This post of my blog offers an historical background on the true significance of Israel as a civilizing power. In the process I hope also to supply a defense of the conservative position, the lack of which impacts severely on the perceptions and sympathies of a world controlled by manipulators of the mass media who seek to discredit both Israel and the international conservative constituency for criminal purposes.
The central version of an ancient tree alphabet, known today as the ‘Beth Luis Nion’, after the order of its first three letters, B, L, N, (ancient Irish for birch, rowan, ash) was the source of the meanings taken for the seven days of the week, which corresponded with the seven bodies of the solar system known in ancient times.
In this post it will be shown how four of those units of tree-letter-planet- meanings were selected by the sixth-century BC prophet Ezekiel to compose the definition of the God of the Logos, the Tetragrammaton (four-letter abbreviation) of whose name – JHWH – corresponds also with the three tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi – the form in which the God of the Jews was subsequently adopted by Christianity as the source of the conservative spirit through which civilization has been advanced over the past twenty centuries.
The context thus supplied for organized religion will demonstrate the organic correspondence that once existed between the human being and the world of nature; the intention being to illuminate the character and motivation that produced the alphabet and the calendar through a close concern with the meanings of trees, plants, jewels, planets, birds, and animals in terms of the changing seasons of the year, thus to encourage a restoration of the perspective gained through proper appreciation of the environment and of human nature.
The authority for the essential information entailed in this topic is Robert Graves, one of the most gifted literary researchers of all time, in whose historical grammar of poetic myth, The White Goddess, the complete version of the argument briefly stated here may be found.
It is not possible to equal the standards of style and usage in Robert Graves’s principal works by means of paraphrase, let alone improve on it. Therefore I shall not attempt a paraphrase, but shall instead select only the passages of his text that are absolutely essential to supplying the complete argument – and state them in his own words.
In his introduction to his Penguin Greek Myths (page 12), Robert Graves supplies the following guidelines to the interpretation of ancient Greek and Latin literature:
‘True myth must be distinguished from:
1. Philosophical allegory, as in Hesiod’s cosmogony.
2. ‘Aetiological’ explanation of myths no longer understood, as in Admetus’s yoking of the lion and the boar to his chariot.
3. Satire or parody, as in Silenus’s account of Atlantis.
4. Sentimental fable, as in the story of Narcissus and Echo.
5. Embroidered history, as in Arion’s adventure with the dolphin.
6. Minstrel romance, as in the story of Caphalus and Phocris.
7. Political propaganda, as in Theseus’s federation of Attica.
8. Moral legend, as in the story of Eryphyle’s necklace.
9. Humorous anecdote, as in the bedroom farce of Heracles, Omphale, and Pan.
10. Theatrical melodrama, as in the story of Thestor and his daughters.
11. Heroic saga, as in the main argument of the Iliad.
12. Realistic fiction, as in Odysseus’s visit to the Phaecians.
The following section is from The White Goddess.
‘In the Ma-aseh Merkabah (the Work of the Chariot), the prophet Ezekiel defined the God of the Jews according to a vision of an enthroned Man surrounded by a rainbow, its seven colours corresponding with the seven heavenly bodies that ruled the week. Four of these bodies were symbolized by the four spokes of the chariot-wheels: Ninib (Saturn) by the mid-winter spoke, Marduk (Jupiter) by the spring equinox spoke, Nergal (Mars) by the mid-summer spoke, Nabu (Mercury) by the autumn equinox spoke. But what of the three other heavenly bodies – the Sun, the Moon, and the planet Ishtar (Venus) corresponding with the Capitoline Trinity and with the trinity worshipped at Elephantine and Hierapolis? It will be recalled that the metaphysical explanation of this type of Trinity, brought to Rome by the Orphics, was that Juno was physical nature (Ishtar, [Venus]), Jupiter was the impregnating or animating principle (the Sun), and Minerva was the directing wisdom behind the Universe (the Moon). This concept did not appeal to Ezekiel, because it limited Jehovah’s function to blind paternity; so though the Sun figures in his vision as the eagle’s wings, neither the Moon nor Venus is present.
‘The religious concept of free choice between good and evil, which is common to Pythagorean philosophy and prophetic Judaism, developed from a manipulation of the tree alphabet. In the primitive cult of the Universal Goddess, to which the tree alphabet is the guide, there was no room for choice: her devotees accepted the events, pleasurable and painful alike, which she imposed on them as their destiny in the natural order of things. The change resulted from the Goddess’s displacement by the universal God, and is historically related to the forcible removal of the consonants H and F from the Greek alphabet and their incorporation into the secret eight-letter name of this God: it seems clear that the Pythagorean mystics who instigated the change had adopted the Jewish creation myth, and regarded these two letters as peculiarly holy since uncontaminated with the errors of the material universe. For, though in the old mythology H and F had figured as the months sacred respectively to the harsh hawthorn-goddess Cranea and her doomed partner Cronos, in the new they represented the first and last trees of the Sacred Grove, the first and last days of Creation. On the first day nothing had been created except disembodied Light, and on the last day nothing at all had been created. Thus the three consonants of the Logos, or ‘eightfold city of light’, were J, the letter of new life and sovereignty; H, the letter of the first day of Creation, ‘Let there be Light’, and F, the letter of the last day of Creation, ‘Let there be Rest’, which appears as W in the JHWH Tetragrammaton.
In the primitive matriarchal cult the month-letter H represented Carnea the harsh hawthorn-goddess of chastity, the original source and feared enforcer of sexual abstinence in human affairs whose hostility to children had to be constantly propitiated – the august and terrible human personification of the Supreme whose title in her earliest capacity as Creatrix was ‘the Light whose Name is Splendour’. This was the White Goddess, worshipped as the Hinge on which the Door of the Year swung, and whose gift as Adrasteia the Inescapable was ‘to open that which is closed and to close that which is open’. In the Genesis Creation narrative the letter H, ‘the Spirit that Brooded on the Face of the Waters’ was subsumed into the Spirit of Wisdom, Sophia, to form the reduplicated H.
‘The Peace that Passeth Understanding’ was derived when ‘Peace’, the Second Person of the Godhead, of which God said ‘Let there be Rest’, was linked with ‘Light’ of the Third Person and ‘Life’ of the First Person – resulting subsequently in the Christian Trinity of ‘the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost’.
‘The sense of this mystery is conveyed in the blessing of Aaron (Numbers VI, 22-27):
The Lord bless you and keep you. (life; J).
The Lord make His face to shine (light; first H) upon you and be gracious unto you,
The Lord lift up the light (reduplicated H) of His countenance upon you, And give you peace (W).
