The Accursed Anathema of Judeo-Christian History in the Western World: What It Means Today
The introduction of Christianity in the Roman Empire threatened Rome because even then Christianity seem to create "fanatical" minds—that were willing to die for their faith to a single monotheistic God who was seemingly too jealous and intolerant to tolerate the idea that other Gods also expected respect as worthy. The only loyalty those early proselytes had was a sole loyalty to a God outside the Empire. Then Constantine impressed by such zealots exploited Christian fanaticism as he made Christianity the official Roman religion—creating the especial emergence of Church to State (or as our American forefathers warned "temporal and spiritual tyranny").
The Accursed Anathema of Judeo-Christian History in the Western World: What It Means Today
"No man with any sense of humor ever founded a religion." Robert Ingersoll
Again, another Zionist propaganda barrage attempts to label legitimate and healthy criticism of Israel's totalitarian and self-centered politics as anti-Semitic. This constancy of hidebound and reactionary attempt to ignore what appears to be a genocidal persecution of Palestinians is par for the morally corrupted mainstream media—that is its propaganda machine's labeling of practically "all" criticism of Israel policy and practice as "anti-Semitic."
Provided within printed complaints of rising anti-Semitism often includes a "standardized" talking points to list a litany of prejudices that anti-Semitic peoples supposedly employ in their thinking, such as:
A) Talking point: Resentment regarding Jews being God's "chosen" people.
The problem here, of course, is that no one chose Jewish people to be chosen for anything, except certain myth-creating, Jews themselves, via their historical propaganda that they frequently refer to as their religious canons. Furthermore, and more importantly, no just and universal God would choose any group of people as in anyway special to any other people. This "chosen" cultural myth is perpetuated onto naïve people who are willing to believe fairy tales such as obligations to a special covenant is which this supposed deity cares for them often at the murderous expense of other peoples.
Also, the "invention" of the God deity of Moses' caliber was more like a dysfunctional and whiney tyrant. Read Jonathan Kirsch's very scholarly and bell selling book: "Moses: A Life," and you can learn of what kind of overbearing and overweening pain such a make-believe deity as "he" was, thence conceived by ancient land marauders, who were then in search of a home to occupy, whilst killing off the thence inhabitants of Canaan as fine, "because" their roving band's "special-relation-with-Adonai" said it was OK!; with, mind you, the "same" brand of brutality and rationalization that is supposedly justified today, in their currently deluded mindsets of killing off Palestinians—because they feel that the centerpiece of their religious prize is "eternal terrestrial property" in a land of milk and honey.
B) Another talking point of allegations of anti-Semitism accusation: That Jews killed Jesus Christ.
Do we really know how Jesus, if he really lived, died? No we don't. But according to the mythical literature, first off, Jesus was a Jewish rabbi—he was "not" a so-called "Christian". Equally his apostles were Jewish. Yet he was not particularly worldly, that is for example, not much of a Hellenistic or Roman scholar. Rather he lived within the context of his upbringing and the controversies that surrounded his time and place (although the Middle East has for a long time been a crossroads of conflicting ideas and politics). And although Jesus, if we interpret the literature, he tried to live "within" the bounds of Judaism, with his supposedly "liberal" biases rejected some of the more formalistic traditions and esoteric rules of Judaism—as he tended toward a more Hillel simplicity. Nevertheless his crucifixion (whether it actually happened or not) can be perceived as a form of fear tactic—the same form of terrorism Romans used to scare off rebels from trying to rebel against their empire and control—like slaves who revolted were crucified and hung along the Appian road.
In secular terms of a realism perspective, it seems that it is a "brainwash" to believe that a "just" God would demand the crucifixion of anyone—let alone someone considered sacred—and especially as scapegoat for others' deed. We should ask then, since this is such a common theme about allegations of anti-Semitism, why do not contemporary and practicing Jews tell Christians that such an act was in fact a form of human torture—that most likely had nothing to do with any character of a God, let alone a just God (that is if they want to be straight forth about the such religious belief or propaganda)?
