective thinking (assuming any thought goes into it at all), it is also a grim joke on their readers and supporters who depend upon these people as sources of alternative information and counter-intelligence. These conservative campaigners snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This is a Kabbalistic process and it is operating inside the "Right wing." One proof of their schizophrenia: if one were to poll the Catholics and Protestants who unite with and promote these "social conservative" rabbis, many of these Christians would profess to being opposed to Judaism! Their scandalous promotion of "the good" rabbis confuses the demoralized, the undecided and the unconverted, who are led to imagine that in the battle between Christ and Antichrist, between good and evil, there are shades of ecumenical gray whereby Antichrist can be of service to Christ. Venahafokh hu.

The Apostle Paul indicts Judaism for preventing true Christians from preaching the gospel to the gentiles. This "forbidding to speak" nowadays takes the form of excommunication and expulsion from the churches and "hate law" legislation in Europe and North America that, while fully permitting Talmudists and Zionists to use the news and "entertainment" media and the faculties and publishing houses of the universities to attack and defame Jesus, Mary, the New Testament, the Resurrection etc., forbids speaking and teaching about Phariseeism as Jesus did; and make no mistake — the Judaism confronting us in this age is petrified Phariseeism.

The European Union, the government of Canada and the United Nations outlaw authentic Christian preaching and witnessing that is inspired by Biblical lines of inquiry and expose. A diluted "Lord, Lord!" false gospel, sown by Churchianity's workers of iniquity, is permitted in Europe. This false gospel is promoted in the U.S., as "proof" that "America is still a Christian nation." Yet the vast majority of the churches in America are guilty of partnering with the rabbinic establishment to effect what the Apostle Paul warned of, "forbidding us to speak to the gentiles that they might be saved."

83

The gentiles will most assuredly not be saved when they are unequally yoked with Babylonian-pagan Talmudic rabbis. Yet when true Christians today articulate these forbidden truths, they are excommunicated, shunned, derided and stigmatized by the very churches, congregations and assemblies that style themselves "the body of Christ." In persecuting true Christians so as to appear respectable in the eyes of the world, these churches become "the salt that has lost its savor" and this salt, Jesus warned, will be "trodden underfoot." Many Christians are familiar with this passage about the salt, but they do not recall that Jesus spoke these words in connection with those who do not accept the persecution that Christians inevitably encounter when they proclaim His Word (Matt 5: 10-13).

Loving Our Enemies and Doing Good to Them

Where those who have thought they were doing the work of God in violently opposing Judaics and Judaism have gone astray is in marching to the lockstep of the various state religions that have made military warfare on Judaics and Muslims in the name of God. There is no Christian organization on earth that has the right to bear arms, other than as police acting against murderers, rapists, kidnappers, invaders, bandits and frauds, as a law-and-order function of the civil police power, referred to in Romans 13:3-4. Christians cannot take up the sword to advance the kingdom of God. There is no possibility of Christians engaging in "holy war" with guns, troops, missiles, rockets and other carnal means, as do Muslim fundamentalists and Zionists, because Christ told us in no uncertain terms that His kingdom is not of this world. "If my kingdom were of this world then would my followers fight." Hence, we have no warrant for fighting wars in the name of Christ, as Churchianity has been doing since the reign of Constantine, thereby creating grievous scandal in the eyes of non-Christians, by associating the gospel of Jesus with bloodshed and conquest; causing them to imagine that this was what Christ preached and therefore causing them to decide they wanted no part of Christ.

It is a shameless act of cant for the various Zionist and Judeo-Churchian promoters of persecution of Muslims to write whole volumes dedicated to exposing as fallacious the claim that Islam is a religion of peace, and indicting it as a religion of war, when they in turn instigate latter-day "preventive" first-strike wars such as George W. Bush launched on Iraq on the rabbinic holiday of Purim, 2003, while identifying as "Christian

84

crusaders" the officers and front line troops who had undertaken the invasion and subjugation of Iraq. Though some Protestant and Catholic theologians have claimed it to be a uniquely Anabaptist heresy, the non-Anabaptist exegete John Glas also decried the concept of state Christendom as vigorously as any Mezmonite: "Christianity never was, nor could be, the established religion of any nation without becoming the reverse of what it was when it was first instituted...Christ did not come to establish any worldly power, but to give hope of eternal life beyond the grave to people he chooses of his own sovereign will."

