Unbeknownst to them, he stood there as motionless as a statue, staring at them intently with a fixed and seemingly determined gaze. He eyed the enemy with the same determined stare that any revolutionary does, calling to mind the wrongs that had been inflicted upon his innocent countrymen, and the justice that they as victims deserved in bringing things back into balance. He knew there could be no going back once the deed was done, and that by throwing down this gauntlet, he would begin the war for independence for which his people had been waiting more years than they could remember. He nodded his head slightly, as if to acknowledge that he had made up his mind, and turning towards his men who had arrived with him, indicated to them with a facial expression that they should pay attention to what was about to take place. A! s he started off, one of his men, made uneasy by what he suspected was about to occur, asked him with just a hint of nervousness in his voice “What are you going to do?” And despite his not saying anything, nevertheless they all understood his answer by virtue of the language in his body movements. The answer that he did not give, but which they nevertheless understood quite well was the same response given by the Scottish patriot William Wallace in the movie Braveheart before riding off to meet the English envoy, which simply was, “I’m going to pick a fight.”
A minute later, in an event which was to alter the course of human history, he fashioned a whip out of something he had found along the way, and drove those out of the Temple who had desecrated its holiness through their love of money and ambitious designs. History had just been made, and a major shift in mankind’s destiny had now taken place.
The event had caused a good deal of commotion, and as such did not escape the notice of those whose money went flying end over end with the turning of the tables. Many profits had been lost that day as a result of this vigilante’s actions, just one event in a series of fights he would pick during the course of the week against the powers that be. To him, there was no gray area when it came to dealing with his adversary, nor were there any kind, diplomatic words to be found in his discourse with them. In his estimation, they were the children of the Devil, a brood a vipers and a synagogue of Satan who would not escape the punishment of Hell for having oppressed those under them. He fingered them as the root of all corruption in his country, and warned everyone in his proximity to! stay as far away from these individuals as possible, and for their own good. What he did was merely to state the obvious which everyone already knew, and this being the case, no one bothered to argue away his assertions, which would have been a waste of time anyway.
A few days later these same individuals who sat stoned face through all the condemnations that where leveled at them for what was their criminal and corrupt behavior would decide to suffer the militancy of this pesky revolutionary no longer. So, after gathering together in dark rooms, amidst whispers and darting eyes they would plot to have him killed in what was to become the most infamous scandal of political corruption in the history of mankind. And despite Pilate’s reluctance to be responsible for the murder of an innocent man, nevertheless he was made an offer which he simply couldn’t refuse. And so in the end, the simple peasant from Nazareth who dared to attempt the liberation of his people from the devilish grip of the Sanhedrin was strung up and nailed to a tree like an animal, an act of brutality that was meant t! o be seen as a warning to all the ages should anyone else get any funny ideas. As he hung there naked and stripped of his flesh, his enemies paraded at his feet, shaking each other’s hands in congratulatory fashion and mocking him for having dared to disrupt their interests in what was his pathetic display of resistance. As he hung there, history’s forgotten Braveheart, his message to those who were the oppressors of the weak and the peddlers of men’s souls was simply “give them liberty, or give me death.” The mob bosses got what they demanded, and, as the saying goes, the rest is history.
Indeed, the rest is history, but unfortunately a history much of whose importance has been forgotten in the 2,000 years that have passed in the interim. The image of the Prince of Peace as a militant revolutionary certainly doesn’t conform to the image that has been embraced by millions of his followers today, and yet, in reality this is exactly what he was. In no way can it be accurately stated that he was a moderate in any sense, for as he stated on several occasions, he detested lukewarmness and ambiguity on matters of principle, comparing such half-measures as nothing better than vomit. He was just one in a long line of troublemakers who had dared to challenge the corruption that had been woven into the fabric of Jewish society by the leadership of Israel, and just one of many who was willing to expose that leadership ! as the source of the injustices that oppressed the poor and blameless of his day. Before him were all the prophets who had castigated a wicked people for their behavior, rabble-rousers who did not neglect to point out that it was those holding power in Israel who had inspired that deviancy.
