3/14/10

The Genesis of Genocide

Today I have a treat for you. Instead of listening to me hack my way through the underbrush, I give you the brilliant James from the Winter Patriot Community, in full, as he explains (highlights mine...):

The Genesis of Genocide

Recently, a light has been shone on a movement called Sabbateanism by the ever tenacious A Peasant (AP) at Twelfthbough Blogspot here and here and by the redoubtable Aangirfan (see here) for the purpose of showing the ultimate cause behind much of the destructive world politics particularly in the last two centuries. It would seem that Sabbateanism is the organizing principle behind most of the corruption and destruction taking place in the world today. There are a multitude of conspiracies afoot in the world and many know or feel that most of them are connected somehow. Sabbateanism is that connection together with another organization with a striking family resemblance, satanism. Satanism has a symbiotic relationship with Christianity and the Catholic Church, in particular. Similarly, Sabbateanism seems to have a symbiotic relationship with Judaism principally but with Islam and Freemasonry as well. This essay will focus on the ground that Sabbateanism grew out of, Judaism, and the concepts therein that were so fertile for its growth.

AP has done a splendid job of introducing the main characters involved in Sabbateanism and their connections and will be continuing to enlarge on it further, I believe. It can all get terribly complicated very quickly, though, leaving the reader new to this area swimming in a sea of facts. This essay is my attempt to start to show the thinking behind Sabbateanism that grew out of Judaism, so as to show the basis for some of the 'reasons why' of the behaviour of groups within and without Judaism that may otherwise appear chaotic or just plain mad.

Before I get into any of the aforementioned 'isms' and their concepts, I think it will be helpful if I write a few words on the nature of God and the nature of humans because you, the reader, will quickly come to the realisation that this is a spiritual war or, at least, has all the trappings of one. You may think spiritual matters are just so much 'hokum' but the protagonists I will talk about speak and act as if it is more than real and this, in turn, forms the basis of their motivation, thinking, speech and behaviour. So it may be helpful for me to explain my philosophical and theological understanding about these natures for you to see the faulty thinking and logic in play when these spiritual matters enter into the political realm; at least from my perspective, anyway.

The nature of God is singular; one nature. God cannot be both creative and destructive as these are two mutually exclusive natures. These two natures are inherently in conflict. They cannot co-exist in the one spirit. To do so would cause that spirit to divide itself. Humans can be divided internally but we have a physical existence to prevent immediate self destruction of the spirit. Never-the-less, it can be readily seen in even a human being that a split mind inevitably causes serious problems. God cannot have internal problems, or a split mind, and still be God. Dualists might argue that this is exactly what happened, though; God divided himself into good and evil. But that presupposes a pre-existing time for God when he had both natures within the one spirit. And, as I argued, that's impossible. Additionally, you can't have two Gods. If that were possible, one would have to be the originator of the other because God is the ultimate source of all and you cannot have two ultimate sources. Therefore that originator has to be God to the exclusion of the other. So having two Gods and both always pre-existing doesn't work either.

Some may point to the Christian Trinity and say there we have an example of three Gods. The concept of the Trinity is based on the words of Jesus but he also maintained many times that he and The Father are one and the same nature. “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). He made the same point regarding the Holy Spirit. They are then three aspects of the one nature. There is no possibility for any internal conflicts.

I make this point so that when reading religious scriptures and a divided or conflicting nature is represented as God, such as in many places in the Hebrew Bible, a.k.a. The Old Testament, you can see that this possibility is not feasible. Either one or the other nature may be God, or neither of them, but never both.

The next step is that the destructive spirit cannot be God because destruction is dependent on prior creation. Creation, on the other hand is not dependent on destruction. So clearly, the creative spirit is independent of the destructive spirit and clearly the “source” and therefore God. The destructive one is not, nor can it ever be, God. Though, once created, it moulded its own character or nature, just as we humans do. But unlike us, being spirit, it has to be all or nothing. It cannot be creative to any degree as well. Ultimately, once it is isolated from creativeness, it will have no option but to destroy itself. (a thought worth remembering). Its nature is to destroy and even evil has to be true to its own nature. So if some piece of scripture is presenting God as being destructive, someone is telling 'pork pies'.