‘It is remarkable that these are the month-letters allotted to the three tribes of the Southern Kingdom, Judah, Benjamin, and Levi; and that the three jewels respectively assigned to them in the jewel-sequence – amber, fire-garnet (the ‘terrible crystal’) and sapphire – are the three connected with the radiance of God, and with His throne. The enthroned man is not God, as might be supposed: God lets nobody see His face and live. It is God’s likeness reflected in spiritual man. Thus, though Ezekiel retains the traditional imagery of the unchanging Sun-God who rules from an apex of a cone of light over the four regions of the round Universe – the eagle poised above the four beasts – and of the ever-changing bull-calf, Celestial Hercules, he has withdrawn Jehovah from the old Trinity of Q’re (Sun), Ashima (Moon), and Anatha (Venus) and redefined Him as the God who demands national perfection, whose similitude is a holy Being, half Judah, half Benjamin, seated on Levi’s throne. This explains Israel as a ‘peculiar people’ – the Deuteronomy text is of about the same date as Ezekiel’s vision – dedicated to a peculiarly holy god with a new name, derived from a new poetic formula which spells out Life, Light, and Peace.
‘I am suggesting, in fact, that the religious revolution which brought about the alphabetic changes in Greece and Britain was a Jewish one, initiated by Ezekiel (622-570 BC), which was taken up by the Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt and borrowed from them by the Pythagoreans. Pythagoras, who first came to prominence at Crotona in 529 BC, is credited by his biographers with having studied among the Jews as well as the Egyptians, and may have been the Greek who first internationalized the eight-letter Name. The Name must have come to Britain by way of southern Gaul where the Pythagoreans were established early.
‘The result of envisaging this god of pure meditation, the Universal Mind still premised by the most reputable modern philosophers, and enthroning Him above Nature as essential Truth and Goodness, was not an altogether happy one. Many of the Pythagoreans suffered, like the Jews, from a constant sense of guilt, and the ancient poetic Theme asserted itself perversely. The new God claimed to be dominant as Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and End, pure holiness, pure good, pure logic, able to exist without the aid of woman; but it was natural to identify Him with one of the original rivals of the Theme and to ally the woman and the other rival permanently against Him. The outcome was philosophical dualism and the tragic-comic woes attendant on spiritual dichotomy. If the true God, the God of the Logos, was pure thought, pure good, whence came evil and error? Two separate Creations had to be assumed: the true Spiritual Creation and the false material creation. In terms of the poetic formula, Sun and Saturn were now jointly opposed to Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, and those bodies in opposition made a strong partnership, with a woman at the beginning and a woman at the end. Jupiter and the Moon Goddess paired together as the lustful Flesh, and between the pairs stood Mercury, who was the Devil, the Cosmocrator or author of the false creation. It was these five who composed the Pythagorean hyle, or grove, of the five material senses, and spiritually-minded men, coming to regard them as sources of error, tried to rise superior to them by pure meditation. The policy was carried to extreme length by the God-fearing Essenes, who formed their monkish communities within compounds topped with acacia hedges, from which all women were excluded; lived ascetically, cultivated a morbid disgust for their own bodily functions, and turned their eyes away from World, Flesh, and Devil. Though they retained the bull-calf myth, handed down from Solomon’s days, as emblematic of the spiritual life of mortal man, and linked it to the seven-letter name of immortal God, it is clear that initiates of the highest Order cultivated the eight-letter name, or the enlarged name of seventy-two letters, and devoted themselves wholly to the meditative life: ruled by acacia and pomegranate, Sunday and Saturday, Illumination and Repose.
‘War had now been declared in Heaven, Michael and the archangels fighting against the Devil. Since in the new dispensation God could not afford to surrender the whole working week to the Devil, He appointed archangels as his deputies, with a day for each, which were the archangels cultivated by the Essenes. Michael was given charge of Wednesday; so it fell to him not only to collect the dust for the true creation of Adam but to offer battle to the Devil who disputed that day with him. The Devil was Nabu (Mercury), pictured as a winged Goat of Midsummer, so that the answer to John Donne’s poetic question, “Who clove the Devil’s foot?”, is: ‘The prophet Ezekiel’. Michael’s victory must be read as a prophecy rather than a record: a prophecy which Jesus tried to implement by preaching perfect obedience to God and continuous resistance to the World, Flesh, and Devil. He reproached the Samaritan woman at Sychar, in a riddling talk which she may or may not have understood, for having had five husbands, the five material senses, and for having as present husband one who is not really her husband, namely the Cosmocrator, or Devil. He told her that salvation came, not from the calf-god whom her fathers had idolatrously worshipped on near-by Gerizim, but from the all-holy God of the Jews – that is to say, the God of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. His faith was that if the whole nation repented of their erroneous devotion to the material universe, and refrained from all sexual and quasi-sexual acts, they would conquer death and live for a thousand years, at the end of which they would become one with the true God.
‘The Jews were not yet ready to take this step, though many of them approved of it in theory, and a conservative minority, the Ophites, continued to reject the new faith, holding that the true God was the God of Wednesday, whom they pictured as a benign Serpent, not a goat, and that the God of the Logos was an impostor. Their case rested on the Menorah, a pre-Exilic instrument of worship, the seven branches of which issued from an almond stem, typifying Wednesday; and indeed the revised view recorded in the Talmud, that the stem represented the Sabbath, made neither poetic nor historical sense. This serpent had originally been Ophion, with whom, according to the Orphic Creation myth, the White Goddess had coupled in the form of a serpent, and Mercury the Cosmocrator therefore used a wand of coupling serpents as his badge of office. It is now clear why Ezekiel disguised two of the four planetary beasts of his vision: recording eagle instead of eagle-winged goat and man instead of man-faced serpent. He was intent on keeping the Cosmocrator out of the picture, whether he came as Goat or Serpent. It may well have been Ezekiel who appended the iconotropic anecdote of the Serpent’s seduction of Adam and Eve to the Genesis Creation myth, which, once it was accepted as canonical in the fourth century BC, relegated the Ophite view to the status of a heresy.
‘The pre-Christian Jewish apocalyptics, probably influenced by religious theory brought from India, along with the ethrog, by Jewish merchants, expected the birth of a Divine Child: the Child, prophesied by the Sibyl, who would free the world from sin. This implied that Michael and the archangels to whom the new idealistic God had delegated the immediate care of mankind had proved no match for the World, Flesh, and Devil – the grosser powers which He had repudiated. The only solution was for the Prince of Peace, namely the Second Person, the Son of Man, who had hitherto had no independent existence (this was denounced as the Beryllian heresy at Bosnia in AD 244) to become incarnate as perfect man – the human Messiah born of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi. By exposing the vanity of the material Creation he would bring all Israel to repentance and thus initiate the deathless millenniary Kingdom of God on Earth, to which the Gentile nations would ultimately be admitted. This was the faith of Jesus, who was of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi, and had been ritually rebegotten by God at his Coronation: he expected the actual historical appearance of the Son of Man on the Mount of Olives to follow his own prophesied death by the sword, and assured his disciples that many then living would never die but enter directly into the Kingdom of God. The prophecy was not fulfilled because it was founded upon a confusion of poetic myth with historical event, and everybody’s hopes of the millennium were dashed.