No matter how much the atheists and agnostics with their finite intelligence scoff at the Bible, the reality is that the Bible is a book of science; not just the science of diet, hygiene and physiology (commanding circumcision on the eighth day when the coagulating element in vitamin K is highest in the infant, for example), but also of behavioral science and psychology. True Christianity is hard-wired, by the intentional design of Yahweh, Our Father in Heaven, as implemented by His only divine Son, the Messiah of Israel, to advance in evangelizing, only with spiritual weapons. By violating the divine plan by resorting to force of arms, we gather unto ourselves corruption, and carnal-minded hordes of "converts" who dilute the gospel and destroy the ecclesia through their wielding of the carnal sword in a spiritual war. Armed warfare for a spiritual objective is self-defeating. Those who use the sword will be defeated by the sword. This was known to the ancients, as they observed upon what weak foundations their rulers' violent regimes were built: "Qui sceptra saevus duro imperio regit. Timet timentes, metus in auctorem redit."

The story the rabbis repeat to generations of Judaic children is that the world hates them and that true Christians seek to silence and murder them. Since the end of the early Church era, this brilliant rabbinic ploy has almost never been successfully countered. It is an irony that Luther the Protestant pioneer wrote with the mind of the medieval Catholic Church on the subject of Judaism and God's wrath, in his landmark work, On the Jews and their

Lies.¹⁰ Luther was correct in his analysis of the divine wrath under which the Judaic leadership dwells, but he erred in the remedy he applied: advocating the administration of that wrath by the instrument of the Christian ruler. The Christian ruler "bears not the sword in vain" against rapists, perjurers, kidnappers, usurers, thieves and murderers. Where rabbis and Zionists, no less than gentiles, are guilty of any of those crimes, they must be subject to the penal law of the nation in which they reside, just like everyone else. Their famous clout must not be allowed to interfere with application of the law in this regard. The rule of law applied equally to Judaic and gentile is certainly not persecution, but the use of police-force against Judaics merely because they are Judaics, does indeed constitute persecution and aids the cause of the rabbis. For, where "The Church" or "Christian" rulers have been a terror unto Judaics or rabbis, simply because they were Judaics by reason of the perception that they constituted a race or ethnicity, then, in that instance, the Christians played into the hands of the rabbis who portray such race-repression as the prophetic fulfillment of the infliction of persecution upon Judaics by gentiles — an inevitable, perpetual condition of the life of the superior, hunted and holy Judaic forced to dwell among the hateful, envious and demonic non-Judaic majority: Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh VYaakov.

The fulfillment of this paranoia by the Christian and gentile powers historically buttressed the rabbis in the segregation and separatism which they sought to impose as a control mechanism on their victim-population of fellow Judaics. This gambit also functioned as a means to erase or obscure from historic memory the long record of rabbinic persecution of Christians and gentiles. Without the violent persecution of Judaics, Judaism would not have one-tenth the power it exerts in the world today. Christ did not intend for us to assist the rabbis by violently persecuting them based on human wisdom and tactics, as opposed to the science of the New Testament as

86

espoused by Jesus and His apostles. Make no mistake, this is a science: with every violent victory of the Zionist occupation army over the Palestinian resistance, the Zionists take one step closer to their own annihilation. The Palestinians, by following the example which the West has proudly placed before the world, of the much-celebrated terrorism against Grerman occupation in World War II on the part of the French Resistance, and the "partisans" of eastern Europe, have brought untold grief and misery to their people.⁷² Both groups of violent combatants, Zionist colonizers and indigenous Palestinian resisters, are mutually draining their enemy and themselves of blood, treasure and most damaging of all, their humanity, since this killing entails the dehumanization of the opposing force and the brutalization of one's own, as ever more blood accumulates on the hands of combatants on both sides. No authentic Christian engages in this pagan, uroboros, victim-into-executioner cycle. We need not cite theo-logic to prove this point, but bio-logic. Peace pays the greatest dividends. All who live by the sword die by the sword (Matthew 26:52).