The reason for someone telling lies has to do with human nature which unfortunately has very much the potential for splitting and becoming ill or deluded as to what is real. The British Jurist, Lord Acton, uttered the famous saying, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The wisdom of this is never seriously disputed by anyone yet we construct and tolerate our social systems, particularly religions and governments, as if this weren't true and then marvel at how they mysteriously become corrupt! “Happens every time. How unlucky are we?” There's a second line to that quote of Lord Acton's which reads, “Great men are almost always bad men”

It's not the body that becomes corrupt but rather the mind. A mental pathology sets in and it is remarkably similar to that of any heavy addiction and can readily be seen if looked for. Compassion for others evaporates, priorities are up ended, reversed and destruction ensues for everyone in one form or another. Power creates a lust for ever more power. And power is seen as the antidote for the problems and consequences of using power in the first place. Violence is enacted upon a victim or victims and they, or others on their behalf, return the violence. This state of affairs isn't seen as a problem arising from using violence in the first place but rather a problem from not using enough violence in the first place. So the adherents of power see the answer as ever escalating violence. The affected (or infected) mind cannot see the addictive lunacy of this situation because part of the corruption of the mind is the diminution of the sense of and the importance of what's real, what's true, and also a diminution of conscience and the capacity for compassion.

“We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own." (You Gentiles, by Jewish Author Maurice Samuels, p. 155).

Lies become more real than truth. Lies are at least useful to someone in this situation whereas truth, if they can recognise it, is a threat. A person given over to power is then blinded to the peril they are in psychologically and spiritually and often physically, too. Playing with powerful forces and therefore perceiving reality in a skewed fashion is like walking through a minefield with an faulty map as a guide. Sooner or later . . . . It has been said often that we are led by madmen. It appears so.

So if this pathology and destruction points out the 'wrongness', in terms of human health and survival, of the pursuit and use of power, what is the 'right' behaviour to aspire to? We are all born with free will and this is the key to the question. Free will is the ability to make choices for ourselves. This directly implies we have authority over ourselves which equally implies that others don't have authority over us and also equally and we, in turn, do not have authority over others. We are not psychologically designed to be slaves. Nor, importantly, are we designed to be masters, either. Free and voluntary co-operation is the sustainable and healthful mode of interaction we were designed for because it allows social systems to be constructed for mutual benefit and still maintain our individual control of ourselves; our free will. Any political or religious leader who assumes authority over anyone else is therefore acting against the human design for both himself and for those he would dominate.

If you believe we were designed by God, then this person claiming to represent God is, at best, totally mistaken and is effectively working for the destructive principle or spirit and will bring harm to everyone involved. If on the other hand, you believe we are the sole product of evolution, then these despots must be seen as acting directly against millennia of evolution and since this evolution has been obviously sustainable (otherwise we wouldn't still be here), they are acting unsustainably (i.e. destructively) towards themselves and the rest of humanity. Jesus paid out on the Pharisees for inserting themselves between the people and God. I see no reason why he might change his mind a mere (to him) two thousand years later. This is all to say that, if you agree with my foregoing logic, whoever was speaking in the Book of Joshua, for instance, and commanded the Jews to commit genocide against every living thing in the land of Canaan and possess it, was absolutely not God; nor anybody representing God's interests or nature. There is no possibility of it in my mind. None.