‘The Grecians (early Greek converts to the Nazarene Gospel) then claimed that those hopes had not after all been premature, that Jesus had indeed been the Second Person of the Trinity, and that the Kingdom of God was at hand, the dreadful signs of which would portend its coming, the so-called Pangs of the Messiah [the severe oppression of the semi-barbarous Roman invaders], being apparent to everyone. But when the Gentile Church had wholly separated itself from the Judaistic Church and Jesus as King of Israel was an embarrassing concept to Christians who wished to escape all suspicion of being Jewish nationalists, it was decided that he had been born as the Second Person not at his Coronation but at his physical birth; though spiritually begotten ‘before all the world’ (before the Creation). This made Mary the Mother of Jesus into the immaculate receptacle of the Life and Brightness of God, the Third Person of the Trinity; so that it had to be presumed that she was herself immaculately conceived by her mother St. Ann. Here was a fine breeding-ground for all sorts of heresy, and soon we return in our argument to the point where the Theme reasserted itself popularly with the Virgin as the White Goddess, Jesus as the Waxing Sun, and the Devil as the Waning Sun. There was no room here for the Father God, except as a mystical adjunct of Jesus (‘I and the Father are One’).
—–
This post of my blog was introduced with a stated intention to offer not only a defence of Israel as a civilizing power, but also a defence of the conservative political position. That defence derives from religious events during the aftermath of the pastoral invasions, as referred to in the section above – the period in which humankind was subjected to the greatest crisis in gender relations of recorded history, a crisis whose lengthy resolution began with the definition of the God of the Logos, a concept of the Godhead very far removed from the savage pastoral deity El, whose tradition was perpetuated in the golden bull-calves that greeted Moses as he returned from the mountain with the Ten Commandments.
It was shown above that the reduplicated H of the Tetragrammaton JHWH comprised a matriarchal deity worshipped since time immemorial, in the Semitic areas and elsewhere. The principal implication with respect to the incorporation of the letter H in the Holy Unspeakable name of God is that it had evidently proved impossible to establish the concept of a God characterized by pure thought, pure good, without deference to the ancient goddess of the hawthorn, the spirit of chastity, who had insisted on unconditional continued observance of prerogatives demanding absolute sexual abstinence during the month of May, and observance of all the proprieties associated with it. The wild, uncultured pastoralists could have their way while they absroved and marauded ancient settlements; but eventually they were civilized by their victims: they had to submit to custom and ceremony, becoming domesticated to the point of having to seek recourse in well-organized wars of conquest abroad, and in the great works of engineering and statecraft that formed the basis for the development of civilization.
The religionist’s willingness to subject himself or herself to severe self-discipline is rooted in a very ancient instinct for survival which is not exemplified by the fates of less exacting individuals – an instinct that pits itself against the most powerful of all urges, namely that for biological procreation, and emerges from the contest stronger and wiser than do those who succumb to unthinking addiction to the temptations of carnality. Conservatism was not invented by the allegedly haughty Pharisees during the life of Jesus. Nor was it invented by any other morally intelligent group, such as the Victorians, who according to popular notions allegedly began to hypocritically view themselves as beyond the call of nature. Conservatism is as old as life itself; and its strictures continue today to constitute the mainstay of human nobility.
Adherents of the major conservative constituencies of the present day, such as American Republicanism and German and Austrian nationalism, continue to observe the prerogatives of the ancient spirit of chastity, which had immemorially interpenetrated the aristocratic principle with the translucency of royal thought: ‘The Light whose Name is Splendour.’ It would scarcely be feasible to ascribe the office of the Hinge upon which the Door of the Year Swings to liberalism – since it would be ironic to ascribe to it the power to ‘close that which is open, and to open that which is closed’: liberalism, by definition, keeps open that which is open, and keeps closed that which is closed, thus offering its devotees the path of least resistance – and declining the opportunity to quicken the spirits of others.
Although both the Calvinist and Lutheran constituencies have been subjected to misrepresentations of the human condition, through an erroneous identification in ancient Hebrew scriptural narratives of barbarous conquests and pillage with religious imperatives – by means of the effects of Protestantism – both remain rooted in the spirit of individual discipline and responsibility, constituting the backbone of the international community at a time in which powerful criminal elements seek to corrupt the entire global public through the effects of societal decay driven under the banner of liberalism. Moreover, Protestantism has never been responsible for half as much societal inefficiency as that caused by the Jesuit Order of Catholicism, which has, in the final analysis, violently antagonized the essential spirit of Christianity, and has delivered it into the hands of its enemies. The Jesuit Order has provided the new covert criminal elite with both its imperialist leanings and its totalitarian propensities.
———–
The argument with regard to Israel and its enemies, in terms of the matters of life after death, the Grace of God, and observance of the Moral Law, is best developed on the basis of the premise that Jesus’s mission was not concerned with the conversion of apocalyptic extremists to a visionary and blood-thirsty creed, but was concerned with making the statutory rounds of his dominions as King of Israel, in response to the requirements of three thousand years of Hebrew custom. Jesus was a pacific sage tutored in the Pharisaic Law, who sought to bring about the Kingdom of God, not a military ruler resolved on conquest through the sword.
Nevertheless, the probability that a spiritual Priest-King such as Jesus would ever rule in first-century Galilee was no greater than that attaching to the aspirations of a present-day sympathiser with the position of, say, Saddam Hussein, to rule in the Iraq occupied by American administrators. It would simply not be permitted, since it would imperil the shaky balance of power by means of which a frail peace is kept. In the case of Jesus it would have threatened the positions of the Sadducaic Herodian collaborators who betrayed their own brothers and sons for profit and favour from the semi-barbarous Roman invaders.
According to the most advanced modern scholarship on the topic, Jesus was not crucified by ‘the Jews’, but by the man whose subject he was under Roman rule only, Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Galilee – who also murdered John the Baptist, and was a traitor to his people and to the Pharisees in particular.
St. Paul’s abrogation of the Law in favour of a fanatical cult of anti-reason was never any part of Jesus’ intention, but the absolute betrayal of everything that he had stood for.
