Come the Revolution
For Jew and gentile alike, there is only one way forward.
Reader @Ashowa writes in the comments:
…psychopaths do not see other people as being fully human, not as they are. They do not perceive others as a person who has feelings, is of value and is worthy of being treated as a fellow member of humanity. This is why psychopaths are unable to comprehend why their victims might hate them. Until recently this was purely an intellectual understanding for me. But now I've seen this psychopathic trait illustrated many times in videos or quotes of Jews in Israel saying the most horrific things about Palestinians while convinced of their own 'humanity'. Indeed, as it is for psychopaths, its a Jewish thing to assume that only Jews make up humanity (since non-Jews are not fully human)…
Some Christian fundamentalists resort to the same sort of “justification” when pressed to defend Jehovah’s Old Testament exhortations to genocide—dashing babies’ heads against rocks, and so on. Those victims of massacre were “half demons” they will say, the offspring of demons and humans having sex, so it’s not really genocide.
I’m not buying it. Humans and demons are two different species and can’t procreate.
Is the trait [extreme chauvinism] genetic and inherited - as is psychopathy which may be the cause of their narcissism? Or is it entirely cultural and thus a change in their religion could see a reduction in their narcissism?
Imagine there is a group of people who live some generations under special circumstances that make furtiveness a particularly valuable trait and only furtive people are rewarded with reproductive success. Over time, I suppose, the people might physically become slinkier and, if there is a gene for sneakiness, it would become more prevalent in such a population. If the special circumstances prevailed long enough, and furtiveness wasn’t especially rewarded in any of the surrounding populations, and intermarriage was discouraged or forbidden, you would eventually have a quite distinct kind of human on your hands—still the same species, but, otherwise, as different as pit bulls and poodles
It might happen that this extra slinky, super sneaky population developed to be hostile and aggressive—developed into an existential threat to the surrounding populations, who were vulnerable to the super sneakiness of their neighbor. The nature and source of that sneakiness, then, would become a very big question to the people of the surrounding populations.
The “special circumstances” in the case of the Jews was, of course, The Law.
In 538 BC, a group of Judahite exiles, fewer in number than the population of Hoboken, New Jersey, left Babylon and arrived in devastated, depopulated Jerusalem. Their mission was to reestablish Judea. Their leaders, however, remained in Babylon where the Levitical priests, under the influence of the demonic Ezekiel, were transcribing the older oral traditions of Israel into a perverted, written version of The Law.
Douglas Reed:
While the school of scribes founded by Ezekiel continued for eighty years, in Babylon, to compile their Law, the repatriated Judahites in Jerusalem gradually developed normal relationships with their neighbours. They had never known the regime of bigotry and exclusion which was being prepared for them in Babylon. Many of the people still prayed to “other gods” for rain, crops, sun and herds, and to Jehovah in tribal feuds.
Then, in 458 BC, the Levites struck.
Their Law was ready, which was not by itself of much importance. The Persian King was ready to enforce it for them, and that was of the greatest importance, then and up to the present moment. For the first time the ruling sect accomplished the wonder which they have since repeatedly achieved: by some means they induced a foreign ruler, who was their ostensible master and to all outer appearances a mighty potentate in his own right, to put his soldiers and money at their disposal.
On this day in 458 BC the Judahites in Jerusalem were finally cut off from mankind and enslaved in a way they never knew in Babylon. This was the true “start of the affair.” The story is told in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Levitical emissaries from Babylon who were sent to Jerusalem to enforce Ezekiel’s law.
Ezra of the high priesthood came from Babylon to Jerusalem with some 1500 followers. He came in the name of the Persian King Artaxerxes the Longhanded, with Persian soldiers and Persian gold. He arrived just as Dr. Chaim Weizmann arrived in Palestine in 1917, supported by British arms and British gold, and in 1947, supported by American money and power. Ezra was in legal form a Persian emissary (Dr. Weizmann, a Russian-born Jew, was in legal form a British emissary in 1917).
What means the sect found to bend King Artaxerxes to its will, none can now discover; after King Cyrus, he was the second potentate to play a puppet’s part and in [the 20th] century this readiness has become a strict qualification for public life.
Ezra brought the new racial Law with him. He enforced it first among his own travelling companions, allowing only those to accompany him who could prove that they were Judahites by descent, or Levites. When he reached Jerusalem he was “filled with horror and dismay” (Dr. Kastein) by the prevalence of mixed marriages. The Judahites were finding happiness in their fashion; “by tolerating miscegenation with neighbouring tribes they had established peaceful relations based on family ties.”