Could it be because the whole house-of-cards regarding the hidebound character of their religion's make-believe Old Testament God would reveal too much? No one of a rational and fair mind would believe in such an act of "revenge" unless they already believed in a severe and punishing God in the first place, as exemplified enough in the Old Testament. Apparently then the only reason why a crucifixion myth undertaking, to please a God, could have taken hold in the minds of the naïve, was because it was thought to be in character of a punishing and unforgiving God in the first place.
Maybe it is time to face such truth serum: the make-belief God of the Old Testament was a manipulating tyrant. He has few of the qualities one would expect of a just human leader—let alone a just God (even his gifts were more or less forms of psychology and political or spiritual bribery). Furthermore, and especially, what kind of a God would have a hell of eternal torture that can be thought as just?
So perhaps it is appropriate to ask WHY would believers of Christianity, through the ages, be bothered by the killing of a Christ, irrespective of who was responsible—unless it meant something highly bothersome? Could it be that the "terror" of threat of hell was too much for a mortal creature to adapt? Could it be, that on some unconscious level, the soul could not trust a God who was willing to torture his supposedly special son—meaning God would be ever more likely to torture others and to spew forth plagues and the like?
And what other religions have created such scary monsters, devils and snakes of evil that supposedly deceive the vulnerability and naiveté of human nature? Perhaps some have—but not to the extent of Judeo-Christianity. Yet are we really that intellectually deprived in the world "today" that we cannot understand what the psychology of this kind of religion actually means—such as a form of psychological slavery?
C) Another complaint about anti-Semitism is something to the effect: Jews cannot be trusted.
Granted, no doubt Jews have been singled out and persecuted throughout much of their history. False accusations have been leveled against them many times. They pretty much lead a list in being scapegoats—especially by Christians. And this is one area of discussion seldom broached—resentment by Jews against Christians—based on the history between these religions peoples. Granted there is plenty of reason for such resentment by the question is why in all the "projection" about anti-Semitism do we not here about "anti-Christianism" that is not grounded in a rejection of the psychology of the religion but the people?
But especially germane here is this question: "Are there no legitimate reasons to currently feel that 'some' influential Jews act in ways disloyal to American interests?" Is it not a "fact" that some Jews have been stealing American national security secrets for Israel, as some that have been bartered to other countries for Israel's benefit? Is it not a "fact" that some highly influential American Jews and lobby groups distort Middle Eastern news so that Israel gets favorable media coverage and rationalization contrary to what is reality? Is it not true that some Jews carry out activities to get people fired from campus professorships and in media and government jobs if they criticize Israel's politics? Is it not in fact true that some Jews consider the survival of Israel worthy of seriously weakening or exploiting American security if they feel it necessary—such as advocating for wars that American goyim (by en large) fight and die, for the benefit of financially prosperous investors into the Military Industrial Complex, and the well-to-do whose sons have no incentive to volunteer in the military, because they are not of the lower and middle classes who can not find jobs, or pay for, or qualify for higher education? Is it not in fact true that some American Jews especially advocate for war with Iraq because it was especially useful for Israel's benefit—and that even now they advocate for extended commitment to the area while propaganda machines further advocate for war with Iran and Iran's neighbors of Afghanistan and Pakistan, even threatening to throw the entire world into another world war to get their Israel-centric way—while bankrupting the American government almost like a fifth column? Was it not true that a minority of right-wing Zionists participated in false intelligence to manipulate our country into war with Iraq, that seemed to dovetail with creating a "Clash of Cultures" for a supposed decades of war, by attempting to motivate Christian countries to go to war against Muslim countries via the propaganda campaign of a War on Terror? Is it not true that even so called Ivy League academics like Alan Dershowitz engage in deliberate distortion of facts and attitudes as Israel's supposed lawyer?
Have not many acted in manner construed as silent passivity, such as not becoming more active in protesting the war, or donating to non-profits that otherwise would—knowing in their minds something was not right or fair about what was going down? Are we as a nation expected to be so blind that we cannot perceive legitimate reasons for righteous indignation toward some Jews?