The Law of Moses had become a magnificent beacon of light in a dark and savage world during the three generations before the birth of Jesus, when Hillel, the wisest of the presidents of the Great Sanhedrin, had perfected its liberation through a judicious concern with the prerogatives of all members of the human family, not merely for those of the father-son relationship.
In The Nazarene Gospel Restored, one of the most important and authoritative books of the twentieth century, Robert Graves and Dr. Joshua Podro, the renowned Hebrew scholar, made an exhaustive analysis of the Christian Gospels, the implications of which have proved to be so profound that they may be disregarded only on the basis of blind pragmatism. This analysis is summarized in the introduction to The Nazarene Gospel Restored:
(a) A number of processes are distinguishable by which the original Nazarene tradition became so sadly distorted. Some of these reflect editorial carelessness, some, doctrinal piety or perversity, others, polemical shrewdness. At times these categories overlap. Editorial carelessness covers such cases as the following:
(1) Miscopying; with accidental omissions or duplications.
(2) Misunderstanding of the Aramaic original.
(3) Infiltration of marginal glosses into the text.
(4) Misreading of the Nazarene subject-arrangement for a chronological one.
(5) Choice of inappropriate contexts for sayings which bore no indication of context.
(6) Running together of sayings into a single confused argument.
(7) Inclusion of anecdotes based on a misinterpretation of sacred pictures.
(8) Ill-considered stylistic improvements.
(9) Clumsy attempts to correct obvious absurdities or contradictions.
(10) Mistaking for figurative or ironical sayings for straightforward ones – and vice versa.
(b) Doctrinal piety or perversity covers such cases as the following:
(1) Identification of Jesus with the Second Person of the Gnostic Trinity: a process which involved the substitution of ‘I’ for ‘God’ in many of his sayings, and the omission of his prayers to God whenever he performed works of healing.
(2) Conversion of his symbolic acts into miracles; and attempts to make him rival or surpass the recorded feats of Moses, Elijah, Elisha, and Apollonius of Tayana.
(3) Disguise of the motives which guided him through Passion Week.
(4) Removal of references to his humanity.
(5) Invention of miracles wherever he might have been expected to perform them.
(6) Borrowings from the Pauline Epistles, or from Church liturgy, in order to identify his message with Paulinism.
(7) Inventions of sayings and incidents which would authorize second-century Church practice.
(8) Attempts to prove that he preferred the poor, sick, and outcast to the rich, healthy, and established.
(9) Disguise of his asceticism, but particularly his insistence on complete sexual chastity.
(c) Polemical shrewdness covers cases such as the following:
(1) Attempts to dissociate Jesus from Judaism by omitting nearly all his quotations from the Law and the prophets.
(2) Suppression or manipulation of any act or saying likely to offend the Roman authorities.
(3) Attempts to prove that he deliberately flouted the Mosaic Law.
(4) Attempts to prove that he rejected the Law as an impossible burden.
(5) Attempts to fasten the blame for his death on the Jews.
(6) Attempts to prove that he debarred the Jews from the Kingdom of God in favour of the Gentiles.
(7) Pro-Samaritan, pro-Grecian, or pro-Phoenician tamperings with the text.
(8) Deliberate misdirection against the Pharisees of denunciations originally intended for the Herodians and Sadducees.
(9) Misdirections against the Pharisees of denunciations intended for the ‘feigned Pharisees’.
‘These lists are by no means comprehensive.’
Graves and Podro reconstructed the events that led to the Crucifixion of Jesus. The passage quoted here begins on page 697.
‘BEFORE CAIAPHAS
(a) ‘The High Priest Joseph, nicknamed Caiaphas (‘the Prophet’) even before the incident recorded in John XI. 49-52, had been nominated by the Romans and collaborated with them throughout his term of office from 18-36 AD. He was married to the daughter of his predecessor Annas (Hannaniah) – five, and perhaps six, of whose sons were also destined to wear the High Priestly Frontlet, and who had originally been appointed by Quirinius, the Governor of Syria, to help him enforce the poll-tax (Luke II. 2). Annas’s family, the ‘Grecian House of Boethus, were much hated by the populace but remained in power until shortly before the siege of Jerusalem, when the Zealots burned down their palace on the Mount of Olives.
(b) Matthew’s account of the proceedings at this palace differs considerably from Mark’s version, which, like Luke’s, does not mention Caiaphas by name. According to Matthew XXXVI. 59, the Great Sanhedrin attempted to secure false evidence, but could at first find none sufficiently false for its purpose. According to Mark XIV 55-59, it attempted to secure evidence, but could find none sufficiently conclusive. According to Matthew XXVI. 50, two men came forward at last and testified: ‘This fellow declared: “I can destroy the Temple of God and build it up in three days’” – whereupon Caiaphas began to interrogate Jesus. According to Mark XIV. 57-58, the witness declared: ‘We heard him say: “I will destroy this temple made by hands, and in three days I will build another temple, not made by hands’”, but this evidence was disqualified. Both Matthew and Mark suggest that the Sanhedrin sat all night and, at daybreak, unanimously condemned Jesus to death for blasphemy, spat on him, buffeted him and then handed him over to Pilate. According to Luke XXII. 66, the session was held early in the morning, after the High Priest’s servants had spat on Jesus and buffeted him; and other members of the court, not Caiaphas alone, interrogated him. ‘They said to him: “If thou art the Christ, tell us” (Luke 22. 67). John does not mention any session of the Sanhedrin, but according to John XVIII. 13, Jesus was brought before Annas, who questioned him briefly and then sent him to Caiaphas (John XVIII. 24). The proceedings before Caiaphas are, however, omitted; all that remains is: ‘they led Jesus from Caiaphas into the Praetorium (John XVIII. 28).
In none of the four Gospels does any witness mention Jesus’s regal entry into Jerusalem, his brush with the money changers, or Peter’s attack on Malchus.
The principal charge is always blasphemy. The four Gospel accounts of Pilate’s examination of Jesus are even less credible and more contradictory, since they incorporate much of the proceedings at the palace, but with the speaking parts redistributed.
(c) The Great Sanhedrin, consisting of seventy-one members, was predominantly Pharisaic, and though, according to Mark XIV. 54, Jesus came before it in ‘the place of the High Priest’, its regular venue was the Beth Din, ‘the House of Hewn Stone’ a part of the Temple (Sanhedrin XI. 2). In theory, this court was competent to try every crime committed against God or man – blasphemy, idolatry, perjury, theft, adultery, murder, and the like; but ever since the accession of Herod the Great, to whom the Pharisee judges refused their allegiance, it has been forbidden to try political cases. That Jesus’s case was a political rather than a religious one is proved by the charges subsequently brought against him when he appeared before Pilate (Luke XXIII. 2-5): ‘We have found this fellow perverting our nation, forbidding tribute to be paid to Caesar and saying that he is the Anointed King. He stirs up the people by teaching throughout Judaea; he began in Galilee and now he is here.’