Dr. Kastein (who was equally horrified by this picture many centuries afterwards) has to admit that the Judahites by this intermingling “observed their tradition as it was understood at the time” and broke no law known to them. Ezra brought Ezekiel’s new Law, which once more supplanted the old “tradition.” In his status as emissary of the Persian king he had the Jerusalemites assembled and told them that all mixed marriages were to be dissolved; thenceforth “strangers” and everything foreign were to be rigorously excluded. A commission of elders was set up to undo all the wedlocks forged and thus to destroy the “peaceful relations based on family ties.”
Dr. Kastein says that “Ezra’s measure was undoubtedly reactionary; it raised to the dignity of a law an enactment which at that time was not included in the Torah” (which the Levites, in Babylon, were still writing down). Dr. Kastein’s use of the word “dignity” is of interest in this connection; his book was published, in Berlin, in the year, twenty-four centuries later, when Hitler enacted exactly the same kind of law; it was then called “infamous” by the Zionists, and the armies of the West, reversing the role of the Persian soldiers of 458 BC, were mobilized to destroy it!
The effect of this deed was the natural one, in 458 BC as in 1917 AD: the neighbouring peoples were affronted and alarmed by the unheard-of innovation. They saw the threat to themselves and they attacked Jerusalem, tearing down the symbols of the inferiority imputed to them: its walls. By that time Ezra, like any Twentieth Century Zionist, had evidently returned to his home abroad, for once more the artificial structure began to crumble and natural tendencies were resumed: intermarriage began again and led anew to “peaceful relations based on family ties.” Only force can prevent this from happening.
After thirteen years, in 445 BC, the elders in Babylon struck again. Nehemiah was another figure, as typical of our century as of that time in Babylon. He was of Judahite descent and stood high in the Persian king’s favour (as Zionist “advisers” today habitually stand at the right hand of British Prime Ministers and American Presidents; the parallel could not be much closer). He was cupbearer to Artaxerxes himself. He arrived from Babylon in Jerusalem with dictatorial power and enough men and money to re-wall the city (at Persian expense; the parallel with today continues), and it thus became the first true ghetto. It was an empty one, and when the walls were ready Nehemiah ordered that one in ten of the Judahites be chosen by lot to reside in it.
Race thus became the supreme, though still unwritten tenet of the Law. Jehovah-worshippers who could not satisfy Persian officials and the Levite elders of their descent from Judah, Benjamin or Levi were rejected “with horror” (Dr. Kastein). Every man had to establish “the undisputed purity of his stock” from the registers of births (Hitler’s Twentieth Century edict about the Aryan grandmothers was less extreme).
Then, in 444 BC, Nehemiah had Ezra embody the ban on mixed marriages in the Torah, so that at last what had been done became part of the much-amended “Law” (and David and Solomon presumably were posthumously cast out of the fold). The heads of clans and families were assembled and required to sign a pledge that they and their peoples would keep all the statutes and judgments of the Torah, with special emphasis on this new one.
In Leviticus the necessary insertion was made: “I have severed you from other people that ye should be mine.” Thenceforth no Judahite might marry outside the clan, under penalty of death; every man who married a foreign woman committed a sin against God (Nehemiah, 13.27; this is the law in the Zionist state today). “Strangers” were forbidden to enter the city, so that the Judahites “might be purified from everything foreign.”
Nehemiah and Ezra were both eye-witnesses. Nehemiah is the ideal, unchallengeable narrator: he was there, he was the dictator, his was the deed. He says that when Ezra for the first time read this new Law to the Jerusalemites:
“All the people wept when they heard the words of the Law.”1
So, the Judahites were not predisposed to hatred and racism, but an extreme doctrine of racial hatred was forced on them by the power of the Persian King Artaxerxes. That gentile power was wielded by the Levitical priests, who “succeeded in setting up their fantastic, tribal creed and in establishing their little theocracy. They had started the catalytic agent on its journey through the centuries.”2
The rabbinical center of power over the course of those centuries moved from Babylon to Jerusalem to Syria to Rome to Spain to Poland to Russia to America and now back to Jerusalem, leaving in its wake death and destruction among the diminished peoples who suffered the misfortune of finding themselves the conspiracy’s way station. To be sure, gentile hostility and resistance were also met with, but Jews have mastered the principle of “let’s you and him fight.” Down through the 26 centuries, there seems always to have been gentile leaders found who would agree to subordinate the well-being of their own people to the aims of the Talmudic center.
Gentiles really aren’t much of a threat. From the point of view of the power-mad Talmudic cabal, the real enemy is, and has always been, Jewish assimilation. The lure of humanity ever beckons to the captives and, in every generation, a segment of the Jewish people, by force of will, free themselves from the doctrine of hatred. It seems likely that a population, from which those with the independence of mind to break free of the fear-forged chains are continually being removed, would experience over the many centuries a concentration of whatever heritable characteristics—cultural or genetic—make one more submissive to such a doctrine. In other words, prospects of a broad, organic enlightenment among the Jews grow steadily dimmer. And dimmer, too, grows the lure of humanity.
