Children Sacrificed (McDonalds Baby Meat) Interview with Rabbi Abraham Finkelstein
Children Sacrificed (McDonalds Baby Meat) Interview with Rabbi Abraham Finkelstein
Martin Luther, the leading light in the Protestant Reformation, challenged “papal authority over Christendom” by dropping his 95 theses in 1517. But, as we shall see, that was not what the Protestant Reformation was all about and it was not why Luther was excommunicated.
Pope Leo longed for an amicable solution, but Luther was too far gone. Not only that, the fire which Luther had lit started to spread across Germany, even among humanists.
German scholar and poet Ulrich von Hutten began to take up arms, denouncing the Catholic Church as a “gigantic bloodsucking worm” and the pope as “a bandit chief…Rome is a sea of impurity, a mire of filth, a bottomless sink of iniquity. Should we not flock from all quarters to compass the destruction of this common curse of humanity?”
Hutten also declared of the German clergy,
“Begone, ye unclean swine! Depart from the sanctuary, ye infamous traffickers! Touch not the altars with your desecrated hands!…How dare you spend the money intended for pious uses in luxury, dissipation, and pomp, while honest men are suffering hunger?”
Luther, of course, stayed away from Hutten’s violent tirade. But many of Luther’s statements were vague enough that many could interpret or apply them in a negative light. Luther declared,
“Above all, we should drive out from German lands the papal legates with their ‘powers’—which they sell us for large sums of money—to legalize unjust gains, dissolve oaths, vows, and agreements, saying that the pope has authority to do this.”
Luther added theological error upon error by identifying the pope as “the true Antichrist” and Rome as “the Synagogue of Satan” (yet if one follows Luther’s sola scriptura, there is no mention of a specific individual as the “true Antichrist,” an issue that will be covered later.)
The word “antichrist” itself is mentioned only four times in the New Testament, and it is talking about a metaphysical and categorical rejection of Christ and his deity. “Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son” (1 John 2:22).
It was only a matter of time before Luther was accused of spreading the “‘Bohemian poison’ (the heresies of Huss) and subverting all ecclesiastical order.”
Over time, a number of professors at the University of Wittenberg began to declare that Luther was right. At the same time, other individuals began to denounce Luther as a heretic.
In the summer of 1520, Leo X ordered some of Luther’s writings to be burned and admonished Luther once again to recant. In the meantime, Luther’s movement began to spread like wildfire in places like Mainz, Louvain, Cologne, and Ingolstadt. Yet in places like Erfurt, students “threw all available copies” of the bull “into the river.”
Luther finally appeared before the Diet of Worms in 1521 to be questioned about his theological activity. As soon as he landed in Erfurt, a large crowd, among them forty professors, gave him a standing ovation.
Ulrich von Hutten
When he was asked the question, “Do you recant, or do you not?” Luther asked for, and received, a day to seriously reconsider the repercussions of his decision. During that same day, Hutten sent him a letter asking him to stand firm and unmovable. Other sympathetic friends came to comfort him. That was surely a cataclysmic moment in Luther’s life.
Although Luther initially rejected indulgences on the basis of his reading of Scripture, Luther later began rejecting Scripture on the basis of his theology. This became quite clear when he stated:
“Whatever does not preach Christ is not Apostolic, even though it be written by St. Peter or St. Paul…Whatever does preach Christ would be Apostolic even if it proceeded from Judas, Pilate, or Herod.”
Many of Luther’s own doctrines would certainly fail this incoherent test. Luther rejected the book of James because it was inconsistent with Luther’s view of justification by faith alone, calling it an “epistle of straw.”
Luther, to his dying day, despised the book of James and wrote in Table Talk that
“We should throw the epistle of James out of this school [meaning Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning…
“He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there is no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other.”
In another work, Luther even talked about “throwing Jimmy in the stove” because “Jimmy” did not agree with Luther.
In other words, Luther theologically appealed to sola scriptura, but practically was content to pick and choose what agreed with his views—a consistent pattern that has died out over the centuries among Reformed and Protestant theologians, most specifically among Christian Zionists.
James 2:26 unequivocally declares, “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
Luther made things even more complicated when it comes to Romans 3:28, which reads, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.”
Luther, right after faith, added the word “alone” in his translation. When asked for an exegetical explanation, Luther responded,
“If your Papist makes much useless fuss about the word sola, allein, tell him at once: ‘Doctor Martin Luther will have it so,’ and says ‘Papist and donkey are one thing; sic volo, sic jubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. For we do not want to be pupils and followers of the Papist, but their masters and judges.”
Luther was simply shooting himself in the toes, and it is pretty clear here that he was indirectly and subtly postulating infallibility or categorical axioms without which his own theology—sola scriptura—would fall.
Yet for Luther, papal infallibility was like a red flag to a bull. He was so carnally blinded that he didn’t seem to understand what the Church meant by infallibility, a misconception that lingers on to this very day.
Sinclair B. Ferguson
Luther did not seem to make a distinction between the Pope as a sinner and the Pope defending infallible truth—two paradoxical yet compatible tendencies. Even Reformed scholars such as Sinclair B. Ferguson agree that “the genius of Rome, unlike Wittenberg [Luther] and Geneva [Calvin], has always been its ability to hold opposite tendencies together.”This is a huge issue and it serves no purpose to expand on it here.
It must be said that Rome proved to be much more rational than the father of the Protestant Reformation because ontological truth, by its very nature, is “infallible.” Any truth claim has to have some form of “infallibility,” otherwise the claim makes no sense whatsoever. This is fundamental in epistemological pursuit and Luther should have known this.
As a corollary and as G. K. Chesterton rightly put it, “all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind.” In other words, the denial of any truth claim is another truth claim.
Luther’s own statement that “Doctor Martin Luther will have it so” is a classic example. And since Luther knocked out Rome’s infallibility, Luther had to implicitly establish a new infallibility, which was Luther himself.
More importantly, Luther would have had a hard time refuting people like John Hagee and the whole Christian Zionist movement. If Luther objects to their extreme Zionist worldview, they could easily say, “Dr. John Hagee would have it so.”
And when you reach that circular matrix, you can be sure that reason or rational inquiry is out of the equation and ideology or preconceived notion will take precedence. It is like reasoning with people who keep postulating that the “Jewish question” is genetic.
You’ve got people like Charles Murray and other AEI writers saying that Jews are basically smarter than everyone else, that they are “God’s chosen people” and that this is one reason they are hated; and then you have others who keep positing the extraordinary assertion (with no serious evidence) that Jewish behaviors (such as how to cheat the goyim) are ingrained in their DNA.
How does that work? Which one is actually DNA—the elevated IQ which Murray proposes, or the bad behaviors which much of the world does not like? Certainly those biological determinists cannot have it both ways.
What’s so funny is that when Jewish scientists themselves argue that much of the evidence for biological determinism has been forged, biological determinists continue to marshal the same intellectually boring and incoherent view that the “Jewish question” is genetic.
What those people do not seem to grasp is that what happens genetically happens mechanically and automatically, a notion that is compatible with Newtonian physics.