With this in mind, he who was the mild mannered carpenter and who had suddenly burst on to the scene and began upsetting the order which had been established for the benefit of the privileged few should in all justice be seen as the liberator and revolutionary that he was. This should only be natural, and particularly to his followers today, since he never attempted to hide the fact that he was a thorn in the side of the powers that be in the last three years of his life. He made sure that those around him understood what he was about when he said in no uncertain terms that he did not come to bring peace, but rather the sword. In instance after instance he revealed what was his contempt for those who were determined to oppress the people of Palestine and to reduce their lives to that of concentration camp victims in what w! as the spiritual and sociological holocaust known as Pharisaical Judaism. He understood how vicious his enemy was, and entertained no illusions about the danger that encompassed his mission, understanding the fact that he was a marked man for his revolutionary activity. Nevertheless, as history has shown, he was not the type to allow fear to dictate his agenda, and therefore refused to back down in the face of such a formidable bully. He loved his people and, with equal passion, loved justice, and would do what was necessary to free them.
It is a curious thing to note these days, the fact that he is called the Savior by his followers and yet few of them appreciate him as anything more than this one-dimensional figure who speaks nice words and heals the sick. To his followers, the salvation he won for mankind is limited to their being saved from sin, and yet they do not acknowledge his revolution as going any further than that. Whether this insistence upon looking at the life of this liberator in a purely one dimensional way is the product of disinterest in politics and history or whether it is the product of mass manipulation by interested parties is up for debate, probably a little of both, to be accurate. In any case, there is an angle to understanding this struggle that took place between him and the powers that be that is not discussed nor explored, muc! h to the disadvantage of not only his followers, but indeed to the world in general. This truly is tragic, for contained within the drama that took place between the peasant carpenter and the Sanhedrin are invaluable pieces of information which carry the keys to unlocking the most serious problems facing humanity today. Included within this are explanations concerning the destruction of Western civilization and the present war in the Middle East that threatens to consume the world in the very near future. But in addition, (and more importantly for those living in the present age) this tale is a warning about what lies ahead, a warning which much of the world has chosen not to heed over the course of the last century.
The question that should be asked by all those who are standing in the midst of this living history today is simply, what did this man see? What was it about the power structure of the Sanhedrin that made him temporarily abandon his mild mannered ways and patient demeanor? What was the danger that he saw in the future for mankind if the leaders of Israel were to be permitted to grow in power and in influence? If it is accepted that he held the power of heaven in his hands, then it must be accepted as well that he could have chosen to be born at any age before or after. What was it about that particular age and about that particular society that was of such importance that he insisted upon being born then? Clearly, he must have seen something that humanity did not see, something of such seriousness that to delay his busines! s even a generation would have resulted in dramatic consequences for the future.
The answer to these questions surrounding the clash of ideologies between Christ and the leadership of Israel really are quite simple in their nature, which may explain much of why this answer has been missed. This understanding does not hinge on weighty, over-intellectualized arguments that have been put forth by detractors whose agenda has been to muddy the waters of public understanding. And although the explanation for this clash may come as a surprise to a few, to others however (and most notably to his ideological enemies who today are working feverishly to make the world forget about this war that took place) the answer does not come as a surprise at all.
” ‘If we let him continue on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away our positions and our nation.’ And Caiaphas, the high priest answered them saying ‘Do you not realize that it is better that one man die than that the whole nation perish?'”