Okay, with those arguments laid out, let us look into the origins of the Judaism that spawned Sabbateanism that appears to be at the centre of world power and world destruction today. (For more information on Sabbateanism, itself btw, I refer you back to AP at Twelfthbough.) Both Sabbateanism and Zionism grew out of Judaism and the most informative writing I have read on this subject comes from Douglas Reed, former War (WW2) and European Correspondent for The Times. His exhaustive book “The Controversy of Zion” is available now for free download from a website maintained by Knut Eriksen. Mr Eriksen wrote a very handy summary of Douglas Reed's book and I will quote from it extensively. Mr Eriksen wrote elsewhere of Reed,
“In the cause of his work he has felt the evil as an almost physical presence in the plans, he reveals.”
He quoted Reed as describing this evil as, “forces from some dinosaur-lair projected into the twentieth century.” I think we might understand it better as emanating from an ancient dragon's lair and this force present in the world today is founded on an idea recorded for us by people called Levites some two and a half thousand years ago. This idea which was to wreak so much harm over the ensuing period is the idea of specialness, of exclusivity, of superiority, of a 'master race', of choseness; choseness by God. The fact that a people are 'chosen' by God, means that the rest are rejected by God. They are therefore Godless at best and God's enemies at worst. Therefore there is no cultural inhibition in exploiting them; to use their labour and, indeed, everything of theirs including their bodies and even their very lives for whatever purpose they deem fit. This will inevitably lead to the psychological pathology and destruction I mentioned earlier. No loving and creative God would wish this sickness upon any of his created beings as either masters or slaves.
This kind of corrupted thinking leads to sentiments such as these-

"The nation of Israel is pure and the Arabs are a nation of donkeys. They are an evil disaster, an evil devil, and a nasty affliction. The Arabs are donkeys and beasts. They want to take our girls. They are endowed with true filthiness. There is pure and there is impure and they are impure."
--Rabbi David Batzri, head of the Magen David Yeshiva in Jerusalem [Israeli newspaper Haaretz, March 21, 2006]

and, “One million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail” Rabbi Yaacov Perrin, Feb. 27, 1994 [N.Y. Times, Feb. 28, 1994, p. 1]

Knut Eriksen explains the beginnings of this thinking in his summary-.

" The misery began in the year 458 b.C., when a small tribe in the old Judea accepted a creed based on race. The tribe had previously been expelled by the Israelites for such racism. This seemingly unimportant event has probably caused more destruction for Mankind than both the existence of explosives and epidemics. The tribe adapted the creed of the Master Race as nothing less than “The Law”.
 

The Judeans were a small tribe under the Persian king. The creed of Judaism was not the beginning of monotheism, as has been propagated. Monotheism dates all the way back to The Egyptian Book of the Dead, 2.600 years b.C. and maybe even further. Judaism, on the contrary, was the exact anti-thesis, namely the worship of a racist tribal god.
 

“The Law” or “The Pact” was – and is – unique in being based on a statement from a tribal god, to the effect that his “chosen people”: “the Israelites” (in reality, the Judeans) would be set above all other peoples and settled in a “promised land”, if only they would stick to all of his rules and judgements. If Jehova, then, was to be worshipped in a certain place, it followed, that when the worshippers were not actually in that place, they were being “persecuted”, in “captivity” and had to “destroy” the “strangers” that “kept them in captivity”. Only in this way was Jehova to be a god for all other peoples – as the punishing god, who punished his own people first – by a “captivity” among the heathens for their “transgressions against the law” and then, as by an exact script, punished the strangers by a predestined extermination, when “the chosen people” had followed all the rules to the letter.
 

It was probably not even a pact with the Judaeans, for according to “The Holy Scripture”, the pact was made with the Israelites, who had long since mingled with the rest of Mankind, and who have never known this racist creed as far as we know. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, that the Judeans “probably were a non-Israeli tribe”. The Israelites turned away from the racism of the Judeans. The creed has gone down in history as having been created by the Levites from Judea.
 

What happened before 458 b.C. is mainly mythology, unlike the later, most important events. The written record predates 458 b.C. by a couple of centuries, when the Israelites rejected the Judeans. The history of Moses was taken by the Israelites from the widespread mythology, which goes all the way back to the history of the Babylonean king, Sargon the Elder, 2.000 years earlier. The ten commandments are much like similar commandments from the Egyptians, the Babyloneans and the Assyrians. These common ideas about one god for all mankind, the Levites, the rulers of Judea, then put in reverse, when they wrote down their laws. They founded the permanent counter-movement against all universal religions and identified the names Judea and Jews, with the doctrine of self-made separation from Mankind, racial hatred, murder in the name of religion, and revenge. Also the personification of treason, a Judas, was included right from the beginning of Judea.
 