Likewise growing dimmer are the prospects of freeing ourselves from the Talmudic coils. We aren’t going to vote our way out of this and a political revolution of the classic sort also seems out of the question. Just consider the speed with which local, state, and federal government buildings in the country were bathed in blue and gold light after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, or consider how uniformly the volunteer moderators and group admins of online discussion groups rushed to censor any dissenting voice against the Covid narrative, or consider how easily the unarmed J6 protestors, legitimately protesting a stolen election, were tagged by the alien media as “insurrectionists,” arrested, and imprisoned, and how little public demand there is for their release even today despite irrefutable video evidence now available of their innocence. No, you’ll find no revolutionary spirit among these fattened cattle and, thanks to our material cupidity and religious stupidity, one isn’t likely to appear.
I’m afraid we ourselves will have to pass through bloody Jehovah’s bacchanalia of destruction and terror. Frankly, we deserve it far more than the Russians or the Germans ever did.
Of all the suffering to come, the white gentiles of the United States will suffer the most. We also have the least reason to hope for outside assistance, as we are hated, with very good reason, by literally everyone else in the world. Even leaving aside our crimes in Germany and our complicity in the bloody crimes committed against the French after “liberation,” leaving aside our shameful (secret) support for the Bolshevik monsters of Russia and our failure to come to the aid of the suffering Christians there, leaving aside our complicity in the four decades of enslavement suffered by half of Europe after WWII,3 leaving aside our crimes against the Christians of Ukraine, against the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki,4 of Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Iran, Colombia, Venezuela, El Salvador, Argentina, Bolivia, Lebanon, Libya, Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and the rest, leaving all that aside, we have watched for decades—and funded—one atrocity after another committed by the Zionists against the natives of Palestine. And still, in the face of the televised, blatant slaughter of civilians, our hopelessly benighted Christian fundamentalists and Jews cheer on the slaughter in the name of God, if it can be believed. Another large segment of our population is shamefully indifferent to the genocide they are paying for, while our quisling Congress is too contemptible for words. And, if any country is thinking of coming to the assistance of the children whose broken and jagged bones protrude from the rubble of their city, we park aircraft carriers off the coast of Gaza to warn them off. Yes, we are hated—oh, boy are we hated, our shining city on the hill!
There are only two paths of escape that I can see. The first is through the Talmudic cabal’s Achilles’ heel: hubris. Historically, the destructive creed has been thwarted on those times when Jewish chauvinism has overplayed its hand and ignited a sufficient backlash to deflect the Jehovan menace. However, the Talmudists learn from their mistakes and employ an increasingly effective ruthlessness against their enemies, i.e., against humanity. Perhaps, the genocide in Gaza will be an example of such a time, but even if it were, it wouldn’t provide a permanent solution to the Jehovan menace. It would only delay the denouement.
The second escape route, the only other one I can conceive, is through a religious revolution. By “religious revolution,” I mean a complete transformation of human existence in the same way the scientific revolution was a complete transformation of human existence.
The scientific revolution was sparked by the publication in 1620 of Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum or “True Suggestions on the Interpretation of Nature.” For two thousand years prior, the study of the physical world had followed the principles of Aristotelian teleology. The word “teleology” comes from the Greek, teleos meaning “result” from telos meaning “end” and the Greek logos meaning “word” from the Greek legein meaning “to speak, to discourse, to argue, to reason.” Teleology means “to reason from the result.”
Applied to the interpretation of the physical world, teleology meant trying to understand natural phenomenon by discovering its purpose. For example, a teleological explanation of why it rains would skip the evaporation and condensation stuff and respond, it rains to make the plants grow. It seems silly to us, who have the advantage of being born after 1620, but if you were some shlub in ancient Athens, that explanation would make perfect sense. In fact, it would be the obvious truth. Why else would it rain? To wash the sidewalks? Even today, when the farmer threatened by drought prays for rain, he is acting teleologically—the purpose of rain is to fulfill God’s plan, God needing a nudge to include that particular farmer in it.
Lord Bacon’s revolutionary idea was to remove from Science the constraints of design and purpose, to start with a blank slate, as it were, to observe, to write down observations, to test observations, to try different stuff, and, above all, to be objective, to remove all subjective influence, bias, self-interest, and emotional investment. Once this was done, the Scientific Revolution was underway. Soon, science was dazzling the world daily with new marvels, and what seems to us today such a small shift in perception was a giant step for progress; it utterly transformed human life.