(d) Moreover, though the Great Sanhedrin sat almost continuously, no sessions might take place on Sabbaths, Feasts, or on the day preceding these. Augustus himself issued an edict that no Jew should be compelled to stand trial in a Roman court on the Sabbath, or on a day of preparation for a Sabbath after the ninth hour (Antiquities XVI. 6. 2). Neither might the Great Sanhedrin’s members be convened on such days even in an emergency, nor did they ever meet at night. But Jesus was tried on the night before the Passover which, that year, fell on a Sabbath. Thus he could not have come before the Great Sanhedrin, or any lower court responsible to it and governed by the same rules – there were several such Lower Sanhedrins in Israel, of twenty-three members each (Tosephta Hagiga II. 9) – nor could he have come before a court consisting of the Great Sanhedrin’s Sadducaic minority, since such a court could be called only to try cases wholly concerned with the priesthood, and Jesus’s priestly claims were not recognized at the Palace. He was arrested as a Galilean, not as a Judaean of Ramathaim-Zophim. Moreover, according to Josephus (Antiquities XVIII. 1. 4), even these Sadducaic judges were obliged to follow Pharisaic procedure:
‘They [the Sadducees] are able to do almost nothing of themselves, for when they become magistrates, unwillingly and by force sometimes, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, for the multitude would not otherwise listen to them.’
(e) The following judicial rules governing the Great Sanhedrin and its subsidiary courts are pertinent to Jesus’s trial.
Non-capital cases might be begun, after the reading of the indictment, by either the defence or the prosecution; capital cases must be begun by the defence. A verdict of acquittal might be carried by a majority of at least two. A verdict might be reversed from conviction to acquittal, but not from acquittal to conviction. Anyone arguing in favour of conviction might change his mind and argue for acquittal, but not contrariwise. All trials must be held in daytime, and the verdict must be delivered while it is still light; a verdict of acquittal might be reached on the first day of the trial, but, to allow due time for deliberation and for the production of fresh evidence by the defence, a verdict of conviction must always be delivered on the following day – it was for this reason that trials could be not be held on the Sabbath or on the day before the Sabbath or on a Feast. (This regulation changed Jewish history. When Herod the Great as a young man was tried for murder by the Great Sanhedrin and attempted to awe them by his royal purple, it is clear even from Josephus’s garbled account (Antiquities XIV. 9. 4-5) that Shemiah the President adjourned the trial not from cowardice, but because he held that Herod deserved the death penalty, and Herod was thus able to make his escape).
(f) Witnesses were warned, before interrogation, of the dire consequences if their testimonies should prove to be mere hearsay or gossip. In capital cases they were addressed as follows (Sanhedrin IV. 1-5):
‘Perhaps you know not that we shall test you by examination and enquiry? Understand that capital cases differ from non-capital cases. In non-capital cases you may atone by a payment of money, but in capital cases the witness is responsible for the blood of a man wrongfully condemned and for the blood of the posterity that should have been born to him to the end of the world…
‘One man (Adam) was created first to teach that, if any man causes a single soul to perish, the Law will treat him as if he caused an entire world to perish, and if any man saves the life of a single soul, the Law will treat him as though he had saved the life of an entire world.’
The witness must then confirm that the accused had been forewarned as to the criminality and consequences of his alleged actions.
Several of these judicial rules were disregarded in Caiaphas’s examination of Jesus.
(g) Because of John XVIII. 31, it has been much debated whether in Jesus’s time the Great Sanhedrin, or its subsidiaries, were empowered to condemn an accused man to death. It is true that a baraita in the Jerusalem Talmud (Sanhedrin 41 a) states that forty years before the destruction of the Temple the right to exercise capital punishment was taken away by the Romans; but if this baraita, which has no parallel in the Babylonian Talmud, is indeed historical, it must refer to a range of quasi-political offences which the Romans now claimed the sole right to judge. The Romans did not, however, interfere with the administration of Jewish religious laws, and ‘forty years before the destruction’ – namely 30 AD – may refer to an edict published after the Crucifixion.
(h) At the outset of the Herodian regime, a compromise had been reached which was maintained under the Roman protectorate: the Great Sanhedrin would try religious cases – offences committed against God or one’s neighbour – and leave disputes between the king and his subjects to be tried by special courts. Herod, for instance, could not ask the Great Sanhedrin to try Hyrcanus the Hasmonean on a charge of lease-majesty, or his sister-in-law on a charge of alienating her husband’s loyalty, because these were not considered crimes in Jewish Law; he had to try them before a court of their own choosing. Similarly, Pontius Pilate used special Courts of Enquiry, consisting of collaborationist Chief Rulers, to investigate the political disorders or disputes not provided for by the Mosaic Law, and to recommend, though not award, a fitting punishment. The chief rulers, headed by the High Priest, stood in such awe of a Roman ban on Temple worship – even the High Priestly regalia were kept in military custody – that these courts could be counted upon to do Pilate’s work most efficiently; indeed, the Chief Rulers seem to have arrested Jesus on their own initiative. But, except by courtesy of the Procurator, these special courts had no standing, and when in about the year 62 AD the High Priest Annas convened one in the temporary absence of the Procurator and sentenced James the Just to be stoned as a political offender, King Agrippa II at once deposed him for his presumption (Antiquities XX. 9. 1).
(i) In the normal course of events, Jesus would have been tried by the Great Sanhedrin after the Passover, on a charge of interfering with the Temple administration, the maximum penalty being thirty-nine stripes; he would doubtless have recognized the authority of the court, quoted Isaiah XXVIII and LVI. 7 (in which the significance of the plaited scourge which he used in the Temple are stated, and been released with a caution. But the Chief Priest’s special court was not one that he could recognize as competent to judge him, though it was larger and more formal than the skeleton court which examined Peter. It will have consisted of fifteen members: the High Priest, the Deputy High Priest (segan), a permanent official; the two Treasurers, called ‘Catholics’ [Jer. Shelakin V. 2]; the seven ‘Wardens of the Gates’; the Captain of the Temple, and three Chief Rulers whose monopolies entitled them to a part in the Temple administration – among them Bunni (‘Nicodemus’) son of Gorion. The court official’s name was the ‘Council of Priestly Elders’ (zikne kehunah).