If it happens according to the laws of physics and chemistry—like gravity—why would a biological determinist want to persuade the Jew to act morally? Wouldn’t the Jew be rational in saying, “My genes made me do it?”
I just cannot hold my laughter when those biological determinists write raving responses because the Jew acts this or that way and that they need to change their way, but that bad behavior is in his genes! Not only that, we have to hold them responsible!
If biological determinists cannot see this intellectual logjam, then rational discussion is of no use. The Enlightenment thinkers, were they alive today, would probably have raised their hands in adulation telling biological determinists, “Amen, brothers! Preach it! Thanks for making our metaphysical view comprehensible to modernity!”
If Christ did not accept the doctrine of the Pharisees who kept saying that they are the children of Abraham—implying super DNA—then the idea as articulated by biological determinists must be resisted precisely because it lacks scientific integrity and intellectual honesty. The issue is essentially theological and moral. As E. Michael Jones pointed out,
“The culture wars are simply not understandable in racial terms [or genetic terms]. The different sides in the culture wars may have used race as a pretext, but the identity of the antagonists was ethnic not racial in the sense commonly portrayed in the media.”
This is the central issue, and if people want to understand the “Jewish question,” they must get a grip of the theological underpinning. The first institution to understand this is the Church. Jewish revolutionaries are aware of this.
For example, Leo Pfeffer, a Jewish revolutionary who “advised, planned and argued more church-state cases before the U.S. Supreme Court than anyone else in American history,” wrote,
“whenever I felt that my daughter should not have something she wanted, she threatened to marry a Catholic army officer from Alabama.
“The truth of the matter was that I did not like the Catholic Church as I did not like the military and the South and for pretty much the same reasons. In the first place, it stood for what I opposed, and opposed . . . what I stood for.”
Biological determinists, because of their superficial knowledge of the conflict, categorize the “Jewish question” in essentially racial terms when in fact the issue always revolves theology and morality. If they doubt the seriousness of this statement, they need to go back to the Elizabethan Age and see how the issue played out.
If that is too hard to do, they need to go back to ancient Rome, where the theatrical spectacle of the gladiatorial games almost destroyed the moral life of one of Augustine’s closest friends, Alypius.
More precisely, biological determinists need to go back to ancient Greece, where all the major players were essentially “white,” and where the cult of Dionysus was essentially terrorizing young people—most particularly women.
After comparing himself to Paul, Luther called all of those who disagreed with his insertion “donkeys” and boasted that regardless of what they said, “the word allein shall remain in my New Testament.”
It is no surprise that the Protestant Reformation was bound to spark a detour in the Christian West. Whether he liked it or not, with statements like that, Luther opened the door for people to apply their own presuppositions onto Christianity.
And it would not be an irrational argument to say that the Dispensational movement that grew out of the nineteenth century had it proto-basis in the Protestant Reformation, although Luther would almost disagree strongly with the movement.
Luther also “questioned the Epistle of Hebrews” and even declared that the book of Revelation is “neither Apostolic nor Prophetic.” He also stated that “Solomon’s proverbs were not the work of Solomon.”
By doing this picking and choosing, Luther proved that his critics were right all along: Luther did not really believe in sola scriptura. Even Luther’s widely read treatise, On the Bondage of the Will, published in 1525, could not find explicit and strong support from sola scriptura or reason. It is that book that is the quintessential definition of the Reformation. Luther himself declared,
“Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us.”
Calvinist writer J. I. Packer writes that the book is “the greatest piece of writing that came from Luther’s pen.” Prior to Luther, the Catholic Church maintains that man’s will is a gift from God and a person cannot even use this gift to earn his salvation. Canon 4 of the Council of Orange, which was written in 529 A.D., states:
“If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself…”
Moreover, since man’s free will is a gift from God, it therefore cannot contradict God’s overarching purpose in salvation. Luther changed that by making man’s free will irrelevant and unimportant in salvation, and this is why Luther was excommunicated by the Catholic Church.
“I can in nothing detect that it was provided by the Holy Spirit.”
Luther denounced the pope as being dogmatic, but Luther is making dogmatic statements that obviously contradict his own theological premise, namely sola scriptura. Luther continued:
“Moreover, he [John] seems to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly—more than any other of the sacred books do, though they are much more important…
“Let everyone think of it as his own spirit gives him to think. My spirit cannot fit itself into the book. There is one sufficient reason for me to think highly of it—Christ is not taught or known in it; but to teach Christ is the thing which an apostle above all else is bound to do.”
Right here Luther was digging his own theological grave and was disqualifying himself as an exegete. The first two verses open the book as follows:
“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John; who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw” (Revelation 1:1-2).
Luther would have saved himself some trouble had he just made an honest confession that he did not understand the book.
Yet to say that it is not apostolic or prophetic, or that Christ is not taught in the book, means that Luther to a large extent applied sola scriptura where it fit his theology.
In his new preface written in 1546, Luther was somewhat more optimistic declaring that the book could be examined in light of historical accounts.
In a nutshell, Luther was not consistent on his appeal to sola scriptura, and he was already a flesh-and-blood Judaizer by the time he wrote On the Jews and Their Lies, a book we shall discuss in the next article. It is the same thing with John Calvin, who ended up disagreeing with Luther on soteriology.
“defiance at Worms, and his survival, had given his followers a heady elation. At Erfurt students, artisans, and peasants attacked and demolished forty parish houses, destroyed libraries and rent rolls, and killed a humanist (June 1521).”
In December of the same year, “some students and townsfolk, armed with knives, entered the parish church of Wittenberg, drove the priests from the altars, and stoned some worshipers who were praying before a statue of the Virgin.”
The next day, “forty students demolished the altars of the Franciscan monastery in Wittenberg.” That same year, “Gabriel Zwilling, a leader of the Augustinian Congregation, invited his hearers to burn religious pictures and demolish altars wherever found. On December 27 oil was poured upon the fire by ‘prophets’ arriving from Zwickau.”
Luther of course did not approve any of this violence. He later wroteEarnest Exhortation for All Christians, Warning Them Against Insurrection and Rebellion. Yet in the very same work, Luther could not fully make his point clear that violence is against Christ and the gospel. Instead he wrote:
“It seems probable that there is danger of an uprising, and that priests, monks, bishops and the entire spiritual estate may be murdered or driven into exile, unless they seriously and thoroughly reform themselves.
“For the common man has been brooding over the injury he has suffered in property, in body, and in soul, and has become provoked. They have tried him too far, and have most unscrupulously burdened him beyond measure.
“He is neither able nor willing to endure it longer, and could indeed have good reason to lay about him with flails and cudgels, as the peasants are threatening to do. Now I am not at all displeased to hear that the clergy are brought to such a state of fear and anxiety. Perhaps they will come to their senses and moderate their mad tyranny…I will go further.
“If I had ten bodies, and could acquire so much favor with God that he would chasten them [the clergy] by the gentle means of bodily death or insurrection, I would most gladly give all my ten bodies to death in behalf of the poor peasants.”
Luther, however, included other statements, saying things such as
“insurrection is unreasoning, and generally hurts the innocent more than the guilty. Hence no insurrection is ever right, no matter how good the cause in whose interest it is made.