– John 11:48-51
Here the student of political science can see plainly what were the roots of contention that existed between the peasant carpenter and the ruling classes of Israel. And as much as there are those who would try to deny that this contention had political elements to it, nevertheless such an argument falls on its face when compared to the facts. Clearly the Sanhedrin had big plans, not the least of which encompassed throwing off Roman rule and supplanting it with themselves as the commissars of the Israeli state which would encompass the lands between the Nile and the Euphrates. In addition it is plainly revealed that they were in a state of panic over the effect of Christ’s teachings, to the point that they were willing to assassinate him in order to prevent their being robbed of the influence they wielded over those Jews wh! o were the stepping stones in their ascent to power. What the Sanhedrin had been plotting through the medium of religious sentiments, and which was threatened by the message of liberation that Christ preached was a political system wherein the Pharisees would rule, and fueled by a new code of ethics which elevated the Jewish race to a level of at least de facto superiority over all others. This new system of ethics, the embryonic stage of the now codified Babylonian Talmud that forms the lifeblood of modern day Israel’s political ideology, was the source of Christ’s condemnation of what he famously referred to as the “leaven of the Pharisees.” This mindset, with its altered sense of laws governing right and wrong, was a theme which he attacked regularly in his mission, characterizing it as a perverse set of morals which, by its twists and turns, had “made the law of God of no effect.” It becomes clear then, based upon this passage, how ! it was that the Sanhedrin viewed Christ and his message of liberation, a depiction that has been carried forth in modern day Judaism and its political twin, Zionism, by the Talmudic depiction of Jesus as being a man who “seduced Jews under the sponsorship of a foreign, Gentile power.” (Sanhedrin 43a)
It is within this context then that one comes to better understand the deeper implications of Christ’s conflict with the leaders of Israel in his day, and why such an effort has been made to de-legitimize and de-emphasize it in the present age. This sense of amnesia that has been imposed upon the world, (and in particular upon the Christian West) may seem to be a trivial matter to the uninterested, but in actuality it holds the fate of humanity in the balance. Put in plain terms, this vital and damning piece of information that his enemies are desperately attempting to conceal through their control over the outlets of information is the fact that this man, the peasant carpenter from Nazareth, was the founding father of the anti-Zionist movement which plays so prominently in world events today. He was the first to openly ch! allenge the ambitions entertained by the leaders of Israel and to expose what was the hellishness of this diabolically inspired ideology. Part of his mission over the course of the last three years of his life was to drive a stake into the heart of this new malignancy which had recently arrived in the Holy Land, a cancer that, if left unstopped, would have poisoned the pool of humanity and destroyed the possibility of peace and order in the world irreparably. In short, the first opposition to the ambitions of Zionism did not begin with Yassir Arafat, Hamas, Hezb’allah nor the PLO, but rather with a peasant carpenter from the Palestinian town of Nazareth who recognized the danger that mankind would face in future generations were this Beast allowed to grow to maturity. It is for this reason and no other that he was murdered by the warlocks of the Sanhedrin, who evoked by wicked incantation this same curse which threatens to consume the world today.
It is in this light then that it becomes perfectly clear why such a concerted effort is and has been underway by the Zionist agenda to remove the dignity that is associated with the image of Christ, since it was he who first opposed these designs in his own time. In consideration of the criteria that has been set down by the peddlers of Zionist propaganda today, Christ therefore was the first “terrorist,” the first “anti-Semite,” the first “holocaust denier” and the first “sympathizer of Nazi sentiments,” all accusations which are leveled at any individual who depicts Israel’s past and present in anything less than the most flattering manner that is demanded by her sympathizers. If he were alive today, re-enacting the very events which he authored 2,000 years ago, there is no doubt that just as he was murdered in 33 AD by ! these crime lords, by these founding fathers of the gangland ideology known as Zionism, that in like manner today he would have had his home blown up in a “targetted killing” and all his followers arrested and tried as terrorists. Short of that, one could expect like cold weather in January that the various groups tied to Israeli intelligence (including the ADL, JDL, AIPAC and JINSA) would be mounting public relations campaigns to smear him in exactly the same manner that they did 2,000 years ago, bringing forth false witnesses and conjuring up every slanderous accusation that would further their interests in ruining his credibility.
