Category Archives: Culture

The Traditional Enemies of the Caesars of This World

Orthodox Jews and orthodox Christians

Excerpt from Gary North’s book “The Judeo-Christian Tradition” (1990), which can be downloaded for free here.

From the conclusion (pp. 160-162):

For the Sake of the Peace

I have done my best to honor Orthodox Judaism. When Orthodox Jews tell me that they honor the Talmud, I accept this statement as true. I do not attempt to argue that they really don’t accept it as true, that they really and truly take it only metaphorically, that “no rational person could believe such things in today’s world.” In short, I do not treat them as theological liberals treat me and those like me. If a man says that he believes something, and if he is a member of a group that has repeatedly been persecuted for adhering to certain ideas, then I assume that he is telling me the truth. He really does believe what he says he believes.

What the Orthodox Jews says that he believes is the Talmud. He also says that he believes in the Torah, what I call the Old Testament. I think that the Talmud is unfaithful to the Old Testament. The Orthodox Jew – or any Jew, for that matter – thinks that the New Testament is unfaithful to the Old Testament. What we have here is not a failure to communicate. This is not a debate over semantics. This is a debate over biblical hermeneutics, as formidable a disagreement as men can have in life, for its consequences extend to eternity.

Orthodox Jews and orthodox Christians disagree about many things, especially the theological integrity of their respective systems. The Talmud has some graphic things to say about Jesus and His followers. The New Testament has some graphic things to say about the Jews of that day: whited sepulchers, blind guides, gnat strainers, hypocrites, thieves, and dogs. Paul wrote: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision” (Philippians 3:2). The dog in those days was not a domesticated beast or “man’s best friend.” Dogs roamed in packs and devoured the weak.

What good does it do to cover this up? None. What good does it do to de-emphasize it? A great deal. Why? For the sake of the peace.

Both sides should be aware of the unbridgeable barrier between them. Both sides should also be aware of the equally unbridgeable barrier between them and the Caesars of this world. It has been the Caesars of this world, not the Christians, who have been the great enemy of the Jews. It is the Caesars who have been the great threat to the Christians, not the Jews.

Orthodox Jews and orthodox Christians are the traditional enemies of the Caesars of this world, because the Caesars are tied to time rather than eternity. Their efforts have meaning only in terms of time. But Jews and Christians are tied to eternity, and live or die in terms of this commitment. They are therefore the ultimate traitors to the time-bound systems of this world. This is why persecution always comes, especially after some crisis has called into question the survival of a particular world system. In this sense, both Jews and Christians are “a separate people among us” in the eyes of the humanists. What Rosenstock-Huessy wrote of this world’s leaders is equally true in every era: “The ruler who gives his name to an hour of history must be absorbed completely in that hour. He must dive into its waves and be lost in it more than any other man. For it is the ruler’s business to mark the epoch, to appear on the stamps or coins of his country. Rulership, because it personifies an epoch, always finds itself in a polarity to the workings of Eternity.” [Footnote: Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy, Out of Revolution: Autobiography of Western Man (Norwich, Connecticut: Argo, [1938] 1969), p. 222.] What he wrote of the Jews applies equally well to orthodox Christians in history:

The pagan leader is the servant of time. The Jew can never “believe” in time. Since every Jewish leader or prophet thinks of Eternity or of innumerable generations, the star of Judah always shines most brilliantly in times when there are no pagan heroes. When a nation is despoiled of its governing class, when a national failure has brought a darkness without comfort or illumination, the nation is struck by the fact that the Jews are not leaderless in the absence of a king or emperor. Anti-Semitism always becomes especially violent in times of a lost war. The Jews must be guilty: this is the word that is quickly passed round. For are they not as ready to shoulder hard times without a complaint as they were to profit in the good? The star of Judah shines bright, and pogroms break out, whenever the Gentiles have just buried their Nebuchadnezzar or their Tiberius with disintegration. [Footnote: Ibid., pp. 222-23.]

As this becomes increasingly clear to both orthodox Christians and Orthodox Jews, I think the response of both groups will be to de-emphasize the words of mutual condemnation found in the Talmud and the New Testament. This is not to say that either group will deny the truth of its respective holy book, but it is to say that there is a time to emphasize differences and a time to emphasize similarities. To put it graphically, if you are in a foxhole with someone of a rival covenant, and the enemy’s shock troops are coming over the ridge, your immediate concern is not the precision of your partner’s theology; it is whether he can shoot straight and whether he can spare a few rounds of ammo.