“The harm resulting from it always exceeds the amount of reformation accomplished…My sympathies are and always will be with those against whom insurrection is made.”
It appeared that Luther was talking out of both sides of his mouth, and there is no doubt that those people who were eager for revolution found in Luther’s writings things that would ignite the revolutionary fire.
Preaching against indulgences is one thing, but making statements contradicting the Cross of Christ is quite another. In fact, the Jews, who had no interest in the person of Jesus Christ, not only applauded Luther but aligned with him.
Numerous Jews were elated when they heard of the Reformation, not because they wanted to embrace Christianity to its full, but because it was a chance to ally themselves with a revolutionary theological movement. For this reason, Luther’s effort to challenge the papacy was praised by many Jews.
Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, who became a Protestant, was Luther’s contemporary and friend. When Luther was in exile, Karlstadt and a number of Luther’s followers began to take action by “tearing down images of saints in churches,” but “Luther recommended moderation.”
By way of mocking monks who did not get married, Karlstadt demanded that both secular priests and monks “should marry and procreate. Karlstadt set a pace by marrying, at forty, a girl of fifteen (January 19, 1522).”
Luther approved of this marriage, but he wrote: “‘Good Heavens! Will our Wittenbergers give wives to monks?’” Luther himself “had forced [the revolutionary Thomas] Muntzer out of Saxony, for he feared the consequences of his teachings.”
Muntzer pushed the envelope even further by agitating the workers in Bohemia, close to the place where the Hussites started their revolution. An ardent supporter of the Reformation, Muntzer thought that he and his associates, Nicholas Storch and Marcus Stubner, should be the arbiters of interpretation and exegesis.
Luther dropped the bomb of sola scriptura, and Muntzer electrified it and turned it into a revolutionary act. Luther, then, began to see that sola scriptura had been challenged by Muntzer.
In 1521, these three—Muntzer, Storch, and Stubner—tried to start an insurrection, but as soon as it was demolished, they fled. Muntzer ended up being a pastor in Allstedt, while Storch and Stubner landed in Wittenberg.
But Karlstadt still had some work to do. “When the agents of the council proved dilatory in removing images, Karlstadt led his followers into the churches; pictures and crucifixes were torn from the walls, and resisting priests were pelted with stones.”
By this time, Luther realized that he was the one who had released the revolutionaries to commit violence. Luther therefore “called on the princes to suppress” it.
Durant declares, “Luther, the preachers, and the pamphleteers were not the cause of the revolt; the causes were the just grievances of the peasantry. But it could be argued that the gospel of Luther and his more radical followers ‘poured oil on the flames,’ and turned the resentment of the oppressed into utopian delusions, uncalculated violence, and passionate revenge.”
By 1522, Luther seemed to have foreseen that the battle was going to turn into bloody acts of violence, and he began to formulate a series of sermons denouncing violent acts, saying things like “the sun, the moon, the stars, have been worshipped; shall we then pluck them out of the sky?” Durant declares that Luther ‘was at his best and most Christian in those eight sermons in eight days.”
At other times, Luther would preach that the peasants should not raise up arms. He wrote in part,
“For no matter how right you are, it is not for a Christian to appeal to law, or to fight, but to suffer wrong and endure evil; there is no other way…Christians fight for themselves not with sword and gun, but with the cross and suffering, just as Christ, our leader, does not bear a sword, but hangs upon the cross.”
It seemed that this admonition was too late. Muntzer, Karlstadt, and others were already putting more oil in the flames by postulating that “farmers, miners, and cornthreshers understand the Gospel better, and can teach it better, than a whole village…of abbots and priests…or doctors of divinity.” Karlstadt even declared that they can do it “better than Luther.”
Muntzer meant it when he said that “the godless,” meaning the priests and monks, “have no right to live except in so far as they are permitted to do so by the elect.”
Not only that, Muntzer called upon the princes to march against the clergy. The princes declined. Then Muntzer called upon the people—mainly the peasants—to march against both the princes and the clergy to establish what later proved to be their own heaven on earth.
Muntzer of course was implicitly reformulating the principles of the Old Testament. For example, it was right to take the life of a witch in the Old Testament. Muntzer, in a similar fashion, argued that godless people should not suffer to live, most particularly when they are in conflict with Christians.
These radical turns were a challenge for Luther and the Reformation.
Luther expelled Muntzer from his pulpit in 1524 and even called him the “Satan of Allstedt.” Muntzer, for Luther, was a minister for the devil who was on his way to hell—he believed that heresy and acts of violence ran through Muntzer’s veins.
Muntzer in turn started calling Luther names such as Dr. Liar, Father Pyssyfoot, a carrion crow, the Wittenberg Pope, and the archdevil. Muntzer ended up wandering in various towns, “announcing the deliverance of ‘Israel,’ and the imminent Kingdom of Heaven on earth.”
Muntzer’s message was so radical in Prague in 1521 that he convinced the Bohemians that should they fail to defend God’s word they will be invaded by the Turks the following year.
Eventually he won the ears of many, and in 1525 he and Pfeiffer and their followers “drove out the monks, and appropriated all the property of the Church.”
Muntzer again lusted after more blood, telling his followers, “Forward while the fire is hot! Let your swords be ever warm with blood!”
By August 1524, Muntzer’s army was gathering momentum, and with the help of Hans Muller, 30,000 peasants refused to pay taxes. By April of the following year, Muntzer was still preaching revolution, telling his disciples things like
“show no pity…Pay no attention to the cries of the godless…Alert the villages and towns and especially the mineworkers and other good fellows who will be of use. We cannot slumber any longer…Don’t let your sword grow cold, don’t let it hang down limply! Hammer away ding-dong on the anvils of Nimrod [meaning the princes], cast their tower to the ground!
“As long as they live it is impossible for you to rid yourselves of the fear of men. One cannot say anything to you about God as long as they rule over you. Go to it, go to it, while it is day! God goes before you; follow, follow!”
References to the Old Testament with respect to dealing with the “godless” were rampant in many of Muntzer’s sermons.
Certainly things were not going well for Luther. The peasant leaders sent Luther twelve articles in which they disagreed with many of the teachings and practices of the clergy. Luther did not approve their articles, but he had been given a chance to completely dissociate himself from the revolutionaries. Instead, he wrote:
“We have no one on earth to thank for this mischievous rebellion except you, princes and lords, and especially you blind bishops and mad priests and monks, whose hearts are hardened against the Holy Gospel, though you know that it is true and that you cannot refute it.”
Finally, in an attempt to encourage peace, Luther gave this address, which the peasants failed to follow:
“Choose among the nobles certain counts and lords, and from the cities certain councilmen, and have these matters dealt with and settled in a friendly way. You lords, let down your stubbornness…and give up a little of your tyranny and oppression, so that poor people get air and room to live.
“The peasants for their part should let themselves be instructed, and give over and let go some of the Articles that grasp too far and too high.”