We have dealt here with persecution, i.e. the unjust torment of a people. But what must we say of believers in Judaism, frequenters of the synagogue, followers of the Talmud and its esoteric, occult rigamarole and their unjust animadversions against Jesus Christ and His saints? Is it also a case of an unchristian rage militaire to seek to hinder the rabbis in spreading their lies and blasphemies and subverting our society?

Judaism in Western Civilization and Government

To answer this question we turn to the debate over the political science of the American Founding Fathers and the shape and direction of the Constitutional Republic they brought into being. It is often argued by secularists in America (who are nonetheless protective of the Israeli-Zionist theocracy, even to the extent of resorting to force of arms to enforce its rule

over the Palestinians), that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America created a strictly secular nation in which rabbis and Christian ministers had the same privileges and prerogatives. This is frequently argued in the pages of the New York Times, bastion of fidelity to the militant Zionist state in the Middle East, while advocating strict secularism in America and Europe. According to a Judaic magazine, "The small but powerful group of neo-con Jews for whom support of Israel's expansionist policies was the fulcrum of their world view on almost all other domestic and international issues had powerful ties that shaped the consciousness of the New York Times op-ed page, culture sections, book review, and magazine and through that managed to intimidate many publishers into a narrow view of 'what would sell' which dictated what books they'd publish..." While firmly defending the theocratic Judaic nature of the Israeli nation against the claims of the indigenous inhabitants of Palestine, the New York Times scoffs at any conception of a Christian America, as in this editorial, titled, "A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation": "...In an interview with Beliefhet.com..(US Senator) John McCain repeated what is an article of faith among many American evangelicals: 'the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.'

"....The only acknowledgment of religion in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated 'in the year of our Lord 1787.' Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God's authority, but the effort failed. A pseudonymous opponent of the Connecticut proposal had some fun with the notion of a deity who would, in a sense, be checking the index for his name: 'A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution.' Instead, the framers, the opponent wrote in The American Mercury, 'come to us in the plain language of common sense and propose to our understanding a system of government as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, not a God appears in a dream to propose any part of it.' While many states maintained established churches and religious tests for office — Massachusetts was the last to

88

disestablish, in 1833 — the federal framers, in their refusal to link civil rights to religious observance or adherence, helped create a culture of religious liberty that ultimately carried the day. Thomas Jefferson said that his bill for religious liberty in Virginia was 'meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination.'

"When George Washington was inaugurated in New York in April 1789, Gershom Seixas, the hazan of Shearith Israel, was listed among the city's clergymen (there were 14 in New York at the time) — a sign of acceptance and respect. The next year, Washington wrote the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I., saying, 'happily the government of the United States ... gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. ... Everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.' Andrew Jackson resisted bids in the 1820s to form a 'Christian party in politics.' Abraham Lincoln buried a proposed 'Christian amendment' to the Constitution to declare the nation's fealty to Jesus....The founders were not anti-religion. Many of them were faithful in their personal lives, and in their public language they evoked God. They grounded the founding principle of the nation — that all men are created equal — in the divine. But they wanted faith to be one thread in the country's tapestry, not the whole tapestry..." — NY Times, October 7, 2007.

Because the Times synthesizes in a few paragraphs the main arguments of Judeo-American secularism, we will take the time to look at this editorial closely, for in doing so we may dispose of the main theses propounded by these secularists and uncover the foul trick at the heart of the vacuum created by the secular system which they champion, the desire to obtain unfair Talmudic religious advantage over Christians. We will take the fallacies in the Times in the order in which they appear: "...the federal framers, in their refusal to link civil rights to religious observance or adherence, helped create a culture of religious liberty that ultimately carried the day."