I can see the enemy coming. Hand me that 30-round clip, Yitzhak, and we’ll discuss the fine points of our theology later.

Regarding that last remark, I think this is exactly what Jordan Peterson is doing while discussing and interpreting the whole book of Exodus with about 10 or so other scholars, some of which are Jews (e.g. Dennis Prager and Ben Shapiro).

New Survey: Fewer Germans feel free to express their political opinions in 2023

. . . than in any year since the early days of the Federal Republic

Article by eugyppius.

Excerpt:

The impression of a closed and stifling discourse is present across the political spectrum. Only 39% of centre-right CDU voters feel free to express their views, but for Die Linke, or the Left Party (the successors of the East German SED), that number falls to 36%, and for AfD voters it is lowest of all, a mere 11%. A clear majority (75%) of Greens alone feel that they can speak their minds, and so here we learn who feels best represented by our present discourse.

“Do you have the feeling, that you can freely express your political opinion today in Germany, or is it better to be cautious?” Blue: “I can speak freely.” Orange: “It is better to be cautious.”

No surprises lurk in the breakdown by education: 51% of those with university degrees or an Abitur feel their political expression is unhampered, while clear majorities of everybody else say they cannot speak their minds.

The historical perspective is sobering. The Federal Republic was only five years old in 1953; the Allied occupation and denazification were recent events, and even then Germans enjoyed a substantially greater subjective sense of political expression than they do today. This sense peaked under Willy Brandt during the Cold War, but has been in a state of decay since the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989. This would be good evidence in favour of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s thesis, that Western liberal states rapidly lose their enthusiasm for principles like free expression in the absence of competition from rival systems.

Yet it was not the end of the Cold War, but rather the chancellorship of Angela Merkel that saw the most dramatic decline in free political expression. Specifically, Merkel’s strategy of “asymmetric demobilisation,” via which she sought to disarm the leftist opposition by adopting central elements of their political programme, had a very perverse influence. German voters and hence the politicians who appeal to them have always had pronounced conservative tendencies, while the media here as everywhere else lean to the left. Before 2005, politicians provided an important counterweight to the line taken by our press, but Merkel’s triangulations created a new system of soft political enforcement sustained by establishment politicians and mainstream journalism alike.

The consequence is a system that has placed all of us in thrall to the whims of an eccentric minority. The opinions which govern German society, as I’ve written many times before, are not those of most people, but rather of an increasingly insular, university-educated urbanite class, who are relatively affluent, who vote overwhelmingly Green and who constitute no more than 15% of the population. I doubt the old socialist countries of the Warsaw Pact were any different in this respect. More and more, it feels like we defeated communism only to recreate an equivalent system, which threatens to be much worse, insofar as its informal nature and soft asymmetrical methods confuse everybody and thwart opposition.

4th Generation Devastation: The West Has Been Targeted in a Cowardly Globalist Mind War

Article by Brandon Smith.

Others might call it “spiritual warfare”. It’s basically the same.

Excerpts:

With the advent of civilian populations armed with military grade weaponry and familiar with the training required for combat, elitist groups realized (post American Revolution) that dominating the public with military might was no longer a sure bet. They had to engage in a new kind of warfare using psychological attacks until they could weaken and disarm the populace. The new system of oppressing was about mental coercion; to make people believe that the authoritarian ideal is inevitable.

A greater factor in the mind war, though, is the shift of the Overton Window by making cultural pillars into cultural villains. This is being accomplished through the creation of the deconstruction religion, or what we sometimes call the “Cult of Woke.”

Name any cultural value or principle that defines the western world, such as meritocracy, independence, self reliance, mental toughness, liberty (with responsibility), legacy through hard work and family, the protection of children from perversions, discipline over hedonism, logic and reason over fanaticism, conservation of heritage and history and for many people the tenets of Christian duty. These are all pillars of our society which the woke cult seeks to destroy. In every way I can imagine it is a psychological war on the west, all of it funded through billions of dollars in grants from globalist think tanks like the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and the Open Society Foundation.