The peasants, believing that Luther had betrayed them, moved along with the violent revolution anyway. It was inevitable, then, that many would put some blame on Luther for the peasants’ revolt and the rebellious and violent nature of it. A large number of peasants, in turn, believed that Luther had deserted them.
By the spring of 1525, the fire was already ignited in many major places such as Heilbronn, Rothenburg, and Wurzburg. In March in Rothenburg,
“the priests were driven from the cathedral, religious images were demolished, a chapel was smashed to the ground, and clerical wine cellars were emptied with triumphant gaiety.”
The following month, under the lead of Jakob Wehe,
“3,000 peasants captured the town [of Leipheim on the Danube near Ulm] drank all discoverable wine, pillaged the church, smashed the organ, made themselves leggings from sacerdotal vestments, and paid mock homage to one of their number seated on the altar and robed as a priest.”
“in nearly every section of Germany peasant bands were running riot. Monasteries were sacked, or were compelled to pay high ransoms…On April 11 the townsfolk of Bamberg renounced the bishop’s feudal sovereignty, pillaged and burned his castle, and plundered the houses of the orthodox.
“In Alsace the revolt spread so rapidly that by April’s end every Catholic or rich landlord in the province was in terror of his life. On April 28 an army of 20,000 peasants attacked Zabern, seat of the bishop of Strasbourg, and despoiled his monastery.”
These violent acts happened in almost every major city. For example, former Episcopal secretary Michael Gasmaier incited an attack on all orthodox clergymen and even “sacked the local monastery, and remained rampant and unsubdued for a year.”
We see similar results at Freiburgim-Breisgau, where “the peasants looted castles and monasteries, and forced the city to join the ‘Evangelical Brotherhood.’ In the same month a peasant band drove the bishop of Wurzburg out of his palace, and feasted on his stores. In June the powerful and warlike Archbishop Matthias Lang was chased from his palace in Salzburg into his castle fortress overlooking the city.”
Now that the revolution had turned into a bloodbath, Luther forthrightly rejected it. He declared,
“In the former book I did not venture to judge the peasants, since they had offered to be set right and be instructed…But before I look around they, forgetting their offer, betake themselves to violence, and particular it is the work of the archdevil [Munzer] who rules at Mulhausen…
“Any man against whom sedition can be proved is outside the law of God and the Empire, so that the first who can slay him is doing right and well…
“Therefore let everyone who can smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him he will strike you, and a whole land with you.”
Here again Luther was regurgitating what he had learned from the Old Testament, not from what he had learned at the foot of the Cross and from the doctrines of Christ. Moreover, as Protestant scholar Alister McGrath himself argues, Luther and the other Reformers were pragmatists in that on many occasions they were ready to allow secular government to be involved in the movement, so long as it advanced the cause.
If that is the case, then Luther once again was largely inconsistent, for we all know that secular authorities have no say in theological disputes.
It is clear that the Reformation was much more complex and it cannot be reduced to just the motto of sola scriptura, for “a secondary hermeneutic of political character was at least on occasion instrumental in [its] propagation.”
McGrath agrees, stating that it is “evident that the question of how the early Reformed theological communities interpreted Scripture was more problematic than is sometimes appreciated.”
The peasant revolt was eventually crushed. In May 1525, Duke Henry and Philip Landgrave marched against Muntzer’s untrained and disordered peasant army and massacred thousands outside Frankenhausen.
When Henry and Landgrave’s army reached the town, they pleaded to the rebels to surrender. Muntzer told the peasants that God would deliver them in the nick of time, using the sign of a halo around the sun.
Muntzer could not have been more excited, and incited the rebels even more to stand still and meet the enemy head on.
In the end, thousands were killed, while Henry and Landgrave only lost six men. Durant says only 5,000 rebels were killed, but Carter Lindberg says over 6,000 lost their lives. Three hundred others were captured and condemned to death.
“Their women pleaded mercy for them; it was granted, on condition that the women should beat out the brains of two priests who had encouraged the revolt; it was done, while the triumphant dukes looked on.
“Muntzer hid, was captured, was tortured into confessing the error of his ways, and was beheaded before the headquarters of the princes.
“Pfeiffer and his 1,200 soldiers defended Muhlhausen; they were overcome; Pfeiffer and other leaders were put to death, but the citizens were spared on paying a total ransom of 40,000 guilders,” nearly $1 million at the time.
Other rebellions were also crushed. Truchsess led his army to Boblingen, where he tricked the peasants and burned the place to the ground, while he
“slowly roasted Jacklein Rohrbach, who had directed the ‘Massacre of Weinsberg.’”
Truchsess continued to march to other places such as Konigshofen and Ingolstadt, where he “beheaded eighty-one chosen rebels as a memento for the rest.”
One after another, each city or town that the peasants had taken by force was eventually retaken by massacring almost every one that came their way.
Twenty thousand peasants lost their lives in Alsace, while others ended up surrendering to the opposing army, many of whom were hanged or beheaded, or had their hands chopped off and their eyes gouged out.
Durant declares that “the air of the towns was fetid with the stench of the dead.” In the face of such cruel punishment, the princes eventually had to intervene in order to diminish the level of torture that was being done.
The following year, 1526, Michael Gasmaier again flared up the revolutionary spirit. He started by calling anyone who was not a protestant “godless” and claiming that they needed to be put to death. He marched into churches and tore down their pictures and shrines.
Although Gasmaier defeated many of the troops that were sent against him, in the end he had to flee to Italy.
“The Archduke Ferdinand set a price on his head, and two Spanish cutthroats earned the sum by assassinating him in his room in Padua (1528).”
Once again rebellions like these caused huge loss of life.
“Over 50,000 homeless peasants roamed the highways or hid in the woods. Widows and orphans were legion…
“The rebels had in many instances burned the charters that recorded their feudal dues; new charters were now drawn up, renewing the obligations, sometimes more leniently, sometimes more rigorously, than before…elsewhere serfdom was strengthened, and would continue, east of the Elbe, till the nineteenth century.”
Durant, a philo-Semitic historian, declares,
“The Reformation itself almost perished in the Peasants’ War. Despite Luther’s disclaimers and denunciations, the rebellion had flaunted Protestant colors and ideas: economic aspirations were dressed in phrases that Luther had sanctified.”
“My opinion is that it is better that all peasants be killed than that the princes and magistrates perish, because the rustics took the sword without divine authority.”
He moved on to say in An Open Letter Concerning the Hard Book against the Peasants that
“The rulers ought to seize these people by the cap and make them hold their tongues. If they think this answer is too hard, and that this is talking violence and only shutting men’s mouths, I reply that this is right. A rebel is not worth answering with arguments, for he does not accept them. The answer for such mouth is a fist that brings blood from the nose. The peasants would not listen…
“Their ears must be unbuttoned with bullets, till their heads jump off their shoulders. Such pupils need such a rod. He who will not hear God’s Word when it is spoken with kindness must listen to the headsman when comes with his axe…
“Of mercy I will neither hear nor know anything, but give heed to God’s will in His Word…If He will have wrath and not mercy, what have you to do with mercy? Did not Saul sin by showing mercy upon Amalek when he failed to execute God’s wrath as he had been commanded?