The use of the word "civil rights" here invokes images related to race tolerance and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s pertaining to amelioration of race-based discrimination in housing and employment. The forgotten absolute consideration in the thinking of the American Founders

89

was their utmost disgust and abhorrence at the blood-drenched, fratricidal wars of religion that engulfed the Old World. Most were united in seeking to avoid the establishment of any church, denomination or sect as the state religion of the U.S. in order to prevent just such an evil from arising in the New World. We moderns are far removed from the horrors of "Christian" civil wars and may not fully appreciate the depth of fear and disgust the spectre of such wars raised on our shores. Perhaps the sight of Iraqi Sunni Muslims killing and terrorizing Shiites, and Shiite militias responding in kind, may reacquaint us with what sectarian warfare entails in all its cruel dimensions of limitless blood lust in the name of God.

Contrary to the insinuation of the New York Times however, the American Founders generally had no special affection or fondness for Judaism and the rabbis. They guaranteed everyone, be they Hindus, Turks, Papists or Presbyterians, equal rights under the law. We cannot find any broader construction of the "all men are created equal" phrase than this: equal rights before the law. The United States after the American Revolution was not equalitarian: black and white slaves⁷⁵ were held in chattel bondage, landless whites did not have the same rights as those granted to men of property, and women of any color or creed were disenfranchised. To project a late twentieth or early twenty-first century democracy onto the eighteenth century Republic is a cartoon.

Judaics and rabbis had equal rights under American law. A culture of religious liberty was created during a period in America when rabbinic power and numbers were still low. Once rabbinic power and the population of Talmudists increased in the U.S., it was inevitable that, given a level playing field, the Talmudists would work to turn America into One Nation Under the Rabbis. This is why, in other Christian nations of the past, equal rights were denied to followers of the Talmudic book of lies, racism, fraud, deceit and self-worship. It is certain that the majority of the Founders would have quickly and permanently expelled Talmudists from these shores if they could have foreseen the future their liberality toward Judaism would bring about. The New York Times states: "Thomas Jefferson said that his bill for religious liberty in Virginia was 'meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its

90

protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination."

Jefferson said that as a prophylactic against wars of religion, not because he favored Judaism or Hinduism or admired or found anything in those idolatries that was worthy of regard or emulation. The world view of the New York Times and the Zionist establishment media generally, is often predicated upon lies of omission. We see one here. In quoting Jefferson in this manner, as seeking a mantle of protection for an idolatrous religion such as Judaism, the Times, through omission of Jefferson's most potent statements about Judaism, which he uttered in 1803 and 1813, gives the distinct misimpression that America's third president was indifferent to Judaism's evil, or that in protecting it from pogroms he found its beliefs honorable or creditable. The record shows otherwise. Jefferson viewed Jesus Christ as a standard-bearer of "reason, justice and philanthropy." He felt that upholding these three attributes was the best way to convert Judaics and to demonstrate the correctness of Christianity over the evils of Judaism. The New York Times relates nothing of this. It clearly implies that Jefferson was indifferent to the struggle between Judaism and Christianity. But here is what Thomas Jefferson wrote:

"I should...take a view of the deism and ethics of the Jews, and show in what a degraded state they were, and the necessity they presented of a reformation. I should proceed to a view of the life, character, and doctrines of Jesus, who, sensible of the incorrectness of their ideas of the Deity, and of morality, endeavored to bring them to the principles of a pure deism, and juster notions of the attributes of God, to reform their moral doctrines to the standard of reason, justice and philanthropy" (Letter to Joseph Priestly, April 9, 1803).