It is no surprise then that discussions concerning this aspect of Christ’s mission have not taken place in recent years, particularly when the stranglehold over the flow and flavor of information held captive by the Zionist agenda is considered. As such, through 50 years of daily programming, the role of Christ as the liberator of humanity from the “leaven of the Pharisees,” (Zionist principles without the official name) has been kept out of the consideration of those living in the West and thus out of the discussion as well. As such, a concerted effort has been undertaken to de-emphasize this political and ideological struggle which took place between Christ the freedom fighter and the leadership of Israel, while at the same time replacing it with an image of Christ as an effeminate, quiet, patient individual who only pre! ached peace and submission to evil men and their designs. It is obvious why this has been done, particularly when it is considered what is to be lost by interested parties were such a discussion to be resurrected. The state of Israel, the physical embodiment of the same principles of Pharisaical Judaism which Christ challenged and sought to destroy in his time, can only exist through the co-operative efforts, (both in financial and military terms) of a Christian West that has forgotten the roots of its birth. Israel and its racist, anti-Gentile, expansionist, hegemonic existence would never have been able to have germinated and now flourished into the thorny tree that it has become were it not for the delusion under which maniacal Christian Zionists operate, nor without the assistance which has been provided by the complacency of the uninterested. Were Christians around the world to suddenly come to embrace the idea that Christ was the William Wallace of Palestine, seeking to fre! e a captive humanity from the deadly, tyrannical grip of the Zionist agenda which is today attempting the same, the game would be up, and the Beast would then have to return to the rock under which it has been hiding now for 2,000 years.
The detractors of such an argument will maintain with kindergarten-level rebuttal that this assertion holds no weight in that Zionism began in the mid 19th century, nearly 1800 years after the events of 33 AD. But making such arguments is in truth nothing more than intellectual slight-of-hand, the now common practice of shaping and molding history for the purposes of mass consumption of propaganda by an uncritical public mind. Zionism in name may have begun with the writings and dissertations of men like Hess and Herzl in the 19th century, and may have incorporated into its agenda the return of the Jews to Palestine, but Zionism as an ideology was already well in operation in 1st century Israel, and found in the ambitiousness of Sanhedrinistas hell-bent on achieving power for themselves.
It becomes clear then, why the disciples of modern day Zionism fear more than anything else an honest examination of its basic tenets and tendencies, (and particularly in the Christian West) for in this examination, the comparison between these tenets and the principles governing the Pharisaical mindset that Christ opposed becomes all too apparent. In considering what were the characteristics of the embryonic Zionist movement fostered by the Pharisees which Christ condemned, (namely hypocrisy, duplicity, racism and the willingness to corrupt society and employ violence to further its own interests) and then viewing this against what are the defining characteristics of modern day Zionism, the similarities become undeniable. The only thing separating the two is scale, as it was that in Christ’s time it was limited to a small geographical location, whereas today it has permeated the world with its poison and has ensured a future of never ending violence. It is in this light that it becomes more clear why all the fury over Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion took place by the various Zionist organizations, since this movie showed in plain terms what was the philosophical lifeblood of ancient Israel’s leadership, and how this modus operandi has re-emerged in the modern world today. In Mel Gibson’s depiction of a Sanhedrin that employs the mechanisms of political corruption, fear mongering, threats, bribery, and character assassination of its enemies, it becomes clear to the viewer that it is but a picture of modern day Zionist tactics as well. With such a discussion taking place, all the clever masks which the apologists for Zionism have crafted in hiding its true image are ripped away, revealing it for the beast that in reality it is, and the danger that it p! ortends not only for those in the Middle East, but indeed for the whole of humanity.