The stories of Moses, leading a mass-exodus from Egypt, can not be true, even according to Dr. Kastein. It was invented, as a necessity, in order to fit into the pattern of “Jehovas revenge”, the destructive basic principle of Judaism.
 

The Israelites had, as the larger part of a segregated group of people, settled in the northern part of Canaan. In the south, sorrounded by the original canaanites, the tribe of Judah took shape. Thus the name “Judaism” and “Jew”.
 

This tribe was isolated from-, and did not get along well with, the neighbours, right from the start. There is much mystery concerning it, including its beginnings. It seems more to have been expelled than chosen. And in the following editions of “The Holy Scriptures”, written by their scribes, who wrote whatever suited them arose, in the course of the centuries, and in more and more places, the commands “destroy completely”, “tear down”, “exterminate” etc.
 

The Israelites had withdrawn, then, from the Judeans’ racist beliefs and had mingled with the rest of Mankind. They “disappeared” in this way as a separate people, while the Judeans kept to themselves by strict racial laws.
 

In the course of time these were further sharpened and expanded to regulate even the most trivial daily details. The punishments for breaking the laws were severe, and common “Jews” came completely under the control of the scribes. It was this spiritual ghetto, which became the forerunner for the physical ghetto and for the antagonism and exclusion by others, of the Jews, as a retribution.”

One can readily see that throughout the intervening years, Jews have, indeed, been victimised as well but principally from the results of their own religion and by their own leaders. Notions of superiority leads to destruction for all involved.

There were twelve tribes, ten of which made up the Kingdom of the Israelites and the remaining two, the Kingdom of Judea consisting of the tribe of Judah and the smaller tribe of Benjamin. The Levites were the tribe of priests who inflicted themselves on all the tribes and sustained themselves on tithes from them. The Levites were keen to unite these two kingdoms for power reasons but this was rejected by the Israelites for all but twenty brief years. The bulk of the scriptures that were later compiled after the death of Jesus by the Pharisees (also Judean priests) to make up the Hebrew Bible were written by these Levitical priests from Judah. The books of the Prophets were mostly written by Israelites and often have a distinctly different 'voice' to them by and large reflecting the Israelite approach to life. Hence you have the Levites from Judea making up all these laws concerning burnt offerings and sacrifice and the Israelite prophets channelling God saying that he rejects their burnt offerings and wants instead contrite hearts. See Isaiah ch66: 1-4 and Hosea ch6: 6, for instances.

Jesus' apostles were Israelites. So this is why the apostle Peter could say in Jerusalem, “You Jews killed the Son of God”. And it was the Judean priests, the Pharisees, that Jesus would call snakes and vipers and the sons of satan. When talking to these priests about the scriptures, he referred to them as “your scriptures”
The “Ten Lost Tribes” are the ten tribes of Israel. They were, no doubt, not lost at all but remained where they were largely joining the rest of humanity and are very likely still there today but called Palestinians now. It is at least ironic, if not outright deceptive, that the Jewish homeland gained by the spiritual descendents of the Judeans should be named by them, “Israel”.

Meanwhile, back at the kibbutz, the Levites/Pharisees are controlling their flock by using that old standby recognised by every Catholic, guilt. And the chief antidote individually was an animal sacrifice performed by the priests (for a very affordable fee, you understand. And if you couldn't afford the modest fee, then there were, luckily for you, moneylenders on hand in the temple to help out).

Sometimes the whole tribe was the target of this guilt. Collective misfortunes were seen as 'punishments' from God for not carrying out his commandments to the letter. Never mind that some of these commandments were calls to dispossess neighbours of their land and to commit genocide against them. Failure to do so resulted in Gods attempts at genocide through proxies against the Judeans and being taken of into captivity and the loss of their homeland.