“You who are praising mercy so highly because the peasants are beaten, why did you not praise it when the peasants were raging, smiting, robbing, burning, and plundering, until they were terrible to men’s eyes and ears? Why were they not merciful to the princes and lords, whom they wanted to wipe out entirely?”
It is clear by now those teachings did not come from Christ but from the Old Testament. Luther cannot have it both ways—he cannot argue for sola scriptura and still be inconsistent when it comes to following Christ all the way. Protestant scholar Justo L. Gonzalez declares that Luther “urged the victorious princes to be merciful.”
If that is the case, then Luther was once again inconsistent in his writings. How can the princes be merciful when Luther himself wrote that the peasants’ ears should be unbuttoned with bullets?
Surely Luther must have been aware of this contradiction. Perhaps his theology did not allow him to see the obvious. Throughout much of his discourse on the peasants, Luther’s sola scriptura was the Old Testament, not Christ.
Because of the devastating effect of the revolt, Luther stayed in Wittenberg for many years in solitude, not even attending at his father’s deathbed. He wrote during that time,
“All is forgotten that God has done for the world through me, now lords, priests, and peasants are all against me, and threaten my death.”
Jewish revolutionaries during the Reformation period were more than happy to seize the moment. As Jewish historian Louis I. Newman declared,
“The Jews of the Reformation era took great interest in Protestant literature; Luther’s works were distributed and bought even in Jerusalem.”
Long before Luther and the Jews parted company, they previously
“looked upon the Reformation as the first indication of the advent of the Messianic age…
“One of the remarkable testimonies to the role of Jews in the spread of religious reform movements in Europe is evident in the fact that the Marranos of Amsterdam sought to disseminate Luther’s writings in Spain with a view to break the sway of the Catholicism which had brought them so much suffering.”
Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower-Activist
Stew Webb Columnist Veterans Today
Stew Webb working 24/7 for you
Donations always welcome
The match is HOT and NOW is the time to strike!
January 2014 America you have one year to take back your Government Solutions below:
Stew Webb Founder Solutions for America Get involved
Recall Your Congress and Senate
The Recall Sword Used Against Those that Violate the U.S. Constitution!
Stew Webb Youtube
JB Campbell Solutions for America Get involved
Haaretz reported today that a couple of weeks ago, New York City Councilman David G. Greenfield introduced a bill that would bar the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene from requiring informed consent for metzitzah b’peh.
Metzitzah b’peh (blood sucking) is a Jewish blood ritual where a circumciser (mohel), “sucks out blood from a baby’s penis after circumcision.”
The N.Y. health department has linked several infant deaths to Metzitzah b’peh. Needless to say that the American health authorities’ concerns are more than reasonable. However, not many people are familiar with the history of the political and medical discussion over that particular Jewish blood ritual.
In Medicine and The German Jews, John M. Ephron elaborates on the evolvement of the opposition to Jewish blood rituals in Germany.
“Jewish circumcision was the subject of a wide-ranging debate in nineteenth-century Germany.Circumcision had long been regarded as the most distinctive and separatist of all Jewish rituals, and the discourse surrounding it went to the heart of the ‘willingness’ of the Jews to fully participate in the ‘act’ of being German.
The ritual was interpreted as a signal of the Jews’ refusal to rid themselves of their differences, imprinting on their own male bodies, as an aboriginal would his tribal markings, an ineradicable expression of national identity. “
“Critics of ritual circumcision were particularly hostile to the act of metsitsah. For many Jews, primarily those who had joined the German middle class and had come to share the culture and aesthetic sensibilities of that group, metsitsah appeared to be an atavistic, sexually deviant act.
Part of the traditional circumcision ceremony, the practice of metsitsah was widely condemned throughout the nineteenth century by medical and lay authorities, Jews and Gentiles alike. Charging that the practice promoted the spread of a host of sexual and infectious diseases, the arguments made against the practice were not confined to Western Europe but made their way east as well. “
I guess that as far as the Jews are concerned, the take home message here is plain and simple. When, the ‘Goyim’ start to complain about Jewish blood rituals is when they are willing to admit to themselves that something is distinctively different and wrong with Jewish culture.
Such a transition is indeed a sign of growing resentment towards Jewish culture and politics. In America this transition takes place at a time when the wide public gathers that it is Israel and the Jewish lobby that are relentlessly pushing the west into wars.
George Soros, a liberal Zionist who funds the pro-Israeli lobby group J-Street and the rabid Zionist NGO Human Rights Watch is also funding the so-called American progressive network and many Palestinian NGOs. Mondoweiss, the leading Jewish anti-Zionist outlet banned any discussion to do with Jewish culture or more precisely, the Jewishness of the Jewish State and its Lobby (1)
I am convinced that the wide public is not really concerned with the rituals Jews perform on their new-born male babies. Yet, complaining about Jewish blood rituals should be grasped as a clear expression of growing fatigue with Jewish politics and power. People out there are saying, “Enough is enough.”
Click on link to read full report:
Stew Webb Federal Whistleblower-Activist
Stew Webb Columnist Veterans Today
The match is HOT and NOW is the time to strike!
Stew Webb Founder
Recall Your Congress and Senate
The Recall Sword Used Against Those that Violate the U.S. Constitution!
The Colorado Recalls – Can You Hear Us Now?
The final nail is in the coffin. We now learn that the NSA “routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens…
“Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.”1
Israel is allowed to keep “any files containing the identities of US persons” for up to one year.
This is just a tip of the iceberg. The Guardian continues to say that in 2009, “the New York Times reported on ‘the agency’s attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip.’”2
Israel’s aggressive and wicked activities against the U.S. have been going on for years, and the National Intelligence Estimate itself “ranked them as the third most aggressive intelligence against the U.S.”3 One official admitted, “One of NSA’s biggest threats is actually from friendly intelligence services, like Israel.”4
The Israeli regime has denied any of this. But the logic is pretty simple: the NSA virtually controls U.S. citizens through technologies such as Google, iPhone, Yahoo, etc., and the NSA reports to the Israelis. Since the NSA is acting illegally here, it “violated rules on surveillance of telephone records for almost three years and misled a secret court…”5
More recently, Google’s manager of information Heather Adkins has made it clear that “Passwords are dead.” If you think you were relying on passwords to secure some of your precious documents online, Adkins has news for you: the “game is over…our relationship with passwords are done.”6 We also learned that the NSA had access to Google documents as well.7
In a nutshell, the West is really outnumbered. In the previous article, I ended with the question, “Where are the men of the West?” A commentator responded,
“Off in their isolated world, asleep, on drugs, booze, wallowing in their own ignorance, hung up on TV watching, mainly professional sports, clinging to the delusions that so far given them a comfortable life. Watch them in the grocery checkout line. Well dressed, incommunicative, booze buyers. No sense of humour, a few items ‘the little woman’ told them to buy, aka mentally, detached whimps.”
Putin is a beacon of political light
While many of our fellow Americans are politically sleeping, Vladimir Putin once again has been giving us something that is far more rational than what the Zionist regime has been propounded for years. Putin declared,
“We [the Russian government] are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos.