As much as the apologists for Zionism will attempt to hide the true nature of this ideology behind the language of noble aspirations mixed with the obligatory evocations of pity for the sufferings of the Jewish people, at its heart it is racism, chauvinism, hatred for outsiders, and more importantly, the vehicle which employs these characteristics for the purpose of bringing to positions of power the more ambitious individuals in Jewish society. Just as in the time of Christ, it featured a privileged class who occupied the positions of power in that society, and who used those under them as stepping stones for attaining that power. Just like today, it insulates its leadership and protects the power that this leadership enjoys by keeping the lesser beings of the group locked as prisoners in a mindset which pits them against! all other peoples of the world, in effect bringing into existence a state of war (if only in sociological terms) between Jew and Gentile. In such a state of war, those under the sway of this leadership are kept malleable by the undercurrent of paranoia that such conditions produce, a tactic that is clearly exploited today when groups are organized against someone or something that threatens the interests of the leadership. In such a way, a side by side comparison of the principles that governed the agenda of the Sanhedrin in 33 AD and that which governs the agenda of the New Sanhedrin, modern day Zionist Israel and its Pharisaical mindset, will reveal them as twin sisters separated by 2,000 years of history.
One does not need an advanced degree in religious studies or special training in sociological trends to see what is the overt application of Jewish supremacist sentiments in the state of Israel. In the Jewish state, a person, by virtue of where they stand with respect to the race and religion of the Zionist agenda, may or may not own land, be married, receive justice in a court of law, and will inevitably find himself at some point being denied a whole host of other civil rights if he does not have membership in the racial country club. The Supreme Court of Israel, using as its code of jurisprudence the Babylonian Talmud and its codification of Jewish Supremacist ideology, has on a daily basis for the last 50 years exonerated murderers, rapists, acquitted those accused of war cr! imes, and a list of similar instances too numerous to mention, whose only evidentiary criteria was the Jewishness of either the victim or the perpetrator.
And if there were ever any parallels that could be drawn between modern day Zionism and the “leaven of the Pharisees” that Christ condemned, then clearly such comparisons can be found in the racism and disregard for fellow man that characterizes both time periods. This racism that had become one of the whips with which the Pharisees kept those under them in line was clearly condemned in Christ’s parable of the Good Samaritan, a story which had strikingly prophetic things to say about the current situation in the Middle East. Today, as Palestinians and Iraqis are being murdered for the benefit of Israel’s expansionist dreams, one should consider the roots of the racism which are feeding these crimes, as well as take note of the fact that they are but the end result of tenets whic! h are embraced in modern day Talmudic Judaism.
"Do not save Goyim (non-Jews) in danger of death. Show no mercy to the Goyim."
– Hilkkoth Akum X1
"The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts."
– Talmud: Baba Mezia, 114b
"The non-Jew is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the dog more than the non-Jew."
– Ereget Raschi Erod. 22, 30
The above are just a smattering of quotes which depict the Talmudic mindset of modern day Zionist Israel, a mindset which today is but the concentrated, distilled, and purified poison of the same racist ideology that had its philosophical origins in the Pharisaical teachings of Christ’s day. For those who will attempt to refute this with the assertion that these are just the rantings of non-Jewish anti-Semites who have either lied or misrepresented what are the true teachings of the Talmud, the reader should consider that these quotes are just a few of those from two works written by Israel Shahak, an Israeli citizen, Holocaust survivor, and professor emeritus at Israel’s Hebrew University. In his two epochal works, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, as well as Fundamental Judaism in Israel, he outlines what are the institutions of racism which form the lifeblood of Israeli society today and which guide all its actions and policies. By Shahak’s accounts, Israel and its society are the physical embodiment of the Babylonian Talmud, which is itself the codification of the precepts of the same Pharisaical Judaism which was condemned by Christ and his message of liberation.
In fairness it must be acknowledged that there are a good portion of the world’s Jews who, having become secularized in their world view, have not been nursed on the sour milk of Talmudic racism nor its supremacist sentiments. It is accurate to say that these individuals are victims of these policies as well, for they have had to bear the brunt of the anti-Semitic reactions which such policies have produced throughout their sad history. Truly heaven and earth will rejoice on the day that these prisoners are finally and permanently rescued from an oppressive leadership that has reduced them to mere cannon fodder for their own greedy designs, an oppression that operates by first setting up conditions that lead to persecution and then rushes in to save them, all for the purpose of empowering itself.