Zionism was an idea that transpired before Hitler's monstrosities so Israel's current politics and patterns cannot be excused because of a holocaust. Surely it seems desperate times, and need for special consideration, for those who want to honor such a religion but why is "any" means justified for Zionist ends?
There is no doubt that many, many moral and humane Jews have contributed greatly to human endeavor in many fields of advancement: science, morality, politics, philosophy, literature, psychology, law, economics, journalism, charity, etc. Still we need to recognize extremism in "all" corners rather than this constant state of denial in our culture and media. An important question that arises is "Could it be that corruption in American foreign policy is somehow related to a corruption of American willingness to consistently vote against United Nations security resolutions that Israel doesn't collectively like?" Could this form of rationalization of injustice taint other forms of American diplomacy—since it becomes habitual? Is the American relationship with Israel healthy? One wonders.
We can't even find a healthy case of skepticism in the beltway and yet the history of Judeo-Christianity is a road of tragedy and brutality. The introduction of Christianity in the Roman Empire threatened Rome because even then Christianity seem to create "fanatical" minds—that were willing to die for their faith to a single monotheistic God who was seemingly too jealous and intolerant to tolerate the idea that other Gods also expected respect as worthy. The only loyalty those early proselytes had was sole loyalty to a God outside the Empire. Then Constantine impressed by such zealots exploited Christian fanaticism as he made Christianity the official Roman religion—creating the especial emergence of Church to State (or as our American forefathers warned "temporal and spiritual tyranny"). Then for hundreds of years there was authoritarian religious paranoia of all kinds. Then came justification of wars against Muslims and the murder and suppression of all kinds of heretics including the killing of Jews.
This of course led to levels of exploitation of the masses by pretenders of piety in the "hierarchies" of the churches and cohort "hierarchies" of kingdom. This led to a multitude of splinter cults that all vied for a tyrannical God's redemption—and the "correct" way to believe and practice—because the price was too high to get it wrong. This justified the killing of many masses of people of the "wrong" denominations and suasions. The killing of Catholics and Protestants etc., and pogroms against all kind of splinter groups, and such discrimination led to "many" wars in Europe and elsewhere. Finally Puritan fanatics moved to America and eventually the white man had a twisted "moral" justification excuse to kill off the Native American, as the Spanish and Portuguese killed off peoples south of the border.
To this day Americans have drifted from the ideological roots of our forefathers—who were highly and rightly distrustful of the evils of religion—even if they called themselves deists—acknowledging a "naturalist" God—not bound to human dogma, partisan bias, and right-wing judgmentally. Equally the witch murders were not that long ago historically speaking. So what have American learned after all this insane history?
Or how long are we going to play this game of religious war bankruptcy as foreign policy diplomacy?
Are Americans today really suppose to entertain the insanity of supporting a culture of Judaism that can not recognize its own delusional goals that continues to espouse its former antiquated tribal racism—even though most European, American, and Russian Jews have not "one" ounce of Semitic DNA—that they are largely "Caucasian" peoples recruited into the religion later on in history—therefore they have no paternalistic lineage to a King David—and therefore none of the "special rights" so promised to their tribal peoples from a Mosaic brainwash, a Moses mind you, who seemed more inspired by an African tinpot henchman, than to a people worthy of a progressively "humane" God.
Furthermore, the politics of animosity between religions is often not really about religion of Jews, but rightwing corruption against the left. Or why was the death of Paul Wellstone not given more investigation as possible foul play—how convenient he disappeared right before 9/11 and the Patriot Act? Whereas why was rightwing Senator Coleman of Minnesota was given a chairmanship of a committee as a freshman rookie—perhaps because he was willing to bash the United Nations that frequently criticized Israel? Or why are so many on the right trying to usurp Al Franken's senatorial seat? All three of these men are American Jews—but apparently some are more worthy than others?
One only need read John Spong's "Sins of Scripture" to realize "no" amount of Rabbinic revisionism, Talmudic interpretation, or artful Cabalistic mystical theory, or sophistic verbal play, is going to cover up the structural flaws of the Old or New Testament. It is time for a new approach to the "never again" refrain—and that is a different mindset on politics and religion.