“The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
“No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists.”8
Putin is right in line with rational thought here. Even neoconservative shills such as Robert Spencer declare that Putin “talked a lot of sense,” though Spencer scolds Putin on other issues. Spencer continues to document quite rightly,
“Two Europeans who were allegedly abducted and held hostage for several months in Syria claim they overheard a conversation between their captors suggesting the Syrian rebels were behind the deadly chemical attack in Damascus…”
We agree with Spencer here. What he needs to do next is to tell neoconservatives such as Kristol, Tobin, McCain, Graham, to stop pushing Obama to invade Syria. Spencer keeps propounding that Obama wants to invade Syria, but Spencer cannot not tell us that the driving force behind this movement is the neoconservative mafia.
The Washington Times itself declares, “U.S. Intelligence has yet to uncover evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad directly ordered the chemical attacks last month on civilians in a suburb of Damascus, though the consensus inside U.S. agencies and Congress is that members of Mr. Assad’s inner circle likely gave the command.”9
Bruce Riedel, a former CIA and heads of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution, admitted, “As far as I know, there’s no intelligence that links [Mr. Assad] directly to the operation, so that does raise the question of command and control.”10
It has convincingly been pointed out that the Sarin gas that was used in Syria was made in the United States.11 Gordon Duff has an excellent article on this as well. The LA Times connects the dots by reporting that “Prosecutors in southern Turkey have alleged that Syrian rebel groups were seeking to buy materials that could be used to produce highly toxic sarin gas…”
The plot thickens. The Zionist regime seems to deliver Sarin gas to the Syrian rebels; the rebels then used it, and then blamed Assad for it. Once Assad is blamed, then the same Zionist regime asks for a regime change.
We are currently seeing the same thing with the NSA. The NSA recently admitted that it wrongly placed “16,000 phone numbers on an ‘alert list’ so their incoming calls could be monitored, a mistake that a judge from the secret surveillance court called a ‘flagrant violation’ of the law.”12 This has happen “frequently and systematically.”13
Being placed on an “alert list” can mean that you are a potential terrorist, and being a potential terrorist means that you are being watched, and being watched means that the Zionist regime has their eyes on you.
If you think this is far-fetched, the New York Police Department has already “labeled entire mosques as terrorist organizations,” according to the Associated Press. It is a vicious cycle: the Zionist regime invents terrorism and kills people and destroys nations in the name of fighting terrorism! No serious politician in the West has actually challenged that bloody Zionist matrix except Putin.
People may not like Putin for various reasons, but the Zionist political power is too strong to alienate people of good will. Moreover, Putin has made enough substantive arguments against the Zionist regime, such as the following:
“It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ‘you’re either with us or against us.’
“But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
“No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect…We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.”14
Putin, who has been called all sorts of bad names, concludes, “We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”15
I personally would prefer Putin as president of the United States over Obama because Putin seems to have some political backbone and seems to understand what the Zionist power is doing to the West. Look at Greece, for example. Business Insider has recently declared that “Greece’s unemployment nightmare has gotten worse.”16
Who in his right mind would want another war in the Middle East, except enemies of the West and mankind? What country would want to send soldiers in another country to fight and die for a proxy war and does not want to send its own soldiers to fight for the same war?17
And if you do not think that the Zionist regime, most particularly the neoconservatives, has a hand in which political hermeneutic is loused up, think again. Jonathan S. Tobin of Commentary calls the Putin administration a “regime.”18
Joseph Klein of FrontPage declares that Putin is playing games with the United States and “his international monitoring proposal makes Machiavellian sense.”19
Not only that, Russia, according to Tobin, offers “a faux-diplomatic solution” that is very “fraudulent.”20
Tobin continues elsewhere, “president [Obama] displayed weakness by not going ahead and ordering an attack on his own authority against the Assad regime following its use of chemical weapons to murder a thousand people last month.”21
Pro-Israel and Jewish groups indirectly ended up saying almost the same thing by asking for a military strike against Syria.22 The Washington Post declares:
“The Simon Wiesenthal Center, a leading Jewish human rights organization, explicitly invoked the Holocaust in a letter to lawmakers Tuesday, noting that U.S. and British officials did not respond when they were alerted in 1942 that the Nazis planned to use gas to kill Jews.”23
What, then, does that say about the Simon Wiesenthal Center? It is an organization that is based on colossal hoaxes and fabrications.24
Zionism and the West
The questions that must seriously be answered by virtually any serious person are these:
How is it that Western countries in general universally fall into this double standard by pressing more sanctions on Iran and no sanctions on Israel, when the latter is an enemy of America and much of the West?25 How is it that countries like Spain are planning to make “Holocaust studies obligatory,”26 leaving the impression that the Nazi “Holocaust” is unique?
How is it that the neo-Bolsheviks/Zionists keep living in contradiction by saying that the Holocaust is unique but in the same breath invoke the same Holocaust story to invade other nations? How can Hitler be “unique” when Saddam and Assad are also Hitlers in the Zionist reading of things? How is it that even Taylor Swift “sounds a lot like Hitler,” according to one writer of the Jewish Journal?
How is it that the Zionist regime keeps violating the privacy of U.S. citizens and the majority of Western countries by snooping on them but the same regime produces a lava-like flow of media outrage when Edward Snowden snoops on them?
How is it that the neo-Bolsheviks want Snowden to be brought to justice but they do not want to stop spying on virtually the Western world? How is it that the NSA has currently harassed Matthew Green of Johns Hopkins University for criticizing “the NSA’s efforts to defeat encrypton”? How is it that they label Assad a “dictator” when Assad is telling the Zionist regime not to arm the Syrian rebels/terrorists?
How is it that Jewish groups never cease to make ridiculous excuses in order to destroy other countries like Syria?27 How is it that neo-Bolshevik cells such as the Weekly Standard and Commentary never cease to lambaste Obama as a failure for not bombing Syria?
How is it that the Zionist regime will go to war with a sovereign country such as Syria in spite of the fact that the vast majority of Americans and even those who have served in Iraq do not want a Syria invasion?28
How is it that the Zionist regime continues to support a large section of Al-Qaeda when an Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri declared that he aspired to attack America in order to “bleed America economically”?
How is it that neoconservative shills such as Thomas Sowell cannot see the illogical leaps of their own worldview? I personally do not know how a smart person like Sowell cannot detect the contradictory nature of his conclusions.
At one point, Sowell argues that Obama is weak because he does not invade Syria, but then the same Sowell declares that “The Obama administration added more to the national debt in his first term than President Bush had in both his terms put together.”
Of course! Why did William Kristol call Obama “a born-again neocon”? It is because Obama has aggressively pursued the same neoconservative policy in the Middle East, which has contributed to the national debt.
Sowell cannot see this because he has been a neoconservative protégé and certainly has received great accolades from the Jewish World Review. How can all these happen in America and much of the West without a universal outrage?
The answer is simple: Rabbinic Judaism—the religion that has become “the synagogue of Satan” at the foot of the Cross—has never died out over the centuries and its theological and political implications are still waging war against all mankind, including decent Jews, Muslims, Christians, and even atheists and skeptics.