The Influence of Brucker and Enfield on Jefferson

Influenced by the scholarship of Johann Jakob Brucker and William Enfield, ten years later Jefferson wrote at greater length on this subject, indicting the Talmud by name, describing the "low state" of its "moral philosophy" and the "wretched depravity" of Judaism:

"...the philosophy of the Hebrews must be inquired into, their Mishna, their Gemara, Cabbala, Jezirah, Sohar, Cosri, and their Talmud, must be examined and understood, in order to do them full justice. Brucker, it would seem, has gone deeply into these repositories of their ethics, and Enfield, his

epitomizer, concludes in these words: 'Ethics were so little understood among the Jews, that in their whole compilation called the Talmud, there is only one treatise on moral subjects. Their books of morals chiefly consisted in a minute enumeration of duties. From the law of Moses were deduced six hundred and thirteen precepts, which were divided into two classes, affirmative and negative, two hundred and forty-eight in the former, and three hundred and sixty-five in the latter. It may serve to give the reader some idea of the low state of moral philosophy among the Jews in the middle age, to add that of the two hundred and forty-eight affirmative precepts, only three were considered as obligatory upon women, and that in order to obtain salvation, it was judged sufficient to fulfill any one single law in the hour of death; the observance of the rest being deemed necessary, only to increase the felicity of the future life. What a wretched depravity of sentiment and manners must have prevailed, before such corrupt maxims could have obtained credit.' ...It was the reformation of this 'wretched depravity' of morals which Jesus undertook."

Brucker (1696-1770) was the author of Historia critica philosophiae a Mundi incunabulis ad nostram usque aetatem deducta (five volumes, Leipzig 1742-1744; second edition with supplementary sixth volume, 1766-67). This work was abridged and translated by William Enfield as The History Of Philosophy From The Earliest Times to The Beginning Of The Present Century (two volumes, London, 1791). "Brucker's theme...(which he) elaborated...with exceptional diligence, elegance and philological skill...was that his work, as a 'history of the human intellect,' must also be 'the index of its errors'...so as to rise 'above the unwholesome atmosphere of tyranny, superstition and bigotry...." "For Kant and for the French Encyclopedists, Brucker's immensely learned and detailed history was the principal authority." Brucker covers three main periods, From The Earliest Times to the Decline of the Roman Republic, To The Revival of Letters, and, To The Beginning of the Present Century. His History also includes a lengthy

92

chapter on the Kabbalah. The translator, Enfield (1741 - 1797), was noted as an influential Dissenter's theologian and tutor at the Warrington Academy in England.

Brucker and Enfield were exceedingly disdainful of Judaism, identifying its pagan root: "They first suffered their doctrine to be corrupted with Egyptian philosophy" (v. 2, p. 210), and asserting that the rabbis "...relied more upon tradition than reason, and by the help of allegorical interpretations, found in their sacred books whatever tenets they had either borrowed from others, or framed in their own imaginations. In the writings of men who thus forsook the pure doctrine of revelation in search of fictions...it is in vain to expect much that can deserve the name of philosophy." (v. 2, p. 207). On the Kabbalah they wrote: "The esoteric or concealed doctrine of the Jews was called the Cabbala...That this system was not of Hebrew origin may be concluded, with a great deal of probability, from the total dissimilarity of its abstruse and mysterious doctrines to the simple principles of religion taught in the Mosaic law..." (vol. 2, pp. 211-212).

Any claim, implied or stated outright, that Jefferson held Judaism to be equal to Christ's gospel is Orwellian disinformation. Here was Jefferson, an enlightened classical liberal, regarding Judaism as "wretched depravity." One of Jefferson's correspondents, John Adams, wrote to Jefferson concerning the Talmud on Nov. 15, 1813: "To examine the Mishna, Gemara, Cabbala, Jezirah, Sohar (Zohar), Cosri and Talmud of the Hebrews would require the life of Methuselah, and after all his 969 years would be wasted to very little purpose." Concerning Judaism, no such Jeffersonian sarcasm, or Adamsian levity can be issued by any American statesman in our time without risking withering censure, media libel, blacklisting, etc.