(j) According to Mark XIV. 60-61 and Matthew XXVI. 62-63, Jesus refused to answer his interrogators, and paid no attention to the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution. He knew that this council did not abide by the judicial rules of the Pharisees, nor were its members individually qualified to judge capital cases. Every member of the Great Sanhedrin had to be perfect in both the oral and written Law, and was generally promoted to a seat only after service in a lower Sanhedrin of twenty-three.
(k) [Graves and Podro state certain priestly customs with regard to the washing of hands, and conclude]:
(l) It seems, then, that Jesus was arrested on the Mount of Olives, taken to the near-by Palace of the Boethians, and briefly cross-examined by Annas, who, though he had ceased to be High Priest fifteen years previously, remained the power behind the scenes (Acts IV. 6). There he was confined for the rest of the night, and at dawn brought before a specially convened Council of Priestly Elders, presided over by Caiaphas; and that, after a violent disagreement in court, where Bunni (‘Nicodemus’) tried to secure an acquittal, Caiaphas on his own responsibility handed Jesus over to Pilate. It must be said in Caiaphas’s favour that, while acting as the trusted agent of the invader, he regarded himself as serving his country’s best interests; further, it is clear from John XI. 49: ‘Ye know nothing at all, nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people’, that Pilate had already heard of Jesus’s activities from the Captain of the Temple and privately threatened to take stern measure if Caiaphas did not surrender him at once to Roman justice.
(m) According to Mark XIV. 62 and Matthew XXVI. 64, Jesus uttered no blasphemy. Blasphemy consisted in taking the name of God in vain (Exodus XX. 7 and Leviticus XXIV. 10-16), but the Pharisees held that it was not punishable by Law unless God had been cursed in His own name (Sanhedrin VII. 5), which implied the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton: ‘The blasphemer is not guilty unless he pronounces the Name itself.’ Jesus had used the phrase ‘the right hand of Power’, and thus did not blaspheme even if he could be accused of wrongful invocation, for which God himself would strike him dead if it were necessary to do so. The High Priest came far closer to blasphemy when he said: I adjure thee by the Living God!’ uttered in a non-judicial capacity. Moreover, until the Passover had ended, not even the Great Sanhedrin could have tried a blasphemy charge, and the Council of Priestly Elders were not competent to take so much as a summary evidence in such a case. The correct procedure for blasphemy trials is laid down in the Mishna (Sanhedrin VII. 5): ‘When sentence was to be pronounced, they cleared the court and told the first witness: “repeat precisely what you heard.” He repeated; and (if it was adjudged blasphemy) the judges rose to their feet and rent their garments…and the second witness testified: “I also heard the like”, and the third likewise’.
(n) ‘Blasphemy’ therefore should read ‘treason’, namely rebellion against Rome. This agrees with Luke XXII. 70, where the charge of blasphemy is not mentioned, but where the Court satisfy themselves that Jesus has claimed to be ‘Son of God’, that is to say, King; and with John XI. 48, where the charge is one of endangering the national security. Yet the utterance of treason against Rome could not have induced Caiaphas to rend his clothes. If anyone present did so, it will have been Bunni: in anticipatory mourning for Jesus, whose life he found himself unable to save. Clothes were rent on three occasions only: on hearing the Unspeakable Name blasphemed, at news of death or misfortune befallen a relative or close friend (Job I. 20 and II. 12), or when the entire nation had sinned (Ezra IX. 3).
On page 984 of The Nazarene Gospel Restored, Graves and Podro state the following:
‘The Captain of the Temple, which stood by, bare witness, and said: ‘This mad fellow stirreth up the people, teaching through all Jewry, beginning from Galilee to this place.’
Pilate, when he heard of Galilee, asked whether the man were a Galilean.
And when he knew that Jesus were of Herod’s jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod to be judged by him.
Now, Herod was at Jerusalem at this time, dwelling in a mansion of the place where Pilate also was.
‘Wherefore, when Herod saw Jesus brought before him he was exceeding glad, being desirous of long season to put him to death.
And he questioned Jesus with many words, but Jesus made no answer, though men stood and vehemently accused him.
Now, Herod lacked authority to condemn a Galilean for any crime which he had committed in Judaea.
Nevertheless, he found Jesus guilty of death, as having followed in the way of John the Baptist and stirred up the people of Beth-Nimrah.
And he sent up to Pilate again, saying: ‘I pray thee, have him crucified’.
Pilate therefore, when he had commanded Jesus to be scourged in the common hall, delivered him to be crucified. And it was the preparation of the Passover, about the sixth hour.’
The charge was treason against the Roman invaders, not blasphemy against the God of the Pharisees! The Jewish people never had any problem with Jesus – their country had for decades been under siege from a powerful Empire, which condemned Jesus on political grounds. The Mosaic Law was never any obstacle to his cause. In the instant when Jesus was condemned to death by his most feared political enemy, he must have felt that God had permitted barbarism to triumph over civilization – the cause of his subsequent utterance on the cross: “My God, my God. Wherefore hast thou forsaken me!”
The true facts with regard to Jesus’s trial in Jerusalem have been staunchly obfuscated for twenty centuries in order to perpetually reverse the high moral standards exemplified by the Pharisaic Law, and to replace those standards with license for the vagaries, infractions, and aberrations of the barbarians who sought to destroy the unique culture of the Jews. That reversal serves the purposes of those who have no use for love, wisdom, or honour; who fear that such values will reduce the power wielded by them over others through criminal means. How the lay public should manage its conscience has always been a mere secondary consideration. The culture of crime as political misrule has continued beneath a veneer of civilization for twenty centuries.
Jesus survived the ordeal on the cross. He had mastered the secrets of the Essene Therapeutics, which included their techniques of breathing and the art of slowing down the metabolism, as Indian mystics still do today. News of John the Baptist’s execution, the agony of his desperate efforts to hasten the Millennium of God in the hope of overcoming the constant threat to Jews of a violent death at the hands of the Roman invaders, the summary trials, his scourging in the common hall at Pilate’s command, and the crucifixion, must have put him into a deep coma not long after being raised upon the cross to die of suffocation. Later, perhaps soon after the withdrawal of those who laid him down in the burial cave, he must have regained consciousness and, upon recovering sufficiently to regain his composure, negotiated his way out of the sepulchre on strength of character.
But his survival of the crucifixion gave his many enemies the perfect opportunity to erect an impenetrable barrier against the truth, and against the virtues of the Law in which he and those select Pharisee scholars who comprised his closest spiritual affinity, had their being. He was powerless to prevent the perversion of the truth, because he now had urgent need to escape the reach of the Roman Empire.