One of the great criticisms of the England governance during the time of the American Revolution was the amount of corruption in its government and its people, but especially the amount of corruption of "special" privileges of office holders who were "bought" in forms of bribery for their votes. Yet how different is this from a form of bribery then by American-Jewish monies and lobbies to American law-makers in which many of Congress feel it not prudent to vote against the wishes of AIPAC and other rightwing Jewish lobbies?
Therefore is it not expected that a "resentment" of an "excess" of Israeli and Jewish influence in our own governance? Or why would not Goyim "resent" the percentage of Jews who get appointed to high office in the United States, for the apparent purpose of pushing Israel's right-wing agenda, personality, and politics? Naturally with more legitimate criticism would you also expect less legitimate prejudice—but whose attitudes are at fault with Israel and diehard supporters?
Are not these "unnecessary" wars, that are bringing the United States to its knees economically, a form of "taxation" doled out beyond the billions of charity already donated to Israel? Will not an increased troop of standing armies (a concept our founding fathers deplored and hated) commitment to Afghanistan ensure the national security weakness or vulnerability? Why has the government been willing to go along with so many costly and stupid mistakes—not to mention the corruption of so many criminal corporate enterprises?
America does not "need" more movies about Nazis from Hollywood with the purpose of not focusing on the issues of today. America doesn't need more histrionics about anti-Semitism in which many Jews refuse to take a serious look at their own attitudes and behaviors. Goyim America doesn't need more deceit from the likes of Rupert Murdock complaining about a rise in anti-Semitism when he is such one cause for such criticism and his deceit of the American people.
The academy award winning movie "The Reader" ironically ended the story by a trip to America to offer guilt money to a concentration camp victim. She said the money be donated to "improve" literacy? Yet how ironic because the northern European countries don't have that much of a problem with illiteracy. Whereas Americans does. And that must have been the point of a message to us—that if only us goyim would read more? Well maybe it is "also" time for American Jews to improve the quality of their reading? Perhaps some might re-read Erich Fromm's "Escape From Freedom" to see if blind obedience to Zionism is not a form of imprisonment? Perhaps they could read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer" and consider if there are also fanatics and extremists of a Zionist or Christian or secular bent rather than being all so willing to see so much barbarity in the Muslim world?
We Americans inherited a religious psychology of freedom and equality—something that "all" peoples are invited to support—even Rupert Murdock. Our political "faith" believes in a "balance" of powers (not one right-wing monolithic authority holding all the cards). We believe in "representational" governance (not authoritarian commandments top-down). We believe in "rights" of the people (not some beguiling, wheedling, arm-twisting strongman). We believe in "constitutional sovereignty" written by The Peoples' representatives (not arbitrary or authoritarian dictates that communicate one way). We believe in real forms of democracy in which ethnicity and religion are not used to discriminate. Therefore we believe that Palestinians and Arabs in Israel deserve rights and freedom.
It is time to for real Americans with real patriotism to advocate for a separation of church and state in Israel and Palestine especially, and for the rest of the Middle East. As a country and modern culture, we have no logically foreign policy role in setting up some "eternal" struggle of Zionism for the tribes of ancient people exclusively. It is time to stop complaining about the fanaticism of Islam unless one is willing to explore where such fanaticism psychology has some of its vital roots—namely Judaism.
No piece of territory or land is any more sacred than is any other—except in the mind of the perceiver. The people of the United States of America need to confront the truth of Judeo-Christianity—that it is not a fully just religion—rather it is a reflection of the best and worst of mankind and its ability to rationalize. The world has enough problems without the Israelis constantly hogging the limelight with their constancy for crisis management issues and screaming because they can't seem to get along with chosen neighbors, or garner, world-wide respect. Perhaps if they had no dysfunctional partner to cling to they would wise-up. A normal country does not have need of a "special" relationship. Because our culture has enough problems of its own.
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion