Oct 8, 2015

The Heresy of Christian Zionism: Israel, Christianity, & Genesis 12.2-3

via Counter-Currents

Abraham and Issac, 1634
The name “Israel” denotes today a small mideast nation-state which came into existence as a state in 1948 after a war of independence. About 70% of this nation-state’s citizens are Jews, and Israel identifies itself as a Jewish state. It won a significant military victory over its Arab neighbors in 1967.

If someone today says “Israel,” he is likely referring to this modern state in the Middle East, just as if someone speaks of “France” he means a state in Europe.

“Israel” once meant something significantly different. In the Old Testament “Israel” is at once a spiritual term describing the people of God and a largely racial term naming the physical descendants of Abraham and Sarah (Judges 5.11; Genesis 17.7-19). The spiritual history of this Israel, the sole people of God, began with Jehovah’s call to the mythical patriarch Abraham to remove his family from Haran and journey to Canaan, the promised land, where they would form a great nation devoted to his worship (Genesis 12.1-3).

In biblical myth Israel received its name from a wrestling match between Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, and Jehovah (YHWH): “Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed” (Genesis 32.28). The twelve sons of Jacob/Israel would subsequently father twelve tribes, the children of Israel.

“Israel” was the name of this people whether they occupied the land that Jehovah selected for them or not; Israel was defined by heredity, not geography. For example, a slave held in captivity outside the land of Israel remained part of Israel (II Maccabees 1.24-27), and Israel could still exist even when many of the former inhabitants of the land of Israel were living in exile in Babylon. In fact, most modern historians believe that the religious identity of Israel was largely shaped, and many of its scriptures written or restructured, during or immediately after its Babylonian captivity (586-538 BC).

Through his calling of Abraham Jehovah had selected Israel as his preferred folk and had set Israelites apart from all other peoples. Israel would subsequently be bound to him by the unique covenant made at Mount Sinai and would eventually be entitled, by virtue of its worship of the sole God, to subjugate and dispossess polytheist infidels (Isaiah 45.14-25; 61:5-6). Israel would remain God’s preferred folk and his personal possession so long as the Israelites kept the covenant between him and them (Exodus 19.5-6). All other peoples, ignorant of the truth and excluded from the covenant, were left “to walk in their own ways” (Acts 14.16). Even a public reading of the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Old Testament, was incompatible with the physical presence of non-Israelites (Nehemiah 13.1-3). Jehovah’s scriptures existed for the instruction and edification of Israel alone.

Only “the holy race” (Ezra 9.2) received Jehovah’s special attention, and only the holy race could properly serve him with animal sacrifices at the Jerusalem Temple, where the one true deity often dwelt. All gentiles were prohibited, under pain of death, from contaminating the temple’s inner precincts, which were reserved for Jews. Just as the angels worshiped Jehovah in heaven, so the Jews, divinely chosen as the earthly equivalents of angels, worshiped him in Jerusalem (Jubilees 15.27, 31.14).

There is, as Savitri Devi observed, a remarkable racial audacity in these various religious claims. The strict form of Old Testament monotheism denies the existence of other gods (Deuteronomy 4.35), yet confines knowledge of this important truth to a single people. Jehovah, though the creator of the universe and its owner, nevertheless selected one small part of mankind as his special folk, leaving the vast majority of the human race, in whose lives he shows only minimal interest, to worship lifeless celestial objects or worthless idols (Deuteronomy 4.18; Psalm 115.2-8). The latter they vainly imagine are images of actual deities, unaware that they are merely “broken cisterns that can hold no water” (Jeremiah 2.13). Only one people knows and serves the one true God. All others are mistaken. Nor could they enter the ranks of Jehovah’s preferred folk, the people of God, even if they recognized their errors and abandoned their belief in false gods.

This radically ethnocentric religious structure, which reflected the high value Israel placed on racial purity (Joshua 23.12-13; Ezra 9-10), is poorly suited to proselytizing, and conversions to the religion of ancient Israel were consequently rare. No monotheist Israelite king or patriarch sent out legions of missionaries to convert disbelievers, even though, if we trust the Old Testament, all of them were confident that the bulk of their fellow men were living in spiritual darkness. Non-Israelites were born in darkness and in darkness they would perish. They were, by an accident of birth, doomed to idolatry and impurity, and insofar as the God of the universe showed any interest in their doings, it was only because he wanted to mock them or frustrate their crude ambitions (Psalm 33.10, 59.8).

The world’s spiritual geography was divided between Israel and everyone else, and Jehovah had chosen the side of Israel and had rejected all the other nations, though they too were populated by men and women created in the image of Elohim (Genesis 1.26-27). Our creator’s only ethical restrictions on all of us outside the covenant were that we refrain from homicide and the ingestion of blood (Genesis 9.4-6), and in the later Talmudic tradition even our humanity would be exegetically removed from us: through our worship of idols and other abominations we had marred the divine likeness once within us and were no longer the adam (“man”) that God had fashioned after his own image (Yevamot 61a; Bava Metzia 114b). So impure and inhuman had we become that sexual relations between Jews and gentiles could, through a process apparently akin to black magic, physically defile the temple from afar and make the atoning sacrifices that the priests offered there unacceptable to Jehovah (Jubilees 30.11-16).

Seen in this light, Christianity, history’s most successful proselytizing religion, is clearly discontinuous with its Old Testament antecedents. It marks a radical break with the past, for in the New Testament the people of God, the true Israel, become all those who believe in the Messiah’s resurrection, accept him as Lord, and adjust their lives accordingly.

This break with the Israelite past is an important subject in Luke’s Acts of the Apostles, which recounts the early history of the apostolic church. The evangelist Philip converts an Ethiopian eunuch by explaining a scriptural prophecy of the Messiah (Acts 8.26-38). Peter, in response to an inspired trance-vision, recognizes that his old Jewish ethnocentrism must now be discarded, and he therefore welcomes Cornelius the Centurion into the new body of Christ, though he had previously shared the view of other Jews that contact with gentiles was contaminating (Acts 10.1-35). Soon thereafter faithful gentiles receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10.44-48). Frequent beatings and stonings at the hands of Jews convince Paul that a more valuable harvest of souls should be found away from his own people (Acts 13.44-52, 28.28; cf. II Corinthians 11.24-25).

In the new religious movement created by the followers of Jesus, originally called the Way, all men could, if they embraced the truth, find salvation and be united in the church, whether bond or free, male or female, Jew or Greek (Galatians 3.28). Under Jehovah’s old system Jews by nature (physei) were categorically distinct from gentile sinners; now through Christian faith even non-Jews could be purified and redeemed (Galatians 2.15-16; Ephesians 2.12-13). The Messiah could ransom “men for God from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5.9).

There is a universalist moral logic in this message, which helps account for its success among non-Jews and its failure among the people it was first aimed at. If Jehovah is the only god, then he must, if he is just, be the god of everyone. The same Lord must be the Lord of all (Romans 10.12). Any redeemer he might care to send would act for the benefit of humanity as a whole.

The early Christians convinced themselves, despite some strong evidence to the contrary, that the God of the Pentateuch had always planned to become the God for all mankind, not merely the jealous tribal god of one misanthropic people. His intention eventually to welcome gentiles into his church was “the mystery of Christ,” concealed from earlier generations but now revealed through the Holy Spirit to the apostles (Ephesians 3.1-6).

An important consequence of this mystery was that “not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his descendants” (Romans 9.6-8). Peter and Paul still belonged to Israel, as did all of the first apostles and all of the Jews who experienced the fiery descent of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues along with non-Jews; but most of their fellow Jews no longer belonged to the true Israel, despite their own opinion of the matter. They had put themselves at odds with God’s more recent design, and since no one can save himself through the old Law of Moses, they had also jeopardized their immortal souls.

The New Testament eliminated the idea that the people of God were the physical descendants of Abraham and Sarah. No longer would “all Israelites have a share in the World to Come” (Sanhedrin 90a) simply because all Israel had once been chosen. There was now an old Israel of the flesh on the one hand, namely Jews who rejected God’s Son and were pleased with his crucifixion, and on the other the followers of Jesus, gentiles and Jews who accepted him as their savior. The latter had become, under a new and better covenant (Luke 22.20; Hebrews 8.6), the real “Israel of God” (Galatians 6.16). As Jesus had predicted, “many [non-Jews] will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 8.11).

God’s Israel had become as distinct from Judaism as faith is distinct from genealogy. Whereas Jehovah had once schemed to prevent non-Jews from learning the truth, even causing demonic “spirits to rule [their nations] so that they might lead them astray from following him” (Jubilees 15.31), the God of the New Testament had sent his Son to offer redemption to all of humanity and to transform Christian believers into a spiritual kingdom of priests (Revelation 1.6). In Christianity’s prophetic record of the end-time, John of Patmos pointedly notes the absence of a temple in the heavenly city of the Christian faithful, “for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb” (21.22). The material accouterments of old Israel’s religion, along with old Israel’s belief in its permanent election, were no longer valuable in the new economy of salvation (Matthew 27:51; Hebrews 9-10).

With thoughts of a spiritual Israel in mind, early Christians had no difficulty finding in the Old Testament numerous allegories and prophetic predictions of the moment when Jehovah would, much more generously, set non-genealogical criteria for admission into his preferred people (e.g. Acts 15.13-18). That most Jews were unwilling or unable to see these allegories and prophecies was an indication of their hardened hearts and their spiritual blindness.

In the early second century the Epistle of Barnabas, purportedly written by Paul’s evangelical co-worker in Antioch, would argue that Jews had lost the ability to read the scriptures and had in fact lost their covenant soon after they received it. In medieval Christendom the myopia of the Jews would be expressed in the contrasting allegorical images of Ecclesia and Synagoga, the former beautiful and crowned in triumph, the latter holding a broken staff and the broken tablets of the old Law, with her eyes covered to indicate her willed blindness.


This set of ideas is now decried as replacement theology or supersessionism. Some helpful Jews have written books documenting supersessionist errors among unenlightened Christians, so that they can avoid them in the future. Dutifully enlightened Christians, like Pastor John Hagee, are careful to avoid, and at times even openly reject, traditional Christian teachings on the subject.

Yet there can be no doubt that as a whole the New Testament is a supersessionist document. The old Law had been fulfilled in Christ, and the old covenant had been superseded and rendered “obsolete” by the new (Hebrews 8.13). Because most of old carnal Israel — Israel by physical descent, “Israel according to the flesh” — wrongly rejected Jesus, the “one mediator between God and men” (I Timothy 2.5), the promises God made to the faithful patriarchs were transferred to the new spiritual Israel (Matthew 21.43).

Through the trespasses of the Jews, including a deicide that the apostles spoke about often and unambiguously (e.g. Acts 7.52-53), salvation had come to the gentiles; the old branches of Israel had been broken off as the penalty for disbelief, and new branches had been grafted into the stem (Romans 11.11-20). Christians had become “Abraham’s offspring” (Galatians 3.29). Peter called them “God’s own people” and his new “holy nation” (I Peter 2.9). To the claim of the Jews that they were the descendants of Abraham, Jesus himself replied that their real (spiritual) father was the devil (John 8.39-44; cf. Revelation 2.9).

Although in the fullness of time many Jews would recognize their errors and would be welcomed into the church as Christians (Romans 11.25-26), for the moment most were outside of salvation, consigned by their own self-willed blindness to spiritual ignorance and damnation. These former “sons of the kingdom,” trusting in their physical descent, would find themselves “thrown into the outer darkness,” since they had rejected the promise of eternal life (Matthew 8.12; Acts 13.46).

The traditional Catholic prayer for the conversion (and therefore the salvation) of the Jews reflects this idea; the analogous Jewish prayer, added to the synagogue service around AD 85 and directed against Christians in Palestine, asks that “the Nazarenes and the heretics be suddenly destroyed and removed from the Book of Life.”

In the fourth century St. Augustine, the great patriarch of the Latin Church, would declare as a simple matter of fact what had become the consensus opinion of Christianity: “the people of the gentile nations themselves are spiritually among the children of Abraham and for that reason are correctly called Israel” (City of God 18.28). Augustine, who was himself addressed by fellow Christians as “the blessed teacher of Israel,” would likely have understood the English word “supersession,” which derives from Latin; he would not have understood how it could possibly be considered a theological error. His supersessionism was merely a restatement in his own words of the divinely inspired words stated plainly in the New Testament and prophesied obliquely in the Old.

The mideast nation-state of Israel embodies, some Christian traditionalists have argued, a rejection of New Testament Christianity and of an Israel in which Christ is the acknowledged king (John 1.49). It is, on this view, a material perversion of what had become, after the resurrection, a spiritual concept. The Jewish state locates Israel in a physical territory, and it is governed by people who do not belong to the new Israel. The true people of spiritual Israel who have the misfortune to live in this Jewish state, the Palestinian Christians, often find their holy places desecrated. Pious Jews spit on their priests in the streets of Jerusalem. In opposition to alleged Christian idolatry Israeli fundamentalists intend eventually, as acts of strict monotheist principle, to destroy all their churches.

It is therefore surprising that the most committed Christians today are also often the most fervent supporters of modern Israel and are among the strongest opponents of supersessionism. Some of these Christian Zionists even provide assistance to fundamentalist Jews who want to reinstitute the sacrifice of animals in the Jerusalem Temple, which, in addition to the rejection of New Testament teachings on the Law and on sacrifice that this plan implies, would require the destruction of the Muslim Dome of the Rock that happens to be located there. Many Christian Zionists also deny that Jews require Christian salvation, which is tantamount to a repudiation of the most crucial doctrine of the religion they profess (John 3.16-18, 36), as well as a repudiation of Christ’s command that his disciples preach the gospel to the ends of the earth, beginning in Jerusalem (Luke 24.47). Whether we identify ourselves as Christians or not, Christianity’s basic ideas of salvation, punishment, and evangelism are not difficult to understand.

The striking rise of Jewish political power during the twentieth century, which led to the adage that Jesus is the one Jew modern Christians do not fear, may provide an obvious explanation for this strange phenomenon. Abandonment of contentious Christian ideas in favor of a philo-Semitic theology is the easiest way for Christians to avoid Jewish anger and punishment.

As well, in an era when traditional religious beliefs appear increasingly irrelevant to many occidentals, modern Israel’s ongoing troubles perhaps make Christianity, rooted as it is in the ancient history of the Near East, seem vividly topical. The biblical Holy Land has become, thanks at least in part to modern Israel, an arena of constant violence and turmoil. The fundamentalist practice of ferreting out obscure biblical prophecies of the end-times, and connecting them to modern events surrounding the state of Israel, brings the world of the increasingly post-Christian present back in contact with the world of Christianity’s foundational scriptures, seeming to validate their contemporary significance in the process. A bible-believing Christian’s religious texts become keys to opening the secrets of important current events, keys unavailable to the sneering disbelievers who disdain his literalist faith. The existence of the troubled and troublesome state of Israel helps make the scriptures seem relevant.

Whatever the reason for the preference today of many Christian fundamentalists for modern Israel over the New Testament, there can be no doubt that the most important text for Christian Zionism is Jehovah’s pledge to Abraham in Genesis 12.2-3, part of what is often called the Abrahamic promise or covenant (Genesis 12-17 passim). I quote here from the King James translation:

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Modern fundamentalists, like Pastor Hagee, interpret this as a condemnation of anti-Semitism and an admonition that Christians must unconditionally support the Jewish state in physical Israel. Our nations will be blessed if we do and may be cursed if we do not. America is wealthy and strong and safe from earthquakes because it has often blessed the Jewish state and has received Jehovah’s blessings in return. Zimbabwe would also be wealthy and strong if its leaders would wisely embrace the Abrahamic covenant. A nation gets rich by supporting Israel; it risks divine judgment if it does not.

The standard Christian interpretation of the verses is much different. Genesis 12.2-3 is, according to traditional Christian exegesis, an anticipation of the new Israel and the universal church of God. Augustine had no doubt that the Abrahamic covenant was “a promise now fulfilled in Christ” (City of God 16.28).

The key clause for most traditional commentators is “in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed,” which suggests that the calling of Abraham somehow involved God’s intention eventually to bless, through him, all the non-preferred nations excluded from the covenant. At some moment in the future, the text seems to say, the people Israel would become a source of important benefits for the rest of the world.

For Christians the meaning was obvious: all of humanity would be blessed in Abraham’s physical and spiritual posterity. The Son of God, sent into the world as a blessing for us all, would be born from his line (Matthew 1.1-16). We could now be saved and hope to arrive one day in heaven. The promise of land and the possibility of salvation were related. God had promised a material homeland in Canaan to Abraham and his descendants, John Calvin argued, “not that it might be the limit of their hopes, but that the view of it might train and confirm them in the hope of that true inheritance,” namely “the true country, the heavenly city of believers” (Institutes 2.11.2)

Christian bible scholars once did that: they delved into the Old Testament, following Christ’s own advice (John 5.39-46), looking for anticipations and prefigurings of the New, not for buried hints of modern Iran’s role in the imminent end-times, or for biblical reasons to support the Jewish state. They were Christians, so they interpreted Old Testament texts as Christian messages.

In its bitter conflict with Pharisaic Judaism one of early Christianity’s most important claims was its ability to correctly interpret the spirit of the scriptures, thereby preserving and illuminating God’s true intentions. Until our own era, most Christians maintained that traditional belief in their special mastery of the Old Testament. Whereas Jews might be capable of understanding the fleshly or carnal meaning of Old Testament texts, only Christians could understand their spiritual meaning, which was much more important.

In Christian eyes Abraham is the spiritual father of the true Israel. The Latin poet Prudentius, in the opening line of his Psychomachia, would call him “the faithful patriarch who first showed the way of believing,” because, like Christian believers, Abraham believed and was accounted righteous without the Mosaic Law and without the rituals of temple-based Judaism (Romans 4.3), both of which arrived centuries after his death.

This Abraham was an early witness of the Christian Trinity (Genesis 18.1-2), and in his encounter with Melchizedek, the mysterious gentile priest-king of Salem, he met a type of Christ (Genesis 14.17-18; Hebrews 7). Since Melchizedek presented him with bread and wine, he encountered also a prefiguration of the eucharist. His willingness to sacrifice his son was an imprecise but important prefiguration of Christ’s Passion (Genesis 22). In other words, for readers who examine the Old Testament with genuinely Christian eyes, Abraham’s life as it appears in scripture is a crucial part of the Christian story.

Abraham’s Christian faith was in a divine promise that had yet to be fulfilled, a promise of a heavenly home and of a universal redeemer, whose coming he expected (John 8.56). His numerous physical and spiritual progeny — including Jesus, the most important “son of Abraham” (Matthew 1.1) — were heirs to the same Christian promise of “a city . . . whose builder and maker is God” (Hebrews 11.8-16). This Abraham was the forefather of all the Christian faithful, both Jews and gentiles, not because he was by race an Israelite, but because of his faith (Romans 4.10-12).

In their commentaries on Genesis 12.2-3 Catholics and Protestants alike over the centuries arrived at similar interpretations of the verses. They did not interpret them as a divine command to bless and support Jews. They looked instead at the line of descent from Abraham that culminated in Jesus and interpreted the text accordingly. In the Abrahamic covenant and its promise of blessings for all families of the earth they saw the gift of salvation for everyone.

They did not arrive at the same conclusion through a miraculous meeting of minds across time and across denominations, but because the verses had already been authoritatively interpreted for them by Paul and Peter. They therefore based their own interpretations on the Christian interpretation found in the New Testament.

Neither Paul nor Peter saw Genesis 12.2-3 as a divine promise for the specific benefit of their first-century Jewish adversaries. On the contrary, the beneficiaries of God’s promise to Abraham would not, Paul made clear, be Jewish followers of the carnal Mosaic Law, which would deny the necessity of faith and the purpose of the redeemer, but faithful Christians, believers in Christ and in his resurrection. “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed” was scriptural proof that God had always intended to justify the gentiles by faith and had announced, in a pre-gospel long ago, his intention to Abraham (Galatians 3.6-18). This opportunity to believe and be saved was offered first to the Jews, in the forlorn hope that they could be turned, as Peter put it, from their wickedness, but it was offered soon thereafter to everyone else (Acts 3.25-26, cf. Romans 1.16). All of us therefore have been blessed in the posterity of Abraham, though only Christians have taken practical advantage of the blessing.

Belief in this interpretation of Genesis 12.2-3 implies belief in Christianity. Since I do not believe in Jehovah and do not believe that Jesus was his son, I am confident that this Christian interpretation of an Old Testament text is false. The authors and scribal editors of Genesis had no suspicion of an expected Messiah for the gentiles and would have been horrified by the prospect that a redeemer might eventually lead their enemies out of idolatrous darkness. Pastor Hagee’s interpretation of the verses is, in my opinion, closer to the truth than St. Paul’s. It is also much more consistent with Israel’s history and peculiar national psychology.

The people Israel, contrary to the fictional ethnogenesis reported in the Old Testament, emerged from among indigenous Palestinians as a result of the widespread crisis of the Late Bronze Age that afflicted most of the Near East. Amidst the chaos of war and cultural collapse pastoral nomads gradually coalesced to form a small nation called Israel in the sparsely populated highlands of Canaan. Located between Egypt and Mesopotamia, this small nation was always at the mercy of its much more powerful neighbors. It had, despite its often vaulting ambitions, a consciousness of its smallness (Deuteronomy 7.7).

Its first entry into extra-biblical history appears, in the late thirteenth century BC, on a victory stele of the Pharaoh Merneptah, which contains his boastful report of Israel’s defeat in Canaan: “Israel is laid waste and its seed no longer exists.” Around 720 the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom of Israel, removing ten of Israel’s twelve tribes from Canaan and sending them into permanent exile (II Kings 17.6). In another of ancient Israel’s many defeats, recorded in the Old Testament and corroborated by an extra-biblical source, the Pharaoh Shishak captured Jerusalem in 925 and despoiled the temple (I Kings 14.25-26). In 586 the Babylonians burned the temple, blinded the last Davidic king, and took him and the bulk of the elite population into exile (Jeremiah 52). It is often conjectured that the Old Testament took shape during Israel’s captivity in Babylon.

Genesis 12.2-3 should be understood with this historical background in mind. The Israelites dreamed, as many mistreated peoples do, of the day when they would no longer be weak and insignificant but strong and powerful, no longer at the mercy of the belligerent empires of the ancient Near East. Since they were a literate people, unlike other insignificant ancient peoples mistreated by the powerful, their scribes left an extensive written record of their yearnings and their fantasies of revenge, which, through an unfortunate turn of history that Savitri plausibly blamed on St. Paul, came to be regarded as a body of religious texts within our Western civilization.

A more positive analysis would be that, by creative misreading of the Old Testament, first-century Jewish Christians and our Christian forefathers succeeded in transforming this at times monstrous collection of ethnocentric tales, with its violent fanaticism (e.g. II Samuel 15.2–3) and its comically primitive laws (e.g. Deuteronomy 25.11), into a source of moral edification and artistic inspiration. This alchemical transformation could arguably be seen as one of the great cultural accomplishments of the West, though it came at the cost of the entanglement of our religious beliefs with the folklore and mythology of Jews. The early Christians assigned their successors the difficult interpretive task of extracting moral universalism and Christian altruism from the sacred ethnocentrism that physical Israel recorded in the Old Testament.

The oldest verses in the Pentateuch are likely found in the “Song of Moses,” an archaic poem recounting Israel’s escape from slavery in Egypt and the destruction of Pharaoh’s army, which through Jehovah’s terrifying power falls into the Red Sea (Exodus 15:1–18; Revelation 15.3-4). It is an imagined moment, entirely unhistorical, of triumph for Israel and defeat for its powerful Egyptian enemy. It relies on a deeply held but false belief, namely Israel’s liberation from four centuries of bondage in Egypt, the story of the exodus. This false historical memory, recalled frequently in scripture, served to demonstrate Jehovah’s special concern for Israel, while rationalizing Israel’s hostility to adversary nations in the Near East. It is a revealing myth: few peoples would choose to invent a history of lengthy enslavement by others as their most important national memory.

In Israel’s vision of the invasion and conquest of Canaan, which also never occurred, the Old Testament writers imagined their forefathers mercilessly eradicating their enemies and their heathen shrines in order to obliterate everything non-Israelite (Deuteronomy 7.1-5; Joshua 10.16-42). In Israel’s conflict with the neighboring Edomites they imagined Jehovah, with his garments stained in blood, vowing to destroy all non-Israelites in a terrible day of vengeance (Isaiah 34, 63.1-6). In their prophetic visions of acquiring overwhelming power in the future they imagined the kings and queens of the earth groveling at their feet and their warrior-messiah shattering the gentile kingdoms with a rod of iron (Isaiah 49.22–23; Psalm 2.8-9). In Israel’s captivity in Babylon they imagined themselves smashing the heads of their captors’ children on the rocks (Psalm 137.9). In the Essene community near the Dead Sea the fanatical Sons of Light imagined the day when Jehovah would “execute judgment on all the gentiles by the hands of his Elect” and “annihilate all the Sons of Darkness” (Habakkuk Commentary 5.4; War Scroll 13.16).

The Abrahamic covenant is a more subdued expression of the same yearnings. It is at its core the fantasy of a persecuted weakling who dreams of becoming, with the assistance of a magical helper, much more powerful than his tormentors. It imagines a time when, aided by Jehovah, Israel will dominate its neighbors. Those who oppose Israel will be cursed and punished by Jehovah, and since the gods of Israel’s enemies are nonexistent, their enemies will have no supernatural power that they can call upon in response. Prudent nations will therefore bless Israel to avoid the curses of its omnipotent tribal god.

We can think of Genesis 12.2-3 as a textual Rorschach test.

A disbeliever would look at the verses and see, as I do, one small ancient people’s optimistic vision of future power.

The supposedly key clause in verse 3 is, to disbelieving eyes, not an uplifting promise of blessings for all the families of the earth, but a trivial prediction, obscured by the KJV translation and by ambiguous grammar in the Hebrew text, that in future Israelites would invoke Abraham when they bless one another. When they utter a blessing, they will use his name, because he was especially favored by Jehovah (cf. Genesis 48.20). The Catholic Jerusalem Bible provides a convincing translation for skeptics inclined to doubt the altruism of the ancient Israelites: “. . . all clans on earth will bless themselves by you.” The evangelical NIV similarly suggests “will use your name in blessings” as an alternate reading.

On the other hand, later Jewish tradition accepted the universality implied in the apparent blessing of “all families of the earth,” but interpreted it to mean that the entire world was the birthright of Abraham’s physical descendants (Romans 4.13). The strongly ethnocentric rabbinical sages who wrote the Talmud accordingly interpret Jehovah’s ancient promise that all families of the earth will be blessed through Abraham to mean that the world revolves around the sacred existence of Jews: “Even the other families who live on the land are blessed only for Israel’s sake. . . . Even the ships that go from Gaul to Spain are blessed only for Israel’s sake” (Yevamot 63a). It is an important ethical principle in the Talmud that all gentile activity ideally should serve Israel and provide leisure for Jews to study the Torah (Avoda Zara 2b).

We also know what early Christians like Peter and Paul, both of whom likely died for their faith in the Neronian persecutions, saw when they looked at Genesis 12.2-3. They saw in God’s covenant with Abraham a Christian promise of salvation, recently fulfilled through the effects of an atoning crucifixion and now made available to everyone.

When looking at the same verses, Pastor Hagee and his fellow Judeo-Christians see something quite different. They see a divine command from the ancient Israelite past directing us in the present to provide material assistance to Jews. They read the text as a Jewish ethnocentrist would want them to read it.

They do not, as Christians once did, see in Abraham the proto-Christian patriarch who encountered the triune God under the oaks of Mamre. They do not see the universal church of Christ or the heavenly Jerusalem in the “great nation” that God promised Abraham’s descendants. Their Abraham is not the spiritual progenitor of the Christian faithful, as Peter and Paul believed, but the distant forefather of the modern Jewish state, yearning as he journeys to Canaan for the promised day his descendants will subjugate their enemies. This Abraham would be pleased to learn that in our era the world’s leading power annually sends billions in material blessings to the Jewish state.

Belief in the Jewish Abraham, the Hebrew patriarch who received from Jehovah material blessings for himself and for his physical descendants, is incompatible with belief in the Christian Abraham, the spiritual forefather of a morally universalist religion. Unfortunately for the religious coherence of Christianity, Abraham the ethnocentric Jew is a much more accurate interpretation of the Abraham of Old Testament scripture than his Christian counterpart, the spiritual ancestor of the raceless faithful. Abraham is only thought of as a pious holy man today because of the powerful Christian misreading that constructed his near antonym.

For many modern bible believers the Christian Abraham is now a troublesome distraction that they feel free to abandon, while they focus their Christian altruism on their religion’s former rival, with no expectation that their blessings will ever be reciprocated.

We Should Have Children Playing in the Street, Families Picnicking in the Park -- Instead We Have Black Violence

via Stuff Black People Don't Like

Margaret Sanger was on to something decades ago...[Violence, break-ins force youth program to shut its doors, KMOV.com, 10-6-15]:
Violence and a series of break-ins means a North St. Louis County youth program is closing its doors. 
The organization Operation Help or Hush was using the school space at St. Greater Marks Church for community youth programs, but it’s now coming to an end. 
Pastor Tommie Pierson says a series of break-ins and gun fire after a Friday night event were just too much. 
“When you think you’re doing something good and suddenly it blows up in your face, I felt pretty horrible,” said Pastor Pierson. 
On Friday nights the space was used as a place for teens to hang out. 
“Kids need some place to go, they have all this energy, we tried to provide a space for them to let off some steam, but we ran into problems,” he said. 
Now Pastor Pierson hopes they can utilize the space in another capacity. 
Operation Help or Hush also hopes there’s a future for more youth programs which are so desperately need in North County. 
But Pierson says they can’t do it alone. 
“If I can reach their parents, we can have great success around here,” he explained.
Operation Help or Hush is, by definition, a terrorist organization. Even it, an organization closely aligned with the Black Lives Matter movement, can't get blacks to behave.

North St. Louis County was once a safe place for young families, now it's just another reminder of the type of climate individual black people collectively create in the absence of whites.

Radix Journal's 2015 Essay Contest Winners

via Radix

I am pleased to announce the winners of Radix Journal’s 2015 essay contestWhy I’m an Identitarian.

First Prize

Tim Smyth

“The Celts and the Their Cliffs”

Second Prizes

Nils Wegner: “The Absolute Essence”

Rémi Tremblay: “Why I’m an Identitarian”

Patrick of Macha: “The Coming of a ‘We’”

Honorable Mention

Ruuben Kaalep: “Son of Europe”

Melvin Davila Martinez: “Identitarianism—The Unknown Ideal”

Recluse’s Daughter: “The American Millennial”

Vincent Law: “Becoming Who We Are”

Judging this contest was more difficult than I had imagined. Early on, the winning essay, “The Celts and Their Cliffs,” stood out; it is an evocative, compelling, and poetic piece of writing. Alongside it, there were numerous essays possessing merit and insight, more than I could include in the winners circle. I profited from reading each one; and I’m confident that each author profited from writing. But in the end, one must make a choice, however imperfect it might be.

Thanks to everyone who submitted his work! Each demonstrated thoughtfulness and courage.

The Second Thirty Years’ War

via The End of Zion

“After having colonised other peoples in the name of universalism, Europeans are now in the process of being colonised in the name of the very same principle against which they do not know how to defend themselves: if all men are brothers, nothing can stop the arrival of others on our doorstep.

In the past, when Europeans were strong and powerful, when they dominated the world, they had made of their Christian or secular culture, which in both cases was universalist and individualistic, the tool by which they conquered, intending to impose it upon the entire world. This was shattered following the upheavals of the twentieth century: both world wars in Europe, de-colonisation, and the reawakening of ancient civilisations. What had once been a source of strength has become the cause of their weakness. Their old universalistic worldview has removed their moral defences, in spite of their economic strength and a few vague stirrings of illusory power. Europe has been thrown, naked and defenceless, into a world aching to vengefully humiliate her.”

* * * * *

“[I]t could be said that between 1914 and 1945, Europe experienced a repeat of the Thirty Years’ War, ending with the undisputed victory of two foreign powers: the United States and the Soviet Union. These two powers divided Europe between themselves at Yalta, imposing their respective ideologies upon her. Since that era, torn by her mistakes and excesses, Europe has entered a ‘state of dormancy’, cast out of history and imprisoned in remorse.”  – From The Shock of History by Dominique Venner

Frank Auerbach and the Transformation of British Cultural Life by Jewish Emigrés

via The Occidental Observer

Head of Paula Eyles by Frank Auerbach, 1972
Interesting article in The Spectator by William Cook in the influence of mainly Jewish refugees from Germany who came to the UK in the pre-World War II period and had a transformative effect on British culture (“German Refugees Transformed British Cultural Life — But at a Price“).
Next week Frank Auerbach will be honoured by the British art establishment with a one-man show at Tate Britain. It’s a fitting tribute for an artist who’s widely (and quite rightly) regarded as Britain’s greatest living painter. Yet although Auerbach has spent almost all his life in Britain, what’s striking about his paintings is how Germanic they seem.
I find it difficult to see Auerbach as Germanic, at least not in the sense of what one hopefully would call the German national spirit. This is modernism at its determinedly ugliest, and, as in the UK, it represents an aesthetic that is out of touch with popular tastes.

Auerbach is the featured example of  the “vast wave of Germanic immigration that has transformed British cultural life — mainly for the better, but at a price.” “This wave of immigrants wasn’t just another huddled mass — it was the cultural élite of Central Europe, the best and brightest from every avenue of academia and the arts.” “Although predominantly Jewish, “they were champions of civilised, enlightened values, rather than members of a certain religion, or a certain race.”

When it is obvious and undeniable that Jews are predominant in an area, say Hollywood, the fallback position is to say that it doesn’t matter that they are Jewish. Indeed, this is the ADL’s line on how to think about Jews and Hollywood — which is demonstrably not the  case. Here the issue is what exactly these values were and whether these “civilized, enlightened values” can reasonably be seen as related to the Jewish identity of their purveyors. Cook provides a clue when he discusses how these values replaced “insular” British culture that had failed abysmally to spontaneously develop them. Indeed, the British response to these values prior to their becoming enlightened and civilized was quite negative:
The influence of these artistic émigrés has been so all-pervading that it’s easy to forget how insular British culture was before the second world war. Reviewing an exhibition of German art at the Burlington Gallery in 1938, the art critic of the New Statesman declared, ‘If Hitler doesn’t like these pictures, it’s the best thing I’ve heard about Hitler.’ British modernists fared no better. In 1938, the Tate’s director, J.B. Manson, said that Henry Moore would only enter the gallery over his dead body. Yet by 1951, Moore had become the star turn at the Festival of Britain. Finally, against all odds, these continental émigrés had dragged British culture into the 20th century. From now on, in Britain, as on the continent, modernism was the status quo.
These traditional values were quickly replaced after World War II with a new aesthetic that was quite alien to traditional British national culture. However, I have to admit that, judging from Frank Auerbach’s work, I can’t help thinking that the British would have plodded on quite well without the cultural transformation brought about by the invasion of Central European Jews. Surprisingly perhaps given the absolute dominance of modernism in the academic, art and media worlds, Cook seems to agree that there is a downside:
This tale is usually told as a story with a happy ending, a triumph of progressive values over reactionary, fuddy-duddy conservatism. But although Britain gained a great deal from this flood of foreign talent, you can’t help feeling, looking back, that something was lost along the way. Before the war, British culture was much more staid, but more in tune with public opinion. Since 1945 our artistic institutions have become much more Middle European: avant-garde, conceptual and out of step with popular taste.
What’s missing from this is some explication of what exactly Britain gained by this transformation. It’s easy to see what was lost: a national culture in tune with a wide swath of public opinion, with the consequence that the British public could look  back into a past that could be seen as organically developing into the present — a culture that  was an outgrowth of the spirit of the indigenous British peoples. As to what was gained, we don’t get even a hint, and it’s tempting to say nothing at all apart from the ability to look  down on people who don’t appreciate the obvious genius of artists like  Frank Auerbach.

In fact, the new aesthetic was never accepted by the British public any more than they lobbied for massive non-White immigration, the institutionalization of multiculturalism, and their becoming a minority in lands they have dominated for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Like all these trends, the new aesthetic was a top-down phenomenon in which popular attitudes were dismissed as parochial and beneath contempt.
Among the British intelligentsia, modernism has become the new orthodoxy, but this Mitteleuropäische aesthetic has never really been accepted by the population as a whole. There’s a cultural class divide in Britain (to an extent unknown in Germany) between highbrow and lowbrow, between bien-pensant and populist attitudes to art. The cognoscenti may flock to the latest show at the White Cube, but beyond the metropolitan bubble the feeling persists that most modern art is obscure and somehow foreign. This is a legacy of the Hitler émigrés, and the modernist movement they inspired. … Driven by the Hitler émigrés, Britain now has a very clever arts scene, but it’s an arts scene that feels alien to most Britons.
There were, of course, rewards for those Brits who plugged into the new aesthetic.  For artists, accepting the new aesthetic quickly became the sine qua non of success. And there was doubtless the usual status competition among the trendy and fashion conscious to furbish their reputations by gushing over the latest art by the likes of Damien Hirst, et al.

So what does this have to do with the fact that émigrés from Hitler were Jews? There are in fact some strong general trends. If there is one constant in Jewish contributions to culture, it is that they have opposed national cultures.  And although Cook’s article makes it sound as though there was something Germanic about the aesthetic transformation, in reality, Germany had succumbed to the Jewish attacks on national cultures long before the post-World  War II transformation in the UK.  From my review of Yuri Slezkine’s The Jewish Century:
Slezkine documents the well-known fact that, as Moritz Goldstein famously noted in 1912, “We Jews administer the spiritual possessions of Germany.” … These Jewish radicals hated everything about their national cultures except for one or two literary figures. The rest would have to go. As Exhibit A, Slezkine presents Georg Lukács, the son of a prominent Jewish capitalist, who describes his profound discontent with his father’s way of life. But Lukács also expresses his hatred for “the whole of official Hungary”—how he extended his unhappiness with his father to “cover the whole of Magyar life, Magyar history, and Magyar literature indiscriminately (save for Petőfi)” (p. 97). Ah, yes. Save for Petőfi. All else—the people and the culture—would have to go, by mass murder if necessary.
The same trends can be seen in the United States, where modernist culture promoted by the New York Intellectuals opposed any inklings of national culture tied to the historical people of America. From my review of Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and  Fall of Anglo-America:
[Kaufmann notes that] “The new liberal value consensus, in which artists, writers, academics, and the U.S. government were united, was social democratic, cosmopolitan, and modernist” (p. 166). The New York Intellectuals achieved “cultural hegemony” (p. 166); they had captured America from the top-down, leaving American dominant ethnicity “rudderless. It was now only a question of time before cosmopolitanism would achieve the institutional inertia necessary for it to triumph as a mass phenomenon” (p. 166). Indeed, Kaufmann correctly points to the fierce criticism of regionalism by the New York Intellectuals, as represented, for example, by Meyer Schapiro’s critique of Thomas Hart Benton:
The appeal to national sentiment should set us on guard, whatever its source. And when it comes as does Benton’s with his conceited anti-intellectualism, his hatred of the foreign, his emphasis on the strong and masculine, his uncritical and unhistorical elevation of the folk, his antagonism to the cities, his ignorant and violent remarks on radicalism, we have good reason to doubt his professed liberalism. (Meyer Shapiro, “Populist Realism,” Partisan Review 4, no. 2 (1938), 53–57, 54, 57)
Further emphasizing Shapiro’s concern that Benton’s art was tapping into a populist strand of Americanism, he writes that “the mere representation of railroad trains and farmers gives [Benton] the illusion of a mystical rapport with a superior American reality.” (Ibid., 54.
Thomas Hart Benton: From His "The Sources of Country Music" Series
Thomas Hart Benton: From His “The Sources of Country Music” Series

Thomas Craven, an ally of Benton, returned the favor, describing Alfred Stieglitz, “a prominent village radical” as “a Hoboken Jew without knowledge of, or interest in, the historical American background” (p. 163). Clearly the New York Intellectuals were attacking populism in favor of themselves as an intellectual elite. The New York Intellectuals associated rural America with
nativism, anti-Semitism, nationalism, and fascism as well as with anti-intellectualism and provincialism; the urban was associated antithetically with ethnic and cultural tolerance, with internationalism, and with advanced ideas. . . . The New York Intellectuals simply began with the assumption that the rural—with which they associated much of American tradition and most of the territory beyond New York—had little to contribute to a cosmopolitan culture. . . . By interpreting cultural and political issues through the urban-rural lens, writers could even mask assertions of superiority and expressions of anti-democratic sentiments as the judgments of an objective expertise. (Cooney 1986, 267–268; italics in text)
The last line bears repeating. The New York Intellectuals were engaged in a profoundly anti-democratic enterprise given that they rejected and felt superior to the culture of the majority of Americans. The battle between this urbanized intellectual and political establishment and rural America was joined on a wide range of issues. Particularly important was the issue of immigration. In this case and in the entire range of what became mainstream liberal politics, the New York Intellectuals had the enthusiastic support of all of the mainstream Jewish organizations.
Roger Scruton said it best:
There is a liturgy of denunciation here that is repeated all across Europe by a ruling elite that trembles in the face of ordinary loyalties. But the fact is that national sentiment is, for most ordinary Europeans, the only motive that will justify sacrifice in the public cause. Insofar as people do not vote to line their own pockets, it is because they also vote to protect a shared identity from the predations of those who do not belong to it, and who are attempting to pillage an inheritance to which they are not entitled.

TOO’s Michael Colehaze framed the kulturkampf as follows:
Lord Leighton was President of the Royal Academy from 1878 until his death in 1896. If you observe his art, and that of his contemporaries in Europe and America, you get a clear idea of the cultural pinnacle we were inhabiting then, and how deep we plunged from it only a century later. Because the present president of the RA is a trite modernist architect whose masterpieces are dreary concrete heaps resembling plastic sausages, and the art he peddles are gems like Damian Hirst’s Rotting Shark or Tracy Emin’s Stinking Bedstead, [both featured by Scruton] all chaperoned by that unspeakable grease-pot and carpetbagger Saatchi, nomen est omen, and financed through the Jerusalem Foundation, the Henry Moore Foundation and similar maggots who have long since sequestered the hallowed halls and now gnaw at their very foundations. As to the [Royal Academy’s] present worship of feminine beauty and splendour, you only need to cast a fleeting glance at one of Lucian Freud’s chef d’oeuvres to know where we stand.

It is always problematic when ethnic outsiders promote an aesthetic that without any ties to or feelings for the national culture — supplanting a culture with significant popular support in favor of an international culture with no concept of beauty. So yes, the British may now think of themselves as cosmopolitan and very sophisticated intellectually and  aesthetically. But they have paid a very high price. In fact, in adopting this new set of values, they have lost themselves, or at least the more educated, “cognoscenti” among  them have. Rather than deep organic ties within a national culture, there is now a cultural elite that is cut off from popular attitudes which it loathes. And when you lose a sense of your national culture and a sense of beauty, you become helpless against the forces that would destroy your people and culture entirely — a prelude to catastrophe.

Is Tom Brady the NFL’s Great White Defendant?


In a black dominated sport, white quarterback Tom Brady stands out. With his supermodel wife (Gisele Bundchen, right) and clean cut looks, he’s the Christian Laettner of the NFL, a skilled player commentators and players nonetheless mock as a “dork” and a “cornball” who “can’t dance” [Bart Scott: ‘Nothing tough about Tom Brady… he looks like a dork’, by Ryan Wilson, CBS Sports, October 1, 2015]. Brady is a friend of Donald Trump and was even identified by the press as a Trump supporter [Tom Brady: Comments on Donald Trump were taken out of context, by Ryan Wilson, CBS Sports, September 30, 2015]

Now, Brady is being targeted as the NFL’s Great White Defendant in an attempt to distract from how the rest of the league has become, in Rush Limbaugh’s words, “the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons” [The Classless NFL Culture, Rush Limbaugh Show, January 19, 2007].

During the offseason, the NFL suspended Tom Brady for four games and fined the New England Patriots two future draft picks because Brady supposedly directed team personnel to deliberately deflate several footballs just prior to the 2015 AFC Championship game against the Indianapolis Colts.

The deflated footballs didn’t impact the outcome of the game. The referees reinflated the balls at halftime and Brady proceeded to tear up the Colts’ defense for 28 unanswered points in a driving rainstorm.

Several former NFL quarterbacks have argued that air pressure in footballs is a matter of personal preference, not an unfair advantage [Former NFL quarterbacks talk Deflategate, by Jim Corbett, USA Today, January 21, 2015]. And yet the NFL bizarrely compared throwing a slightly underinflated football to the use of anabolic steroids [Judge Berman slams NFL’s comparison between using steroids and deflating footballs, by Henry McKenna, Boston.com, September 3, 2015]

Tom Brady, as NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has repeatedly put it, damaged “the integrity of the game” [NFL releases statement on Patriots’ violations, NFL, May 11, 2015].

Nevertheless, as usual with trumped-up charges against whites, we now enter Narrative Collapse. It was initially alleged eleven of the Patriots’ footballs were deliberately underinflated, but it now appears it was only a single football [Report: Only one of Patriots’ 12 balls were under-inflated by two pounds, Sports Illustrated, February 1, 2015]. Moreover, the referee who weighed the balls did not actually record any of the measurements. He only testified to the air pressure levels from memory.

According to statements by Colts’ general manger, Ryan Grigson, the NFL front office decided to perform a sting operation to catch Brady ordering the deflation of footballs before the game. The league denied this, but its story doesn’t hold up [There’s a glaring contradiction in NFL’s Deflategate timeline, by Bart Hubbuch New York Post, February 20, 2015].

My two cents: NFL Commissioner Goodell is attempting to insulate himself, the league, and the almost entirely all-white owners, from charges of over-disciplining black players by nailing a high-profile white player [Brandon Marshall: White players treated differently when it comes to NFL discipline, by Zac Johnson, NBC Sports, September 9, 2015]

But the NFL’s real dirty secret: the league systematically covers up players’ misdeeds, with some teams even employing handlers to keep a lid on unruly players when necessary and clean up after them if possible [For battered NFL wives, a message from the cops and the league: Keep quiet, by Simone Sebastian and Ines Bebea, The Washington Post, October 17, 2014].

The NFL currently employs a number of players who have been the subject of criminal proceedings [NFL players arrested in 2015, Sporting News]. We usually hear about the high-profile players—like Minnesota Vikings tailback Adrian Peterson, recently prosecuted for badly beating his four year old son .[Adrian Peterson avoids jail time in child abuse case, by Eric Prisbell and Brent Schrotenboer, USA Today, November 4, 2014]There’s also Arizona Cardinals halfback Jonathan Dwyer, arrested last year for allegedly head-butting his wife and breaking her nose. [Arizona Cardinals’ Jonathan Dwyer Broke Wife’s Nose with Head Butt, Police Report States, by Meghan Kelly, ABC, September 18, 2014]

Indeed, in a case of damning with faint praise, the NFL just celebrated how September 2015 was the first arrest-free month in six years [NFL rarity: Players make September first arrest-free month in six years, by John Breech, CBS News, October 2, 2015].

elevatorvideoBut the culture of silence occasionally fails—most recently in the case of Baltimore Ravens tailback Ray Rice. Rice knocked out his then-fiancé (now wife) in an Atlantic City hotel elevator. After Rice’s arrest, Commissioner Goodell suspended him for a mere two games. However, TMZ eventually obtained and aired the video of Rice dragging his beloved from the elevator like a sack of potatoes [Elevator Knockout, September 8, 2014]. Under pressure, Goodell was forced to suspend Rice indefinitely.

Goodell claimed that he did not realize the violent nature of the assault. But the evidence indicates that Ray Rice actually told Goodell the full truth about what happened and the videotape didn’t contradict his story [Transcript shows inconsistencies in Goodell’s testimony on Rice matter, by Don Van Notta Jr., ESPN, December 10, 2014]. A federal judge agreed and eventually vacated Rice’s suspension [Federal justice finds Goodell’s Story Was a Lie, Immediately Reinstates Ray Rice to NFL, by Judd Legum, ThinkProgress, November 28, 2014].

Many people called for Roger Goodell’s resignation in the wake of the Ray Rice scandal, but Goodell survived by vowing a league-wide crack down on misbehavior among players [Domestic violence and the NFL: What Impact Has the League Made? By Jane McManus, ESPN, January 28, 2015]

Image is everything when you depend on advertising revenue. But you have another problem when most of the bad behavior comes from black players, who make up almost 70% of the rosters.

Tom Brady is thus ideally suited to serve as a scapegoat and distract the public from a Politically Incorrect truth.

To put the crusade against Brady in context, consider the case of former Baltimore linebacker Ray Lewis. After a Super Bowl Party in Atlanta in 2000, Ray Lewis and his friends allegedly stabbed two men to death after a Super Bowl party. The blood of one of the victims was found inside Lewis’s limousine and the white suit that Lewis was wearing that night—a suit reportedly drenched with blood—was never found. Prosecutors believed Lewis ditched it in a dumpster after the incident [Inside tale of Ray Lewis parking-lot brawl homicide case, by Maureen Callahan, New York Post, January 27, 2013].

raylewisincourtLewis, right,  was charged with two counts of murder, but was able to plead guilty only to obstruction of justice in exchange for testifying against his accomplices. His testimony never directly implicated his friends and they were acquitted. [Slayings not forgotten, Ray Lewis not forgiven, by Brent Schrotenboer, USA Today, June 18, 2013].

Nevertheless, despite his being involved in a double homicide, Roger Goodell fined Ray Lewis a mere $250,000 for the incident and didn’t suspend him for a single game. [Pro Football: N.F.L. hands Ravens’ Lewis a Fine of $250,000 but doesn’t suspend him, by Mike Freeman, New York Times, August 18, 2000]. Lewis was named Super Bowl MVP the following year, and is destined for the NFL Hall of Fame.

In 2013, Roger Goodell called Ray Lewis “a tremendous voice of reason” and hinted that he had taken advice from Lewis on player relations: “He’s someone that has a unique pulse of the players and that’s helpful to me.” [Roger Goodell says he’ll continue to use Ray Lewis as a sounding board, by Jeff Zrebiec, The Baltimore Sun, January 03, 2013]

Meanwhile, the NFL is committed to persecuting Brady even though it’s increasingly appearing that it never had any evidence against him.

To his credit, Tom Brady did not back down and took the NFL to federal court. A judge virtually laughed the NFL’s case out of court and vacated Brady’s suspension [Brady’s Deflategate suspension tossed; judge mocks Goodell, by Josh Saul, David K. and Bart Hubbuch, New York Post, September 3, 2015]

The Great White Defendant Strategy is a tempting way for cowardly whites to conceal Politically-Incorrect realities. But it often backfires on them, as it did against Mike Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse Case.

Nevertheless, that isn’t stopping the NFL. Instead, the NFL front office recently returned to court to file an appeal against the judge’s decision to dismiss their case against Tom Brady—an appeal they will most surely lose [NFL files motion seeking expedited hearing on Tom Brady appeal, ESPN, September 25, 2015]

Some people never learn. And. as we can practically guarantee future viral videos of the NFL’s African-American players behaving badly, the persecution of Brady will do nothing to conceal the truth about the league’s Color of Crime.

Free Speech -- But Not for You, White Man

via Koinen's Corner

This is what it has come to, people -- talk the truth about race or the Jews and lose your job:

Webmaster/blogger forced out of job for truthful commentary here. More here.

And then, within just a little more than a week, we learn about a North Carolina police chief being forced into retirement for making the most innocuous (true) statements about the ridiculous, falsity-based, anti-law-enforcement, and anti-White 'Black Lives Matter' movement and other aspects of contemporary Negro lawlessness (here).

It would seem that the Jewed system we are living under here in America is trying to chop our fingers off and cut our tongues out.  In a variety of locations and situations around the country we can no longer write or speak the truth for fear of losing our employment and our stature in the community.

Who would have thought it would come to this in America?  Gosh darn, you don't suppose they would ever try to take away our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, do you?

Oh, and by the way -- you might want to ask yourself -- how did these kinds of government policies work out for the sixty-plus million victims of Jewish communism that were imprisoned and/or murdered in the early days of the Soviet Union?  What's that you say -- 'it couldn't happen here?'

Geert Wilders: A Dutch Patriot?

via American Renaissance

Patriot? Or Zionist Counter-Jihadist?
“Government leaders, judges, even some churches, trade unions, universities, the media . . . All of them are blinded by political correctness and have chosen the side of Islam.” – Geert Wilders

In the early 2000s, the cozy Dutch political landscape changed forever. Since the Second World War, the Netherlands had been ruled by one of three traditional parties: the Social Democrats, the Christian Democrats, or the Conservatives. Their rule was shattered in 2002 by the rise of Pim Fortuyn. Fortuyn’s party, the LPF, (Lijst Pim Fortuyn) had been in existence for only for three months but came second in national elections–an incredible achievement.

Fortuyn’s success was due to one reason: His LPF was the only party that talked about the threat Islam poses to the West. Unfortunately, Fortuyn never lived to see the success of his party. He was assassinated in July 2002 in what was the first political murder in the democratic history of the Netherlands. The LPF disintegrated a few years later as a result of financial mismanagement, infighting, and lacklustre leaders. However, Fortuyn’s success revealed the existence of a large voting bloc that opposed mass immigration and Islamization, and his death left a major power vacuum. This vacuum would soon be filled by Geert Wilders’ PVV (Freedom Party).

Rise to power

Geert Wilders was born in 1963 in the southern Dutch province of Limburg. His political career started in 1990 when he joined a moderately conservative party known as the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). In the late ’90s, Wilders lived in a suburb of Utrecht that had a relatively high foreign population, with a substantial number of Muslims. Many believe that his understanding of mass immigration and Islam began during that period.

In 1998, Mr. Wilders was elected to parliament and became known for opinion articles that were usually about foreign policy. He had a genuine interest in the Middle East, focusing on countries such as Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. He was one of the first politicians to warn about Islamic extremism, an issue that was unknown in the Netherlands. After the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington, Mr. Wilders’ interest in Islam grew. He also noticed the success Fortuyn had achieved by opposing Islamic immigration.

In the following years, Mr. Wilders’ stance on Islam hardened, which led to conflicts with others in the VVD. In 2004, he released a manifesto insisting that the VVD move further to the Right. The manifesto urged, for example, that foreign aid be cut in half and that radical imams be expelled. Mr. Wilders also wanted to prevent Turkey from ever becoming a member of the European Union (EU).

The VVD leadership warned Mr. Wilders to soften his stance. Mr. Wilders refused, and in 2004 he left the VVD but kept his seat in parliament, which infuriated his former colleagues. Later that year he founded the Groep Wilders (Group Wilders) party. He promised it would avoid the mistakes made by Pym Fortuyn’s LPF. He believed that it was important that his new political party not become a membership-based party, because infighting among members was one of the major reasons the LPF collapsed. According to Dutch law, a party must have at least two members. Mr. Wilders’ party has always had only two members: Geert Wilders himself and the Geert Wilders Foundation.