If it can be said that the modern world has approached the understanding of Christ and his message of liberation in an oversimplified, one dimensional aspect, then with equal certainty it can be said the same has been done with regards to the events following his death. And it is within this context that the survival of the modern world is hinged as well, particularly in light of the events taking place in the Middle East today.
The fact that Christ’s followers were being hunted down, imprisoned and killed by the Sanhedrin, using the same tactics of bribery and blackmail that were used in coercing Pilate into having the leader of this revolution to Pharisaical Judaism killed leaves no doubt as to what would have occurred had this malignancy remained unimpeded. In reading over the Book of Acts, one is left with the inescapable conclusion that those same individuals whose hands were covered with the blood of history’s forgotten Braveheart would have succeeded in exterminating all the members of this underground resistance movement had they been given enough time. In instance after instance, what is depicted was an undeniable agenda on the part of the Sanhedrin to remove this impediment to the Zionist agenda known as Christianity, going so far as vow! ing “not to eat or drink” until it had been eradicated. A greedy and ambitious leadership knew that Christianity and its destruction of the barriers between Jew and Gentile were as dangerous to the Zionist agenda as would be firearms in the hands of slaves. Had it not been for a man named Titus, the Roman general who, in 70 AD broke up this crime ring by invading Jerusalem and scattering the gangsters of the Sanhedrin to the farthest reaches of what was the civilized world at that time, it is highly likely that history would be much different today. Not only would Christianity not have survived the pogroms that would have taken place, but in addition all the instruments of political corruption which have come to characterize modern day Zionism would have found their way into the infrastructure of the Roman Empire as well. Given what was the mindset of those who sought ascendancy and power for themselves in the form of Jewish ambitiousness, it is logical to assume that given time, th! ey would have seized the organs of power and influence in the Roman government, using it to further their own interests in exactly the same manner that they have effected today. The proof that this tendency was already well in operation is supported by the fact that not only had the gangsters of the Sanhedrin used the vehicles of political corruption to affect the murder of their political opponents in Jesus’ time, (in bribing Pilate, the guards at the tomb, and the Roman government in the areas outside of Palestine) but as well in the fact that the first instance of serious persecution against the Christians under Nero was most likely the result of that same influence. According to the great historian Edward Gibbons, author of the timeless classic The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, the idea of blaming the Christians for the fires that destroyed Rome was introduced by Nero’s wife, Poppaea, who had recently converted to Judaism and wa! s heavily under the influence of her spiritual advisors, all of whom were Pharisees. Bolstering Gibbon’s assertion is the fact that, according to none other than the Encyclopedia Judaica, Nero himself converted to the religion of the Pharisees just prior to his infamous persecution of the Christians.
But besides these examples, one need look no further than the history of the last 100 years for validation of this theme. Understanding the nature of cause and effect, one must note that the world and its condition of growing exponentially more unstable and more drastic in its bloodletting over the course of the last century can be directly tied to the re-emergence of this criminal mindset which had been broken up 2,000 years ago in the town of Jerusalem. Besides the bloodletting, the observant Westerner cannot help but take note of the destruction of Western Civilization that has taken place through Zionism’s corrupting influence over media, academia and law. In the span of just 50 years, the civilization built on the religion of Christ that took 2,000 years to create has all but been removed from the world. As the princi! ples and effervescence of Christianity have been removed, so too have all the political benefits which have accompanied them been erased as well, including true liberty and the respect of individual rights. The law of cause and effect, although not noted by a complacent Christian West, cannot help but point to the influence which the modern day descendants of the Sanhedrin have exerted upon this situation. And as diligently as detractors of this theme may try, there is simply no way to hide from honest consideration this elephant in the room which has had its hands in these events over the last ten decades. From the financiers and footsoldiers of Communism to Fascism to Zionism, the constantly recurring characters possessing an attachment to the same principles which governed the crime lords of the Sanhedrin are to be found without debate.
“…..And it may be that this astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, and which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievable all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people, and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations of both the divine and the diabolical.”