But, it turns out there is a limit to objectivity because humans don’t live in a purely objective world. Among all the objects I observe in the world around me, there is one object that is radically different from all the others. It’s the one observing me back. It’s you. I can observe all the other objects in the world around me as the disinterested subject in the center of the objective world, but you have the same claim on the subjective center as I do. Therefore, if I am going to act in terms of the world as it really is—i.e., to act rationally, I have to share the subjective center with you.
This is where Art and Religion come into the picture. While Science is the human expression of rationality in terms of our relationship with the physical world around us, Art is the human expression of rationality in terms of our relationship with humanity. Politics, society, community, civic-mindedness, church, and music are all examples of things that belong to the realm of Art.
Religion is the human expression of rationality in terms of our relationship with other humans as individuals. Love, friendship, ethics, loyalty, commitment, and worship are all examples of things that belong to the realm of Religion. It is in the realm of Religion we can catch a glimpse out of the corner of our mind’s eye of the sublime.
Aristotle said that the definition of friendship is mutually recognized good will. That’s a definition that packs a punch. If I know you are on my side and you know I know it and you know I am on your side and I know you know it, we have something powerful and greater than the sum of the two parts. Montaigne said true friendship happens in the world only once every three hundred years. He was speaking tongue-in-cheek, of course, but he was making a valid point. True friendship is rare.
Now consider love. Love is friendship squared. It’s friendship multiplied by a commitment through time—two persons, who subordinate their “centralities” to their unity with the assurance of continuance. I am on your side and I will always be on your side and I believe it when you say you will always be on mine. Matrimony is the physical union that gives this act of faith a public expression. It participates in all three realms of human expression. Two become one, which is greater and distinct, and a kind of trinity is created releasing the lovers from centrality in eternal time, because the next generation, born in love, carries the past into the future and somewhere in there we can glimpse something worthy of worship. God.
This is the outcome of making the same small shift in our perceptions of Art and Religion that Bacon taught us to make in our perception of Science. And whose God seems more real?
Ezekiel’s? Who “told” Ezekiel in Ezekiel 20:25-26, “Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb [child sacrifice of the first-born by burning], that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord.”
John Hagee’s? Who famously made Hurricane Katrina in order to punish New Orleans for letting so many homosexuals live there.
Or mine?
This post was starting to go book length, so I moved it here: Religious Revolution.
To wrap up here:
So whither the Jews? Would they be swept up along with everyone else in a religious revolution or has the Talmudic captivity permanently altered them too severely?
In the 5th Century somebody decided the God of hate and the God of love were the same God. The tragic consequences for Christians of that inexplicable blunder have been far greater than just having to lug that Old Testament back and forth to church every Sunday for 16 centuries. But that decision has been a great benefit to the Talmudic center—greatly aiding the ruling sect in its fight against its primary enemy: Jewish assimilation.
By seating Christ at the right hand of the primitive, blood-thirsty Jehovah instead of at the right hand of a universal, loving, Christian God, Christianity permanently crippled itself. It garbled it’s own message. It removed the stark contrast between Judaism and Christianity, muting the call of humanity to the captive Jews.
It produced this:
A real religious revolution could produce a humanity worth answering a call to. I can think of nothing else capable.
The Controversy of Zion, Douglas Reed, Ch. 6, “The People Wept”
In what Solzhenitsyn would call “one of those curious footsteps of history,” nearly all of the initial millions of immigrants to the new Zionist state came from the Soviet bloc, a place where a citizen couldn’t move to a different apartment without official authorization. A member of that bloc, Czechoslovakia, supplied the weapons those immigrants used to massacre the natives once they arrived. Meanwhile, Germany provided the funding, under American pressure, as “reparations” for the crimes of the Nazis to a country that hadn’t even existed when the Nazis were in power.
Another curious footstep of history: in 1945, Nagasaki was the home of the only significant population of Christians in Japan.
"...The lure of humanity ever beckons to the captives and, in every generation, a segment of the Jewish people, by force of will, free themselves from the doctrine of hatred. It seems likely that a population, from which those with the independence of mind to break free of the fear-forged chains are continually being removed, would experience over the many centuries a concentration of whatever heritable characteristics—cultural or genetic—make one more submissive to such a doctrine. In other words, prospects of a broad, organic enlightenment among the Jews grow steadily dimmer. And dimmer, too, grows the lure of humanity."
I could just about feel the scales falling from my eyes when I read that. It ties right back into the quote you opened with from Ashowa, regarding the psychopathy being demonstrated by Jews in real time.
It's daunting to realize this is what we're up against, but we can't begin to win the fight until we understand our enemy.
Thank you for the enlightenment.
So glad I took the time to re-read this, Craig. To say "you're on to something" is facile but nonetheless, there you (all of us) have it.