No turning back

In 2004, Mohammed Bouyeri butchered the Dutch film maker Theo van Gogh on the streets of Amsterdam. Mr. Bouyeri was a member of the notorious Hofstadgroep Islamic terrorist group composed mainly of Muslims living in Holland. A week after the murder, Dutch anti-terrorist forces laid siege to a Hofstadgroep apartment in The Hague.

A fire fight ensued. Four officers were wounded with a hand grenade, but special forces were able to wound one of the terrorists and arrest two others. Inside the house were more hand grenades and machine guns, and the secret services uncovered plans for terror attacks on a nuclear plant, Amsterdam Airport, and the Dutch parliament. However, a few members of the group were still on the loose. Later, another terrorist was arrested with a machinegun in his possession. The authorities reported that he was on his way to assassinate Mr. Wilders.

Since then, Mr. Wilders has been surrounded permanently by armed guards from the Dutch secret service. He lives in hiding, in heavily guarded safe houses that contain bullet proof “panic rooms.” When he leaves these secure locations, he always wears a bulletproof vest, even in parliament.

Mr. Wilders says he receives approximately 10 death threats a week, which he reports all together at the police station. Several Islamic clerics have issued fatwas ordering that he be beheaded. He is on hit lists of Islamic terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and ISIS. In 2015, two armed Muslim terrorists were killed in Texas when they tried to storm a conference at which Mr. Wilders was speaking.

Geert Wilders poses with members of a US SWAT team before the event in Garland, Texas.
Geert Wilders poses with members of a US SWAT team before the event in Garland, Texas.

The Party for Freedom

In 2005, Mr. Wilders established the Partij voor de Vrijheid (PVV), into which Group Wilders was merged. PVV was to be the vehicle for participation in the 2006 elections and for a search for party candidates. It would focus on opposition to Islam, the legacy of Fortuyn, cutting non-Western immigration, and euroscepticism.

According to Mr. Wilders, Islam should not be seen as a religion but as a totalitarian ideology that seeks to dominate every aspect of life. The PVV wants to stop the construction of new mosques and close all Islamic schools. In parliament, its members have offered repeated proposals to ban the Koran and tax women who wear the head scarf. Also, Mr. Wilders wants all foreign criminals deported, along with their families.

The PVV, like other patriotic European parties, does not focus on race. Instead, the European Right tends to campaign on ethnicity and religion. However, this does not mean that the PVV would welcome non-Muslim, Third-Worlders such as African Christians. They would usually be described as “fortune seekers” or “useless immigration.” The PVV’s main enemy is Islam, in recognition of the profound change that took place in Dutch public opinion after the murders of Fortuyn and van Gogh.

The PVV also wants the Netherlands to leave the European Union and reintroduce the former national currency, the Gulden. In the European Parliament, the PVV is a member of the Europe of Nations and Freedom political group, which includes similar European parties, such as the National Front, Vlaams Belang and Lega Nord.

Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen in European Parliament.
Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen in European Parliament.

The party supports the division of Belgium into Flemish and Walloon regions. After division, the Netherlands and Flanders would unite to form a new country to be called Greater Netherlands. It would focus on the cultural, linguistic and ethnic similarities between the Dutch and Flemish people. Martin Bosma, the party’s ideologue, has recently tried to strengthen the ties with the Afrikaner people of South-Africa, who are descended from Dutch settlers and whose Afrikaans language is essentially Dutch.

The PVV is often described as conservative, right wing, or even far right. However, right-wing parties are usually strong proponents of free markets and laissez faire economics. If the PVV were not anti-immigration and anti-Islamic, it would be known for favouring liberal social policies, such as improving public healthcare and not raising the retirement age.

Little-known Facts

Very few people know that the PVV has a considerable following among immigrants to the Netherlands. Greek Cypriots, Copts, Middle-Eastern Christians, and people from India support Mr. Wilders in substantial numbers because of their experiences with Islam in their home countries.

The PVV is a staunch supporter of Israel. According to Mr. Wilders, Israel is a beacon of light in an area of darkness. PVV members believe that if Israel falls, so will the West. Some suspect that Israeli and perhaps American Jews play an important role in financing the PVV. This assertion is supported by former PVV politicians and journalists.

The Freedom Party also has a considerable following among homosexuals. The LGBT movement is usually considered left wing and pro-immigration, but for at least a decade, homosexuals have been harassed and beaten by migrants, especially Muslims.

Every year, Dutch high schools organize so-called student elections that simulate national elections, in which students between ages 13 and 18 vote for existing parties. Despite the “progressive” propaganda deeply rooted in the Dutch educational system, the PVV wins every time.

The PVV also opposes Eastern European immigration. Mr. Wilders says Poles, Romanians, and Hungarians are a threat to Dutch workers.


PVV has made a lot of enemies. One would think that the political elite and the media would understand that the demonization of Pim Fortuyn was one of the reasons he was assassinated, but this does not prevent a vicious, nonstop campaign against Mr. Wilders.

One of the biggest opponents of the party is the Social Democrat party, which is pro-immigration and has many Muslim politicians. The Social Democrats vote against every policy proposal of the PVV, even those that would improve social conditions.

In his book The Fake Elite of the Counterfeiters, party ideologue Mr. Bosma claims that joining the PVV is a “point of no return.” Former employees of the party complain that they are blackballed and cannot find new jobs. The largest workers union of the Netherland, FNV Bondgenoten, refuses any debate or discussion with PVV representatives.

In 2007, when hundreds of thousands of people voted for the PVV, the former police chief of Amsterdam said on live television that Mr. Wilders needed to be “destroyed.” He added that all those PVV voters “have no place in this new society we are trying to build.”

In 2009, Mr. Wilders was barred from entering the United Kingdom because the home secretary considered him a hate monger. Curiously, the United Kingdom rarely prevents even the most radical imams from entering the country.

In 2011, Mr. Wilders was sued by a number of Islamic organizations that accused him of racism and inciting hatred of Muslims. Mr. Wilders, who claimed he was only speaking the truth and using his freedom of speech, was acquitted.

Later that year, the PVV won a large number of seats in the Dutch parliament and became the third-largest party. Mr. Wilders agreed to support the ruling coalition of the VVD and the Christian Democrats in return for PVV influence on immigration and the EU.

In 2014, as part of his campaign literature, Mr. Wilders printed satirical stickers that portrayed the flag of Saudi Arabia. The text on the Saudi flag was changed to “Islam is a lie, Muhammad is a criminal, the Koran is poison.” When Saudi Arabia threatened economic sanctions, the Dutch government apologized for Mr. Wilders’ “childish behaviour” and sent officials to Saudi Arabia to beg for understanding. The country’s largest trade organization, VON-NCW, also condemned Mr. Wilders.

In Arabic, the sticker reads “Islam is a lie, Muhammad is a criminal, the Koran is poison.”

That same year, Mr. Wilders asked an audience: “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans?” The crowd shouted “Fewer, fewer, fewer!” Mr. Wilders replied, “We’re going to organize that.” A well known Dutch actor then wrote on Twitter: “Volkert, where are you when your country needs you?” That was an allusion to Volkert van der Graaf, who killed Pim Fortuyn. The largest Moroccan association in the country filed suit against Mr. Wilders; its leader said Mr. Wilders’ remarks “make us feel very insecure.”

Mr. Wilders believes that the Dutch courts are biased against PVV politicians and that it will be impossible for him to get a fair trial. As if in confirmation, a Dutch judge claimed in an interview that anyone who votes for the PVV could never become a judge, because PVV voters cannot think with sufficient subtlety.

The PVV’s greatest electoral victory came in 2010, when it came in third in the vote, and increased its number of seats from nine to 24. However, in 2012, in the face of a withering media campaign, the party lost nine seats. Current polls, on the other hand, predict that the PVV would become the biggest party in the country if elections were held now.

The current invasion of Europe by Middle-Easterners no doubt contributes to the PVV’s current popularity. Mr. Wilders strongly opposes the open-door policy of the European Union and favours the Australian approach of sending back all illegal immigrants. Furthermore, the party wants to reintroduce border controls within the European Union and house all refugees in their own regions.

If this current tidal wave of Third-Worlders has a silver lining, it will be to boost the popularity of men such as Geert Wilders who are fighting on the front lines to defend Europe.