This observation, rendered by Winston Churchill in the years following the bloodbath in Communist Russia, is one of the most poignant, yet poorly remembered statements affecting the history of the last century. The Communist revolution and its aftermath, which, by some accounts, (including those of Gulag prisoner and championed writer Alexandr Soljinitzyn) claimed the lives of as many as 67 million people, was, in the words of Churchill, engineered by a group of “international and for the most part atheistic Jews.” His is just one of many observances imparting this same theme, many by official institutions and sources, including almost all the governments of the industrialized nations at that time. Besides these observations by Gentiles, such an indisputable fact of history this is that even Jewish sources do not attempt t! o hide what was the obvious.
“Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and in the Soviet Regime. The Communist movement and ideology played an important part in Jewish life, particularly in the 1920’s, 1930’s and during and after WWII….. In some countries, Jews became the leading elements in the legal and illegal Communist parties, and were instructed to change their Jewish-sounding names and to pose as non-Jews, so as not to conform to right-wing propaganda which posed communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy.” Encyclopedia Judaica
“The Bolshevist Revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, Jewish dissatisfaction, and Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction, and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world.” American Hebrew, September 8, 1920.
As horrific as this, the most bloody circumstance in human history was, it is but one aspect of the attack against Western Civilization which has been the result of the re-emergence of Zionism in the 20th century. This “system of morals, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent,” has flooded the West with pornography, moral relevence, the murder of the unborn, the destruction of the family, and in all observable ways has all but destroyed the foundation of an entire civilization and culture. Through its stranglehold over media, the Christian West has been turned into a collective body of “useful idiots” whose resources and energies have been put to the service of the Zionist agenda.
In coming to terms with the conflict between Israel and the Arab peoples that she has oppressed and murdered over the course of the last 80 years, it should be considered that Marxist Russia has acted as a fountain for nourishing Israel’s ideological thirst, passing along to her the same taste for blood that her vampire forefathers in the Soviet Union possessed. Today, one need look no further than the current bloodshed in the Middle East for validation of these observations, which, although having changed their geographical location, nevertheless carry the same ideological motivations, particularly those which are rooted in the ascendancy of Jewish gangsterism. One should not be surprised then at the seemingly careless application of violence that has been wrought by Israel in the Middle East since her inception, particul! arly when it is considered that the practitioners of this violence are the cousins and great grandchildren of people like Lenin, Trostky, Berea and Kaganovich, men whose hands drip with the blood of the tens of millions of Gentiles in Russia whom they slew.
It must be noted as well that today Israel has become a haven for “ex”-communists as well as the extremely prolific and dangerous Russian Mafia. Using the Zionist state of Israel as one of its most important bases of international operations, it is presently engaged in the business of drug trafficking, child pornography, arms dealing, the sex-slave business, and a whole host of other criminal acts that have assaulted the Gentile world and left it powerless to do anything substantive in combatting it. This powerlessness on the part of the Gentile nations which must suffer from these plagues is due to the fact that Israel will not extradite these Jewish criminals for prosecution to a non-Jewish country. As such, this international group of gangsters wreaks havoc upon the world, enjoying the protection that the racial supreme! cist state of Israel confers upon them by virtue of their being Jewish.
It should be clear then to the average Christian who has a bearing on the history of the last 2,000 years that their Master had more in mind than simply saving mankind from sin, and that he obviously saw something of serious danger in the mindset of Pharisaical Judaism that caused him to challenge it in the manner that he did. One can assume that what he saw endangering mankind and world peace in the gangland ideology of the Sanhedrin was of such importance that it had to be stopped, first by revealing this “brood of vipers” that had come into existence, and secondly by scattering them and their power base in 70 AD. Given current events, what one may draw from this is that what he saw 2,000 years ago was identical to the reality which humanity faces today; namely, that a corrupt cabal of racial supremacists would bribe and blackmail their way to the pinnacle of power, and in due time seize control of the most powerful military and political entity in existence at the time for the furtherance of their own agenda. And, in light of the current war in Iraq and Palestine, as well as the existence of the relationship between Israel and the most powerful miltary and political entity in the history of the world, America, the new Roman Empire, it is obvious that his greatest fears have been realized, and only the truly blind cannot see that this is what has taken place today.