Robert Graves’s book Difficult Questions, Easy Answers, contains a synopsis of his voluminous writings on religious matters: an essay entitled The Bible in Europe, in which he adduces an important paragraph on what is deemed the real burial of Jesus in large parts of the world. It concludes with this passage:
‘Though Mohammed had respected Moses and Jesus as his prophetic forerunners, he refused to believe that Jesus had died on the cross but held that he had recovered from a death-like trance and moved Eastwards out of danger. It has been recently agreed by Mohammedan theologians at El Azhar University, Cairo, that the tomb at Shrinagar in Kashmir, for many centuries shown as the place where St. Thomas buried him soon after the destruction of the Temple, may be revered by the faithful as genuine.’
As a result of the political circumstances entailed in affairs at Jerusalem during that time, millions of Jews have been murdered by Christian pogroms over a period of two thousand years, until at last Robert Graves recovered the truth. The contemporary horrors of the Holocaust and political deadlock between Israelis and Palestinians in the Middle East over the past four decades, have precipitated the emergence of the true facts as outlined in the researches stated here.
The barbarian invasions of the second millennium BC had cataclysmically disrupted the ancient societies of the Mediterranean. The miracles of the humane and intelligent Law subsequently applied by the Pharisees, whose slow refinement over a full millennium produced the highest level of civilization in the world during the first century BC, could not be persuasively communicated to the Roman authorities within a brief span of time. Only with the publication of The Nazarene Gospel Restored could the true value of Jewish culture be revived. Yet still the criminal element forbids its emergence in the perceptions of the general public.
Those who would exterminate the Jews have cause for hesitation.
————–
The principal argument for the superiority of Judaism over Christianity and Islam is rooted in the decision by the Jews to expurgate the prophets – to retain the Law alone in the Talmud. The decision was correct both because it liberated Judaism from the offence still given in the matter of gender relations in less efficient cultures, and because it offers the only known defence against the vagaries of criminality – the concept of rule of law. The result of that decision was nothing less than the miraculous advent of universal civilization.
Articles of faith centered on the matter of life after death are as old as humankind itself, and cannot be properly claimed by any one religion or creed. It derives from the covenant of child-birth, an essential element of every individual’s experience on Earth. A brief consideration of the foetus’s experience in the uterus will make the point.
The foetus is conceived and developed in its mother’s womb. There it lives for an eternity of weightless quietude in the infinite House of Being, where no action is called for, and where timeless, total communion with the Mother-goddess constitutes the foetus’s complete ontology. As it grows to maturity, its state of being becoming ever more complex and intense – parts of its body begin to touch, through the water-world in which it floats, the walls of the surrounding, all-embracing uterus, the mother’s body. At that moment of the first touch, a tremendous realization increasingly possesses it. It is not God – it does not exist in self-sufficient, omnipotent sovereignty as the totality of the Universe – it owes its continual sustenance and tutoring to a process of growth towards an encounter with another being, a being greater than itself, within whom it is contained, a being who somehow, mysteriously, has her life in a world beyond its own experience.
As it approaches the full term, the foetus becomes aware of the threat of being crushed by its beloved world. That threat precipitates matters into a primordial ordeal, in which annihilation is to be averted only at the last moment, when the foetus will realize that there is a way out, but that its abode is being aborted. Consciousness is ignited in the young organism where doubt and fear are increasingly concentrated in its psyche as the cataclysmic point of birth approaches. As it is quickened by spasms of contraction, deliberation and recourse to strategy transform consciousness into self-consciousness – identity. Out of a powerful sense of need, the seeds of faith germinate within the newly autonymous entity – the hope that security will be re-established. Faith rapidly becomes a force of overmastering power, for the sense of belonging and of wholesomeness – of absolute love – had been so great, that the confrontation with dire extremity cannot be accepted as unredeemable.
Suddenly atmospheric pressure reaches its limit within the uterus and causes the waters to break. The catastrophic rupture of its habitat, and the galvanizing sensation of flesh on flesh, produce in the foetus the same realization as that experienced by the adult live creature at the point where it receives a fatal injury: the vehicle that had hitherto accommodated its spirit is no longer a feasible one, and is being abandoned.
The baby plunges into the bottomless gorge – and emerges into the afterworld of light, colour, and loud noise, of hard, cold, metal surfaces, prickly blankets, and powerful smells – it is conscious of the icy breath of the Deep upon its wet skin, dangerous, vertiginous heights, of the organism’s vulnerability to the never-relenting, crushing weight of gravity. It is surprised by hands groping, and voices cajoling, warning, praising, exclaiming – blinded by the stabbing pain at its navel when the umbilical chord to the mother is severed – shaken by the powerful sensation in its heart, which begins vigorously to beat, its blood-flow recoiling and reversing direction, thunderously pumping blood over its brain. Its lungs begin to inhale and exhale, and to drive flaws of searing, corrosive oxygen through its body. The new-born baby senses the immensity of distances articulated by sounds of traffic and commerce in the bustling city, senses the powerful dynamisms generated by interacting personalities, is assaulted by complexities where protocols of meaning intersect in management dynamics converging upon its person. Those experiences, in combination with the metabolical apparatus synchronizing its own new bodily functions – comprise an ontological covenant so overwhelming as to erase all memories of its previous world, except in the state of grace attending peaceful sleep.
This is as much a rite of passage from one world into another as any patriarchal notion of life after death could possibly hope to kindle in religionists. It points to the possibility that every live creature on Earth is a seedling that has to die before a great tree can come into being out of him or her, perhaps on a powerful planet situated at a great distance from Earth, in a region of the Universe where the elements of materiality and spirit factor out in an equation very different from the one that has prevailed in post-Second Millennium AD technological patriarchy.
The concept of life after death was never dreamed up by any desert-dwelling prophet, it grew out of the relationship with the Mother – which has shaped the heart and soul of every live creature that has ever existed. The suckling’s rite of passage presents the concept of life after death to its sensibility as an ineluctable reality, a process intrinsic to the very fabric and pressure of this world.
The blame for the perpetuation of fundamental falsehood with respect to the realities entailed in the covenant of child-birth has been laid at the doors of many institutions, and never more vociferously than when directed at the most tolerant and humane ones, such as Judaism and Catholicism. But the truth is that criminals profit from the chronic abuse of power facilitated by effects of socio-economic decay at all levels of society. That is why systematic dissimulation of the truth remains a fundamental requirement in the modern world, despite its vaunted information economy.
The criminal element has already comprehensively infiltrated the constituency concerned with fairness and equity in gender relations, and now abuses it for its own purposes, as it has done with all other constituencies since the pastoral invasions of the second millennium BC. That criminal element cannot wait to profit from any inequalities that would be opened up by a sudden matriarchal revolution, and it has already worked out in finest detail precisely how it will ensure that freedom and justice will be the last elements to be realized from the event.