Rabbis and Zionists have responded to the American Enlightenment by imposing an inquisition in America, with Zionist and Talmudic supremacy over the Federal government and U.S. foreign policy, the end result.⁸⁰ Jefferson thought it an exercise in futility to try to combat Judaic priestcraft using the priestcraft of Churchianity and other "manias of demoralized

93

Europe." The votaries of secularism of the New York Times variety, deliberately conflate Jefferson's refusal to ignite a new inquisition, with the strong suggestion that he was, in matters of creed, indifferent; thus leaving the reader to imagine that Jefferson viewed Christ's gospel, and Judaism, as having equal validity or non-validity, when in fact the record shows he viewed Judaism as a perverse religion and the teaching of Jesus as personifying the most "sublime and benevolent" ideals.

The New York Times further asserts: "When George Washington was inaugurated in New York in April 1789, Gershom Seixas, the hazan of Shearith Israel, was listed among the city's clergymen (there were 14 in New York at the time) — a sign of acceptance and respect."

"Acceptance and respect"? From what cloud cuckoo land is that enormity drawn? The rabbis, cantors and other Talmudists of eighteenth century New York were tolerated. The American refusal to silence or expel them does not denote "acceptance," much less "respect." The Times: "...(George) Washington wrote the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I., saying, 'happily the government of the United States ... gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. ... Everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid."

In this instance, Washington was undoubtedly under the influence of the Freemasonic affiliation he would later discard. Freemasonry is an adjunct of Kabbalistic Judaism and as historian Craig Heimbichner has revealed, "The servitude to Judaic interest is baldly stated in the Royal Arch ritual, in which the line 'for the good of Masonry generally, and the Jewish nation in particular' is recited."⁸⁴ The most flagrant blooper in the preceding quote attributed to Washington is "none shall make him afraid." A goodly number of the bad figs from the accursed fig tree have made many Americans very afraid to speak freely and openly, about the evils of Judaism, the Talmud and the Israeli regime; fearing reprisal on the job and in the media. This

94

intimidation is a betrayal of the American ideal and one we think would have appalled our first President.

Another New York Times factoid: "Andrew Jackson resisted bids in the 1820s to form a 'Christian party in politics.' Abraham Lincoln buried a proposed 'Christian amendment' to the Constitution to declare the nation's fealty to Jesus...."

Jackson may not have formed a Christian party but he took direct Christian action in fighting the institutionalized usury represented by the Bank of the United States by appointing the incorruptible Roger B. Taney to be the first Roman Catholic Attorney General of the United States, and subsequently the first Catholic Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; and Taney was a man who took his faith seriously. The New York Times omitted all that from Old Hickory's curriculum vitae. Lo and behold, we are told only that he "resisted" the "Christian party..."

When it comes to Mr. Lincoln, the Times has him exactly right. He was anti-Christian (except as a rhetorical device) and unlike Andy Jackson and Roger B. Taney, served the interests of the mercantilist usury of the robber barons throughout his career as a lawyer for the railroad magnates. Any idea that because Lincoln espoused or opposed something he was automatically on the side of the "angels of our better nature" presupposes charter membership in the idolatrous Lincoln personality cult, to which this writer does not subscribe. The New York Times adds this observation: The founders were not anti-religion. Many of them were faithful in their personal lives, and in their public language they evoked God. They grounded the founding principle of the nation — that all men are created equal — in the divine. But they wanted faith to be one thread in the country's tapestry, not the whole tapestry..."

Ah, yes, the "I'm personally opposed to abortion but I would never let my personal beliefs interfere with my fealty to Planned Parenthood," line, which the Times expects of its favored "Christian" officials and politicians. At the same time that it grooms lukewarm "Christian" candidates of its liking for government office, the Times will brook no dissent from the rigid dogmas of its own hallowed Zionism. In the autumn of 2007 a Judiac journalist testified, "I was asked by the (New York) Times to do a review of a book on Israeli settlers. Without any shame, my editor insisted that I change what I had written so that it would accord with his politics. I was never again given a chance to write a review for The Times. Hundreds of other liberal Jews have

95

had similar experiences trying to write for The Times op-ed or book review— the voices of those of us who are seriously and intensely critical of Israeli policy...are rarely part of the acceptable discourse."