The globalists view public manipulation and social engineering as their birthright. They think it’s their manifest destiny, and they suggest often that humanity would somehow decay and self destruct without their influence.

In a once obscure internal US Army document titled ‘From Psyop To Mindwar’, the military value of sabotage through 4th Generation methods is described in detail. The treatise outlines the idea of causing a target population to self enslave by undermining its core structures through psychological warfare. The paper was written in 1980 by Lt. Colonel Michael Aquino, a devout satanist, and Colonel Paul Vallely, who would later become a General.

Aquino’s theory was essentially that the US Army was under-utilizing psychological operations as a background to kinetic operations. He argued that psyops could be used as the front line weapon to destroy an enemy nation (or control a domestic population) without the exploitation of standard munitions.

The key to grasping the situation is to accept that a war is upon us. Woke is a psychological operation devised by globalists, and it is currently battling to become the one and only system of thought – A morally relativist system of thought. It relies on a specific circumstance in order to succeed: The idea that men of the west will not take on a fighting posture in the face of psychological attack. As long as we continue to see war only as fighting with guns, we will remain docile in the face of a more advanced cultural bombardment.

For 4th Gen Warfare to prevail the target population has to follow a certain set of rules while the other side operates without rules. They have to be allowed to pursue all-out destruction against their enemy while the other side is admonished for doing anything remotely defensive, including speaking up. But what happens when patriots stop caring about being admonished? What happens when the optics are no longer relevant? What happens when the goal goes from winning in politics or in the halls of public discourse to winning the actual conflagration in front of us?

When this happens, everything in America and the western world will change. For good or ill will really depend on who is left to rebuild once the smoke clears.

New Development in the NZ data leak case

Major figure declares: shots looking bad

Writes Tom Woods in his latest newsletter:

Last week I noted the “shut up — you’re not an expert” problem.

One person who’s had to endure that is the controversial Steve Kirsch, who’s not a medical professional but who can interpret numbers the way any intelligent person can, and who has suggested that the numbers when it comes to the Covid shots are, to say the least, not favorable.

I have this crazy idea that people on both sides should be able to speak, and that people can decide what to do. I don’t think some people should be silenced because they might be wrong and might influence some people to make bad decisions. I don’t trust whoever would be in charge of telling us which side is allowed to speak.

At any rate, Kirsch (whom I’ve tried without success to interview on the Tom Woods Show) has been talking lately about the situation in New Zealand. Remember when it was held up to us as a great success story? If only we’d erected a totalitarian state we might have done as well as New Zealand!

Well, now New Zealand isn’t looking too good. Data has just been leaked that cast the shots in a particularly bad light in terms of excess deaths in that country, that people had not known about.

The usual suspects are telling him that he’s not an expert, that he should shut up, etc.

(He may not be an “expert” on the strictly medical side, but in order simply to interpret data why would he have to be?)

Well, Harvey Risch of the Yale School of Public Health has suddenly jumped in on Kirsch’s side.

Risch says: “I think that you’ve made a very strong case that the Covid genetic vaccines are associated with appreciably increased mortality rates for 6-12 months after each dose. This is particularly compelling in people over age 65. I am not aware of actual evidence that the increased post-vaccine mortality that you’ve shown has a different cause.”

Risch’s remark doesn’t make Kirsch correct; Kirsch’s analysis stands or falls on its own. But now that Risch has weighed in — and Risch is a major scholar at a major program — it’s harder to dismiss it as the ravings of a dummy who’s commenting in an area outside his proper lane.

Likewise, it doesn’t hurt that my book Diary of a Psychosis, released last week, contains a foreword by Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, of Stanford University.

I followed Jay from the beginning, when he was reporting the good news that whatever it was that was circulating, it wasn’t nearly as deadly as the authorities were saying.

You’d think that would have made people happy. Trust me, it didn’t.

Jay wound up being targeted by name by the Biden White House, which urged social media platforms to suppress his voice.

Jay never aspired to be anyone’s hero. “I just want to do science,” he told me in his most recent appearance on the Tom Woods Show.

To have someone with Jay’s courage and integrity — and yes, “medical credentials” — write the foreword to my book has been a huge boon for me.

Not to mention: the state surgeon general the New York Times hates, Florida’s Joseph Ladapo, wrote a generous endorsement of the book.

As did Matt Ridley, recently retired from the UK’s House of Lords.