My mention of “proxies” prompts me to make a little diversion here. Why would an all powerful God need proxies to kill those of his creations he now hates? Why would he wish to visit the resulting dysfunction and the destructiveness of perpetrating violence and the inevitable PTSD and bloodlust on his 'Chosen Ones' for carrying out his agenda? Unless, of course, he hasn't the power to do so or he wanted to destroy 'his Chosen People', too, in the process. Or both. Either way, that would make him a liar, wouldn't it? The Prince of Lies, perhaps? Okay, we'll 'resume transmission', now.

One method to atone for these sins was the use of scapegoats. In each ceremony, two goats were used; one was sacrificed through being slaughtered to appease God's desire for death and the other 'set free' by being sent into the wilderness to carry their sins and guilt and blame away from the Jews and thus redeem themselves at the cost to two 'beasts'. One bears the punishment; the other bears the blame. The Talmud refers to non-Jews (Goyim) as being no higher than beasts. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal.". For more quotes from the Talmud see this post at the Church of Nobody.

The ideas of God's Chosen, dispossession of others' land, a later loss of the Jews' 'Homeland' through being expelled or made captive, genocide and scapegoating to get it back all go together and appear repeatedly throughout Jewish history. Two acts of genocide in recent history have been called “holocausts” (holocausts are burnt offerings to God to win favour, expunge guilt and win redemption). The first involved Armenian Christians as victims and the second involved European Jews the as victims. However, in both cases Jews or people calling themselves Jews but were Zionists, Donmeh (crypto-Jews) and/or Sabbateans have been alleged to have been behind the actions of the perpetrators in both cases and by so doing have enacted the traditional scapegoat sacrifice. The millions of victims in these cases were obviously representing the slaughtered goat/the offering and the manipulated perpetrators, Germans and Turks respectively, though hardly blameless, were set up as the scapegoats that were sent into the wilderness of universal approbation and carried the guilt of the 'priests' and their circle who were the prime movers of it all. This was done, so it is said, for the purpose of appeasing their God in the hope of regaining their homeland as a result. Whether or not that was the intention, history bears out its efficacy and Jewish leaders be they Hasidics, Zionists, Donmeh or even Sabbateans masquerading as Jews could not be unaware of this.

Would they deliberately enact a genocidal holocaust in the future?

Since these two holocausts, a homeland has been established for the Jews as the State of Israel, so the motivation is lacking now. Or is it? The present government of Israel refuses to publish its national borders and that may be because the 'homeland' desired by many Jews, known as Eretz-Israel(map), is described as stretching east to west from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers and north to the Litani river in Lebanon. Land as yet unconquered; but not for want of trying.

Knut Eriksen again from his summary of The Controversy of Zion,

“ It was only the few who knew the background of talmudic Zionism and Communism, who had a chance to understand such decisive events as the so-called “Six-days-war” and the later massive invasion of Lebanon in 1982. The invasion was supposed to do away with the PLO, it was said, but in reality it was simply a part of the old Great-Israel-plan (Eretz-Israel). Just as is todays invasion of Iraq”.

After this invasion many innocent Palestinians and Lebanese were killed (the slaughter/offering) and the Palestinian fighters were blamed for the Israelis' military invasion and their slaughter. The Palestinian fighters were guaranteed safe passage out of Lebanon if they disarmed (the scapegoat carrying the guilt into the wilderness). Subsequently, with no men under arms to protect them, the Palestinian women, children and the old in the Palestinian camps were massacred. The 'slaughtered goat/offering' in this case might be said to have been again the innocent Palestinians and this time the 'scapegoat carrying the guilt' was the blameworthy Christian Maronite militia who did the actual killing but were directed behind the scenes by the Israelis, and in particular, in the person of none other than Ariel Sharon (the officiating priest?) as found by an official Israeli inquiry.

We have this continuing pattern of genocides or mass murders perpetrated by a variety of people and with the end result always benefiting of the quest for, first a Jewish State and then, an expanding land and control. The continuing assault against the Gazans has been characterised as a slow genocide. Both World Wars have been characterised as ritual blood sacrifices and all these catastrophes have been helpful, in their way, to the Jews being granted their ever expanding homeland.