This is the duplicity of the Zionist establishment as represented by the New York Times, which demands from Christians secularist neutrality in public policy and cultural matters, while enforcing strict discipline over fellow Judaics who are desirous of more freedom of expression and liberty to dissent from Judaism's sacred Talmudic / Zionist doctrine.

William F. Buckley's death Feb. 27, 2008 was marked by a series of New York Times' panegyrics fit for a rabbi, and no wonder. As the leader of a branch of American conservatism (that came to be mistakenly identified as the conservative ideology of America), Buckley got his National Review magazine off to what appeared to be a good start in the 1950s in spite of the moral blemishes on his curriculum vitae (CIA service in Mexico under E. Howard Hunt and unrepentant membership in the proto-masonic secret society, Skull and Bones). However, he soon turned his journalistic ship on course with the prevailing winds of the Zeitgeist, as Buckley's former employee, columnist Joe Sobran recounted in a 1993 retrospective:

"When Bill Buckley published the first installment of his book In Search of Anti Semitism a couple of years ago, I was invited to respond to the first chapter, which was about me. I wasn't given all the space in the world, understandably, so I wrote that I'd tell my side of the story more fully later, on. For now I'll confine myself to the part of the story I think will be most interesting to readers... It concerns a dinner I had with Bill in early 1986, just before he went on his annual sojourn to Switzerland. Bill called me one day and asked me if I was free for dinner that night. I was, and I met him at Paone's, a favorite National Review hangout, after work. I could tell something was up. As Bill tells the story, he was troubled by the columns I'd been writing about Israel and the American Jewish lobby and decided he'd better try to divert me from the dangerous course I was on. True, sort of. At least I'm sure that's the way he remembers it. He laments that he was unsuccessful that night in persuading me to change my evil ways, which led him to publish a formal statement, six months later, denouncing my columns

on these touchy subjects as having created the appearance (misleading, to be sure, but culpably reckless) of anti-Semitism.

"As I say, that's probably the way he remembers that evening. But I remember a lot of details which he forgets to mention, and which for me gave the evening its whole point, especially in retrospect. Bill's manner was serious that night. He said he had a couple of items to raise, by way of advising me for my own good before he flew off to Gstaad. One was a health matter. The other was that I should stop antagonizing the Zionist crowd. It was this second item that was clearly uppermost in his mind. He told me it was lethal, in the column-writing business, to get a reputation as an anti-Semite. As if I didn't know. 'But I'm not an anti-Semite,' I said. 'I know that,' Bill said, 'but you can't afford to become known as one.

"Now concretely, this all turned out to mean that Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary, was hopping mad about the things I'd been writing. I already knew from the grapevine that he'd been raging about me behind the scenes, accusing me of anti-Semitism and so forth. Well, nobody likes to be called unpleasant names, which is Norman's chief contribution to the intellectual life of the late 20th century, but on the other hand it didn't exactly freeze my blood. As far as I was concerned, I was just judging Israel by conservative principles' and American interests, and if Norman didn't like it, too bad. I really wasn't saying anything National Review hadn't said in its earlier, feistier days, before it decided that Israel was a precious little ally, whose espionage operations against the U.S. should be discreetly overlooked.

"Bill didn't disagree with anything I said on this head, then or later. He knew I was on firm ground. And he didn't suggest that I was doing anything wrong — certainly not that my writings were imperiling the Jews. His thrust was that I was imperiling myself. (He volunteered in passing, for some reason, that he had no intention of writing about the Israeli abuse of Christians. I hadn't raised the subject: he did, and I still don't understand why, unless he was arguing with his own conscience. He knew more than he usually lets on.)

97

"I actually thought this warning was a little hysterical. I never thought the Jewish lobby was all that powerful. But I was missing the unspoken point of the evening. The Podhoretz crowd was putting the heat on Bill, and he thought I was imperiling him. I still don't know what, if anything, they threatened him with, but I gather he got the message. I have never known anyone, anti-Semitic or otherwise, who was as nervous about the Jews as Bill.