The publication of this essay is an attempt to assist in providing efficient information to a world in which the ordinary individuals aggregating into the global public are reduced to the status of unthinking victims not only of their own appetites, but even of their bodily functions and natural propensities – a brutish regime calculated and perpetuated for the benefit of none but the worst criminals in our midst.
The rule of law, and free enterprise in an open market, both owe their existence to the development of Judaism over five thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight years of a nation’s striving to learn how to regulate society for the optimal benefit of the individual. The world could greatly profit from taking note of the results of that process.
To some, the severe treatment to which Christianity has been subjected in this essay may seem an act of cruelty. Yet that perception would not be correct. In the final analysis, Christianity will find that great masses of people may be prevented from apprehending the essential realities behind appearances generated through the manipulation and misdirection of powerful, violent acts of will, which are obdurately sustained by gigantic masses of people for indefinite periods of time, a process through whose mobilizing force the faculty of reason is neutralized for the purpose of depriving the victims of efficient information on the real costs and benefits produced in the dynamic of transactional management thus perpetually implemented. Moreover, if articles of faith may be fanatically observed in organized religion, then so too may belief in the moral superiority of protocols projected through soap opera formats, political election campaigns, and economic models affecting the entire world – though those protocols be fraught with the uttermost extremes of evil. Reason plays no part in the dynamics of blind faith. The populations of entire races and continents can be comprehensively denuded of the human being’s birth-right, namely the ability to optimally discern, appreciate, and interact with the meanings of the world in which it lives – thus to be robbed of the ability to correctly interpret the implications of differences between right and wrong thought and action – for purposes benefiting the concealed, manipulating criminals involved exclusively.
More briefly: malignant social engineering techniques are deployed by concealed criminals who abuse the power of faith to mobilize herd momentum in the prosecution of programs calculated to hurt the religionists involved, and to abuse them in establishing a totalitarian rule for hidden plotters of evil whose intentions are more sinister than any ever before seen or heard of on Earth. It is that threat from which I wish to help save Christianity, and thus the world. My hope is to provide a perspective that could free those labouring under the yoke of a treadmill of ignorance and mediocrity sustained by malignant criminals through effects perpetuating the violence of religious fundamentalism.
Moreover, Christianity may be found to come through the exercise hale and hearty. There are more things in heaven and earth than proofs and disproofs of selected details and technicalities; Christianity entails a great deal more than can be discussed in a few pages. It is to be hoped, therefore, that Christianity will benefit from the information provided here – that it will rediscover its own greatest strengths by gaining a new appreciation for the importance of the final truth as an essential factor in the governance of human life. Christians are today earning the right to develop new advantages to offer the human race through their way of life, to communicate them with greater freedom than before, and to demonstrate their virtues in relation to members of other cultures more efficaciously. They have gained an opportunity to fundamentally improve their faith from within.
Two considerations point to the optimal place to begin in that quest.
He first is that Christians should make it as difficult as possible for criminals to abuse the concept of rule of law, which they do at least as efficiently as they abuse the Grace of God. Those who wish to free themselves from the vagaries of criminality should forget about the litany of petty crimes popularly referred to as ‘sin’, and should address the matter of serious crime at the highest level. As the Jews know, capitalists might flourish under conditions where law and order prevail, but criminals have nothing to gain from such a setting – criminals need to foster conditions of ever-increasing suffering, deprivation, and slavery, by which enormous imbalances may be opened up, and where the effects of dehumanization and terror must breed desperate actions that result in the trying of even more desperate conclusions – so that a febrile atmosphere may produce ceaseless, frantic activities for lucrative exploitation. Life is to be reduced to the merely physical realm characterizing the foetus’s struggle for orientation in the rapidly changing regime of a world under pressure from primordial ontological imperatives. No actual living is permissible. Displacement is the order of the day; settlement is outlawed. The status of the refugee is enforced, and that of the citizen abolished.
The second consideration is that Christians should be extremely wary of social revolutions promising Heaven on Earth through the effects of an impending matriarchal world order. The crime bosses are far ahead of the global victim base in their anticipation of that matter. They are poised to exploit a plethora of baseless presumptions that will comprise an elaborate hoax and a massive fraud masquerading as the two legs of a millennial liberation from oppression – while reducing the quality of life to a level last seen twenty-thousand years into the past. Already the crime bosses are doing ‘wonderful’ things for women – each woman now receives a subsidized Caesarean Section during the delivery of a child; soon all women will be freed of the ‘burden’ of child-birth – aloof, sterilized, calculating men in white coats will take care of such matters, leaving women to experience the miracles of a life free from motherhood.
South Africa’s President Kgalema Motlanthe is moved to offer mediation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza. Africa is offered the religion of Communism as a means of liberation from the vagaries of a century of colonialism – a religion as fundamentalist in nature as are jihadist Islam and Christian apocalyptic extremism. The Jewish way of life offers vital lessons in that regard.
The most important insight to be gained from the material supplied here is that the critical faculty by which human experience is interpreted should be sharpened in each individual through fundamental education – access for all to efficient information – and should never become the sole prerogative of those who profit from the dissimulation of reality and the exacerbation of socio-economic decay for criminal purposes. That alone could put an end to the oppressive regime by means of which concealed, malign manipulators increasingly abuse the unsuspecting public with diabolical applications of medical and pharmaceutical sciences via the security services – by means of the effects of which the most ignorant and brutish personalities of every family, office, and community prevail over those who enjoy access to efficient information, and over those who observe the proprieties of essential humanity. In any sane society the device’s mechanism would be reversed – it would be deployed in providing constant access to efficient information for all, so that the moral bankruptcy informing the barbarous protestations by means of which the individual is relentlessly subjected to brutishness may be exposed and neutralized.
Israel has much to teach its enemies, if only those enemies would listen. The most powerful of them, however, are beyond help. They are those who would most intimately ingratiate themselves with Israel in the capacity of powerful independent philanthropists seeking to cure the world’s ills. They may well approach Israel through the American Republicans, who have long earned Israel’s trust, or through African delegations offering appreciation for the Jewish position. Yet the final hidden objective of those enemies is to assail Israel through the effects of vast experience built up as a global power, in the course of which much was learned from it. Yet those enemies are constituted of a temperament and a world view that must remain forever anathema to Israel. Nor will they hesitate to find a Final Solution to the ‘problem’ of Jewish moral rectitude. Those enemies have deployed their malignant global mass media to devastating effect, isolating Israel from the community of nations, and drawing the hatred of the world upon it.
The great philosopher Immanuel Kant once exclaimed: “God protect us from our friends! Our enemies we can manage ourselves.” It is a sentiment with which Israel is familiar. It should remain mindful of it, now more then ever before.