The Jews have religious teachings of burnt offerings and genocide being demanded of them throughout their religious scriptures to win this sometimes pathologically violent God's favour for the purposes of gaining, in the first place, their desired homeland and in the end, dominion over the whole world. This is their reward for obedience to this God's commands and proof of their redemption. To answer the question of whether any of this is premeditated we have this report from the Israeli paper Haaretz, (the Amalek were a people that God commanded the Jews to exterminate)-

“The first to draw publicly the analogy between modern times and bygone days was Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski, at the funeral of the murder victims. Then there was the resounding article published by the head of the Tzomet Institute, Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, who clarified, "Amalek as a concept and as the object of our battle and our hostility exists in each and every generation," and that "this does not refer to the ethnic Amalek, but to all those in whom there burns a deep and abiding hatred of Israel on a national or religious basis." The Holy One, Blessed Be He Himself, noted the rabbi, "with his own hands" confirmed the eternity of Amalek's hatred and the commandment to wage war against Amalek: "'Because the Lord has sworn by His throne.'" The hand of the Holy One, Blessed Be He, was raised in an oath on his throne that he will battle and be hostile to Amalek all over the world. We cannot, according to the rabbi, "flee from this Divine commandment even if we hide under the wings of 'the family of nations' and even if the commandment is difficult for us to bear and we have been discouraged." . . . . .
 

. . The rabbi of Safed, Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, also "has no moral problem with quashing the wicked - destroying Amalek from beginning to end," and Rabbi Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba also makes it clear that "whoever wants to overpower and destroy the Jewish people, the law of Amalek applies to him, with all that that entails." (i.e. genocide as retaliation)

I think it is fairly safe to say that the idea is not lost on them. These ancient scriptures that the Israelis appeal to so often to justify their occupation of the land of Palestine and attacking their neighbours also promise them mastery of the whole world (Ps. 110). Do they intend to gain it the same way they seem to have gained their current (and ever expanding) State of Israel?

"We will have a world government whether you like it or not. The only question is whether that government will be achieved by conquest or consent." (Jewish Banker Paul Warburg, February 17, 1950, as he testified before the U.S. Senate).

And to quote Maurice Samuel again-

"We Jews, we are the destroyers and will remain the destroyers. Nothing you can do will meet our demands and needs. We will forever destroy because we want a world of our own."

Do they intend to defy a bloodthirsty being they believe is God by not doing it the same way? "Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have and spare them not; and but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass"(ISamuel15:3)

The whole chapter 15 is worth reading. It demonstrates the principle of obedience being higher than whatever you might else choose such as saving life that you were commanded to kill.  And do you think devout adherents to the Hebrew Bible and believers in the efficacy of blood sacrifice are going to lightly disobey this God? I don't think so.

Just in case the lesson is not crystal for any mentally meandering Jews, there's always this from Leviticus ch10 (CEV)-

“1Nadab and Abihu were two of Aaron's sons, but they disobeyed the LORD by burning incense to him on a fire pan, when they were not supposed to.
2Suddenly the LORD sent fiery flames and burned them to death.
3Then Moses told Aaron that this was exactly what the LORD had meant when he said: " I demand respect from my priests and I will be praised by everyone"!
Aaron was speechless."


Me too!

4 comments:

Greg Bacon said...

The nature of God is singular; one nature. God cannot be both creative and destructive as these are two mutually exclusive natures. These two natures are inherently in conflict. They cannot co-exist in the one spirit. To do so would cause that spirit to divide itself. God cannot have internal problems, or a split mind, and still be God.

Couldn't a god be or do anything he/she/it wanted to?

And where do us puny humans get to put limits on a god?

A. Peasant said...

he's talking about the nature of God. he's not putting limits around the definition or what God can do, only describing that God would not likely want to do some of the things attributed to God.

Anon said...

A lot of research went into this!

Well done.

- Aangirfan

A. Peasant said...

yes, research and also personal experience. it was a great help to me and i hope to others that James laid this out.

legal mumbo jumbo

Disclaimer: The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.