Lord Sacks, former Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew congregations of the Commonwealth, has even called Richard Dawkins an anti-Semite for criticizing the Old Testament! Dawkins is partly rational but he is certainly not an anti-Semite. Things didn’t get better for Dawkins when he said that Jews in America are “monopolizing American foreign policy.” Dawkins continues:
“When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told – religious Jews anyway – than atheists and (yet they) more or less monopolize American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place.”
Abe Foxman calls this “classic anti-Semitism.” Why is everyone an anti-Semite for criticizing the Jewish stronghold?
It is because the theological substratum of Rabbinic Judaism dominates the Zionist regime in Israel and America, particularly among dispensational premillennialists, or Christian Zionism. (We will look at a brief history of this movement in the next article.)
Israel: the mother of harlots
In the book of Revelation, Israel is called Babylon, “The Mother of Harlots and Abomination of the earth” (Revelation 17:5). Previously, the Apostle John declared that “the kings of the earth have committed fornication” with this Babylon “and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication” (Revelation 17:2).
Babylon was a name in the Old Testament which signified an enemy of God’s people. After the resurrection of Christ, Jerusalem theologically came to be identified as Babylon in the book of Revelation. In the words of one scholar, Jerusalem has become ‘the implacable enemy of God” and joined other nations “in the attempted overthrow of the King.”29 The “King” here is of course Christ.
According to New Testament scholar G. K. Beale, Babylon clearly “refers to apostate Israel.”30 Gary DeMar likewise declares that “there is little doubt that the Babylon of Revelation is the first-century city of Jerusalem.”31
The hostility has changed shapes and forms over the ages, but it has always come back in the form of a deep-seated hatred toward the Logos and virtually anyone or any country associated with Logos. This hostility has jumped from one revolutionary movement to another, and every society that has left the Logos and embraced Jewish subversive activity has suffered deeply. Civilta Cattolica had it right in the 1890s by making these points very clear.
Click on link below to read full report:
Stew Webb US Intel Breaking News
Billy Graham – Possessed by the Memes
Billy Graham is considered to be a holy man, a man of God, is probably the best known Evangelist in the world today. He was an adviser to ten presidents, he has written 27 books, and is considered to be “world’s most influential Christian leader”. He was “the closest thing to a White House chaplain” and slept at the White House the night George HW Bush bombed Iraq. That ought to tell you something. He uplifted many but there is something very off with him, how can this “holy man” be involved with every President since WW2 who have waged dozen of wars? Maybe he didn’t get it right, maybe he was completely duped by the Zionists and became one of their tools. Billy Graham trusted God and will go down in history as a man who consoled Presidents during the mass murder of millions of innocent human beings.
The Reverend Billy Graham is a man possessed by God which actually means he is a man possessed by the memes of the Holy Bible. The Bible is a tribal war making document, God of Bible is commanding the Israelites to wage total war on their enemies, which is everyone not Jewish. Billy Graham’s Bible, The New King James version Psalm 137 (7-9) says:
7 Remember, O Lord, against the sons of Edom The day of Jerusalem, Who said, “Raze it, raze it, To its very foundation!”
8 O daughter of Babylon, who are to be destroyed, Happy the one who repays you as you have served us! 9 Happy the one who takes and dashes Your little ones against the rock!
There is a reason why Billy Graham supports mass murder and genocide against the Palestinians, he is a man of the Bible and the Bible is genocidal. Billy Graham is not good and not holy and maybe he is a monster. Shocked? Aghast? Have no fear, read on. Billy Graham is a textbook example of memetic possession and where it leads. Billy Graham is a backwoods hillbilly preacher who believes the Bible literally and thus is unable to reason properly, he is a perfect illustration of what is wrong with America. He represents the deep seated racist supremacism of Christian America and how it is used to wage war on brown skinned peoples all around the world.
Two Hambones Converge
How did Billy Graham get converted and become one of the most celebrated preachers of all time? How did the Reverend Graham become so convinced of the Bible as true words of God and become a major vector of Bible memes and spend his life infecting others? Why did all of the Presidents since World War 2 seek his comfort, have him sleep over at the White House dozens of times? What the hell is going on? Hell, hell is what is going on. Hell is the result when we believe in tribal myth and no longer think. I am going to show you in no uncertain terms that Billy Graham is the administer of hell. Read on.
Well the story goes something like this, he washes out of school and is looking for a purpose, he meets up with a traveling flimflam Evangelist Mordecai Ham and Billy is struck down by the faith and fervor of this man. Billy Graham was converted by a traveling salesman at a revival in North Carolina. Conspiracy theorists note, no Rothschilds involved, this is a classic case of memetic propagation.
What if you’re Wrong Billy?
During his college years, when Billy decides to go all in, his best friend asks “What if it’s wrong (the Bible) Billy, feeble stories written by men like you and me?” Billy Graham’s answer is classic – “How can it be wrong, it’s the word of God”. This is where Billy Graham proves he is possessed by the memes and no longer is a critical thinker. When Billy Graham graduates from being a gentile and becomes fully ‘Judaised’, his neurons are now patterned to the memes of the Bible, his mind ordered to the Bible way of thinking, which is the Jewish supremacist way of thinking. The decision point, where Billy commits his entire being, mentally and emotionally is when he decides that the Bible is written by God and thus is to be taken literal, or word for word, true. Billy Graham believes that “god” wrote the Bible, every word is exactly correct. There is a problem with that conclusion, the Bible can not be taken literal. Myth can not be taken literal because it is myth and in the case of the Holy Bible it is heavily plagiarized myth, a concoction of previous myths. A Bible literalist is committing a severe error of judgment by emotionally and intellectually committing to the words of a book. What if the book is wrong or contains errors?
Well as every scholar knows the Bible has tons of errors, some whoppers. For instance say you believe in the virgin birth of “god”. This is a very common mythological construct. How did that god come about? Oh, that god was born of a virgin. But that can be a deadly thing to believe because it can be used to denigrate sex or women. Millions of people think sex is dirty because of that meme, it causes all kinds of sexual problems and a huge need for the porn business for all those unable to pursue normal sexual relations because of guilt. By believing in the virgin birth sex is made to be bad, dirty, a thing that animals do.
What does a rational scientific person think about the Holy Spirit making Mary pregnant with god? Didn’t happen because everyone comes into this world the same way, by sex. But not Billy Graham and his troupe of Bible believers, they really believe that story, literal. Do I care? Not until this man becomes the adviser to Presidents and public policy is being set based on the mythological beliefs.
Billy Graham went all the way with his faith. This complete acceptance of belief over reason is a state of possession, when you throw the towel in an believe with all of your heart, a state of unwavering faithfulness. It is a state of consciousness where all doubt is completely erased, this is when you know that person is possessed by the memes. Not “god”, not the “devil”, but the words and phrases of the holy book. Got that? Billy Graham isn’t possessed by god or the devil, he is possessed by a set of memes in a book.