"So the hint I failed to pick up that night was that when the chips were down, when the Pod(horetz) crowd opened fire on me with public smears a few months later, Bill would take their side. As, in effect, he did. I wasn't naive about them; I was naive about him. I completely trusted him. It never crossed my mind that he'd turn 15 years of loyalty — and I mean devoted loyalty — against me. You never expect that of a friend.

"But by the time the affair erupted into print I was in an impossible position, just because my career was so centered at National Review. And to some extent I excused Bill, both for old times' sake and because I knew how afraid he was of that crowd. If you caught his interview with Norman on Firing Line recently, you could see his embarrassing deference. (At one point he even called his guest 'Irving Podhoretz,' obviously conflating the two leading neoconservatives — Norman and Irving Kristol — into one deity.)

"Anyway, our conversation at Paone's rambled around, not without a few jokes; as usual. But the most remarkable moment was yet to come. It had nothing directly to do with the other topics of the evening. I had just met a dear old Irish Catholic couple, by the name of Sullivan, at my friend Kevin Lynch's house (Kevin had also written for National Review for many years). The Sullivans were big fans of the magazine, Bill and me. And they told me one of the sweetest things I've ever heard: that they prayed for me in their daily rosaries. I thought that Bill would find this moving too, so I told him about it. If I live to be 100, I'll never forget his reaction:

⁸⁷ Buckley's syndicated television talk-show featured his entertaining repartee and opened
with the sublime sounds of J.S. Bach's Brandenburg Concerto.

⁸⁸ Founder of the Zionist neoconservative movement. His son William, a NY Times columnist,
was an intellectual architect of the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. Irving Kristol stated: "Ever
since I can remember, I've been a neo-something: a neo-Marxist, a neo-Trotskyist, a neo-
liberal, a neo-conservative; in religion a neo-orthodox even while I was a neo-Trotskyist and a
neo-Marxist." Like Mr. Buckley, the elder Kristol was a recipient of the Presidential Medal of
Freedom.

"His face just curdled in contempt, and he snarled, "You don't need those people.' I was stunned. 'Those people,' I thought, were our people - the kind of devout Catholics who had supported Bill and the magazine from the start, back when some of his current friends were still calling him a Nazi. It wasn't just a matter of 'needing' them, though we did; it was a matter of gratitude and loyalty. We owed them. But I was too shocked to say anything at the time; when I told Kevin, he was shocked but not surprised. He knew from long experience that Bill wasn't courting the Irish vote anymore. Well, as I look back on it, that was the real point of our whole evening at Paone's. Bill was trying to tutor me in who counted, whose good side I should stay on. I didn't need the Sullivans; I needed the Podhoretzes. Sound career advice from the master. It was advice I'm glad to say, I never took.

"So in a way, that was the night I really met Bill Buckley — 15 years after we first met socially. It should have told me what to expect later. I don't think he had any idea how he looked and sounded when he sneered at the Sullivans, whom of course he'd never met. There's a lot more to Bill than snobbery, and he can be the sweetest guy himself. But that social ambition of his runs deep. You have to beware of it. And he devotes a lot of energy to what's now called networking — linking up with the people who can do you the most good. In New York; that means mostly Jews, especially the Zionist apparat. He will never cross⁸⁹ them.

"A couple of years after the night at Paone's, I tried a little experiment. I brought a news clipping from the Catholic press to an editorial conference at National Review: The secular press hadn't covered the story. I wanted to see if Bill was interested. What had happened was this. The Pope had appointed a native Palestinian bishop on the West Bank, which enraged the Israeli government. So Israeli soldiers beat up a parish priest. And when his parishioners planned a protest march the following Sunday, soldiers broke into the church and shot it up during Mass. Would this story move Bill to at least a little mild indignation? I handed him the clipping. Nothing came of it.