What Christians today have forgotten (with the assistance of a Zionist controlled media of course) is that it was this very entity and ideology against whom Christ gave his life in doing battle. They are the progeny of Palestine’s greatest freedom fighter, and have for 2,000 years been the beneficiaries of the inheritance that resulted from war of liberation he fought against the tyrants of the Sanhedrin. Their religion was born out of revolution to Pharisaical Judaism, and the tree of their religious liberty was for almost 200 years fertilized with the blood of the spiritual patriots who paid the ultimate price; men like John the Baptist, Stephen, Peter, Paul, and all the others who knew that it was better to die free men than to live under the slavery of the racial supremacist mindset imposed by Israel’s leaders. As such! , the two ideologies, Christianity and Pharisaical Talmudic Judaism, (and its embodiment in the Zionist state of Israel) are as incompatible as are the ideologies of freedom and tyranny, and a friendship between the two is as unnatural as would be that of the lamb and the wolf. And in what will be remembered one day as one of the greatest acts of betrayal in human history that may even outshadow the betrayal of Judas Iscariot, Christians today have ceded over to their eternal enemy the freedom that was purchased for them at such a monumental cost and sacrifice. This surrender, realized in the events which have been stretched out over the course of a 50 year span, is manifested in their willingness to allow their eternal enemy to once again impose upon the world the agenda which Christ gave his life to destroy, the agenda whose diabolically driven supporters call Zionism and its manifestation in the state of Israel. The deception that has gripped the majority of the world’s Christians! on this matter is so pervasive in its scope and intensity that even the most devout skeptic would have a hard time not seeing it as the fulfillment of the apostasy that was predicted would arrive in the last days.
And so it was that in the town of Jerusalem, 33 AD, the freedom fighter named Jesus of Nazareth fought not only to save mankind from the tyranny of sin, but to save them as well from the tyranny of the Sanhedrin. The events of 33 AD and 70 AD should serve as a warning to all of humanity, particularly today, as this “beast that was wounded and yet lived” (Apocalypse, 13) has now been resurrected and is in the process of enslaving mankind in the manner that it had planned to do almost 2,000 years ago. As such, let what remains of humanity reconsider the events of Jerusalem in the age of Christ in this new light, for indeed the peace of the world hinges on a proper understanding of it. Let mankind recognize that history’s greatest unsung hero, the Braveheart of Palestine, 33 AD had much more to say about today’s events than w! hat has been understood, as well as what has been forgotten since that time. Just as his enemies paraded at his feet, congratulating each other in their success at affecting his murder and ending his war of liberation, so do today the great great grandchildren of those gangsters who are reveling in the lawlessness and inhumanity known as Talmudic Zionism.
And so today, let the world recognize the fact that the prisoner who was hung on that tree in Jerusalem continues to preach his message of liberation and to warn humanity about what it will face under the totalitarianism of the Sanhedrin Mafia. Let humanity view his passion and death as a warning concerning the bloodthirstiness of mankind’s eternal enemy, the Sanhedrin, a beast whom he revealed to be the seed of Cain and the physical embodiment of evil in human form. In his three years of fighting, he gave mankind a glimpse of the beast that it would one day face towards the end of time, by tearing away the mask of inhumanity that is today the lawlessness and tyranny of the Zionist agenda. As such, let the world remember that his three years of fighting, as well as the 3 hours of his torture, cry out loud the theme that he! wishes to bestow upon all his brothers and sisters.
That word, that battle cry which came forth from history’s forgotten Braveheart, and which has echoed throughout these 2,000 years as both a blessing and a warning on his fellow man, speaks volumes about the past, present and future of humanity.
That one word is freedom.