Now this state of possession is considered to be the goal of the Evangelical types. They consider it to be a good thing, lol, they can even recognize it. When they find it in one of their members, they make that person the preacher. A preacher’s charisma might be a measurement in how well they believe. If you really, really believe, with your soul beaming through your physical being then everyone will gather ’round and listen to your every word. When someone has this “gift’, it is recognized, promoted, and sought after. Why it’s just like the ‘ole times found in the Bible, when real prophets roamed the hills of Judea. Billy Graham was one of these men, Billy Graham is considered to be a modern prophet because of his perfect faith.
By reading and studying the Bible, Billy Grahams mind is being ordered to Jewish supremacist thinking, he is being voluntarily brain washed by his own choice, conditioned to think prejudically, he reads that Bible and comes to the conclusion that everyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus is going to hell. Not every Christian concludes that but he does because his mind is tipped toward judgment. Remember that. Thousands of hours of study is an investment, how can anyone who has invested a large part of their life remain skeptical and continue down the road to Evangelism if they don’t go all in? They have so much invested, not to fully believe is a tacit admission that their holy book isn’t true. Ahhh. This is where the dishonesty starts, when you know the Bible isn’t literally true (because you are studying it at the collegiate level) but you decide to believe all the way, anyway. This can make one crazy, because many of the Bible memes are contradictory.
For instance say you believe in Jehovah, the judgmental Jewish deity of the Old Testament, but you also believe God is love. The two can never meet because judgment is exactly the opposite of love. Love can not judge, this is metaphysically impossible. So these two ideas battle out in one’s mind, if you have Old Testament leanings like most Evangelists then judgmental god will rule; Jesus is pushed to the side, he’s a wimp anyways always turning the other cheek, maybe he’s a fag. Thus when push comes to shove and the bombing starts the Evangelist will side with the power structure. They think this way – we are right because we believe in the right god, god is on our side so whatever we do must be right and if we are bombing them then they must deserve it because we never do wrong. Some might even say, “why are you making me bomb you!” The victim of the aggression is always the guilty party when using Jewish supremacist logic.
As you can infer, the Palestinians are really f-cked. Billy Graham has zero sympathy for them, they are not just opposing the USA, they are going against Israel which is like going against God Almighty. To make sure it works out that way, these Christians believers, lol, send tons of money and weapons to the Jewish state, they really don’t wish to find out that their beliefs are wrong. You must understand they really enjoy Israel bombing defenseless civilians, every time some Palestinian ghetto kids get blasted to kingdom come by USA made F-16′s the hosannas and praises to the Lord God Almighty are sung in the hearts of these heartless bastards. Evangelists worship hell, they worship the military use of state power, not life or love.
Evangelicals shed no tears for dead or wounded Palestinians. Their hearts are closed because of what they believe. Maybe some day psychologists and scientists can determine how this works, how memes affect our emotions. Non-believers, like me, are horrified. I am angered by these evil people who do this, how about you?
The Great Tragedy
The greatest irony of this entire tragedy is that the Jews killing Palestinians are actually Polish born Khazars killing the “real Jews” who are the Palestinians. Texe Marrs explains (and he is about to release a new book on this subject):
Those living today who profess to be “Jews” are not of the ancient Israelites, and they are not the seed of Abraham. In fact, the new DNA research shows that the Palestinians actually have more Israelite blood than do the “Jews!”
The “Jews” of America, Europe, and Israel are descendants not of Father Abraham but of King Bulan and the people of ancient Khazaria.
Later, the “Jews” (Khazars) emigrated, settling in Russia, Hungary, Poland, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe. As “Jews,” the Khazars then left the European nations in 1948 and settled the fledgling, new nation of Israel.
Texe Marrs also points out that all of the Prime Ministers of Israel are Polish born, with the exception of Netanyahu, who had Polish parents. Polish Khazars run the modern state of Israel, they believe they are Jews and wage Biblical like war on their enemies, everyone and everything not Jewish. What right does Israel have to exist? Genome research has destroyed the genetic argument, archeology has destroyed the historicity argument (see Shlomo Sand’s “The Invention of the Jewish People“), and comparative mythology has destroyed the mythological arguments. So what right does Israel have to exist? None. None whatsoever.
But Billy Graham believes Israel is doing exactly what God wants. Israel is God’s country. So you can see why pro-Zionist Presidents love Billy Graham, they are getting moral cover for their despicable deeds. What President wouldn’t want the most faithful man by his side when committing the most foul acts, like doing false flags then bombing and destroying whole nations, cultures, leveling cities, burning people alive with white phosphorous? Lyndon Johnson sought Billy as his constant companion, when you are the devil like LBJ (the prime beneficiary and suspect in the murder of JFK) then do you not seek to have the high priest of comfort by your side? You know you are doing wrong, but you have the power, so you do it anyways and you want approval by god’s ambassador. And dear reader, Billy Graham gave these devils full emotional comfort and blessings.
Bad Billy Goat – Channeling Hell in the Name of Jesus
America has been destroyed by preachers like Billy Graham, but I don’t rank him #1, I assign that to Hal Lindsey who wrote “The Late Great Planet Earth”. Hal Lindsey was more influential in prepping Christian America for its upcoming Neocon future:
“Hal Lindsey single-handedly killed America because he delivered tens of millions of Christians into the pro-Israel, pro-Zionist, pro-Neocon fold. Satan, himself, could not have done a better job.(2) Hal Lindsey is one of the world’s greatest charismatic Evangelical crusaders, his success led to ruination of America, he converted and delivered millions of believers and molded them into a right wing Christian Zionist grass roots political movement. No man did a better job recruiting loyalists for Zionist Israel and prepping conservative Christians for the upcoming Neocon future.”
The unthinking masses love Billy Graham. Presidents love their billy goat. God-Bible-Presidents-War-Hell. They all go together. I am no believer and no preacher but I have read the New Testament, I do know what it says, the main theme of Jesus is very clear – love one another, turn the other cheek, forgive thy neighbor, etc. Nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus tell you to get the best weapons, plot to kill the other peoples, support Israel, kill, bomb, make hell, mayhem, and genocide. Is Billy Graham following the words of Jesus? Nope. Is Billy Graham a disciple of Jesus if he morally underwrites the Presidents that make war? Not a chance. So why are so many so duped? Why has Evangelical Christian America become the cheerleaders of hell? Christians love to ask WWJD? What would Jesus tell the president bombing the hell out of the Vietnamese? Exactly the opposite of what Billy Graham advises. Billy Graham is a minister of hell.
Billy Graham, the alpha male Christian preacher is channeling hell with his beliefs. He believes he’s right, he’s a crypto Jewish supremacist and has helped caused the deaths of millions. Houston, Christianity has a problem. Christians can’t be Christians so long as they keep the Old Testament attached to their religion. So long a the racist genocidal memes of the Old Testament are still being installed into Christian minds then Christianity can be turned to the dark side.
Lucky for Billy Graham there’s no hell waiting for him.
Click on link below to read full report:
Related by Stew Webb
Whistleblowers US Intel Breaking News
Now on Computers, Mobile and Tablets
Stew Webb Founder:
You did not Vote them in but you can remove them!
Now you can leak it
July 2013 Fund Raiser
Also contribute through