Category Archives: Hebrew Testament

It’s Biblical: A Leader Who Doesn’t Plead For The Lives Of His People Is A Failed Leader (And A Neocon)

America, Democracy, Foreign Policy, Hebrew Testament, Homeland Security, Individual Rights, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, Russia, War

3 Replies

A prediction: You heard it first here. This is my opinion and I could very well be wrong—but I postulate the following based on deductive faculties that have served me thus far in observing The Empire’s workings:

Based on observing The Empire’s workings over decades, I’d hazard that President Volodymyr Zelensky is probably being fiercely guarded by Americans, possibly by a private, paramilitary security company. Something like Sean McFate’s DynCorp outfit, or Russia’s Wagner Group. Or even perhaps  Ukraine’s own Einsatzgruppen (Hitler’s death squads) the Azov regiment.

MORE in support of my assumption, for that is all it is, is a revelation of some of the plans his American puppet-masters’ have for Zelensky, via NBC:

WASHINGTON — Biden administration officials have discussed plans with the Ukrainian government for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to leave Kyiv in the event of a Russian invasion, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
Under a plan that’s been discussed, Zelenskyy would relocate to Lviv in western Ukraine, about 50 miles from the Polish border, the people familiar with the discussions said.

My opinion—it’s so far merely a solid guess—is bolstered by Zelensky’s relaxed, cocky  showman’s state-of-mind—bolstered as it is by wild Western reinforcement of the Ukrainian leader’s bloody bravado.

“Bloody” because of the inverted values with which the Empire has blanketed the Russia-Ukraine conflict:

To normies, a leader who doesn’t plead for the lives of his people is a failed leader. Diplomacy, negotiations, cease fire: that’s the nomenclature clear-thinking people wish instinctively to hear when they see the immiseration of Ukrainians and their cities.

And, no. So far, Zelensky has arrogantly and publicly told a military superpower, Russia, to, “hold peace talks now or suffer for generations.” That is not diplomacy, but provocation.

Why, the Hebrew Testament (while “Old,” it’s never out-of-date; hence “Hebrew”) is festooned with examples of leaders pleading—even bargaining with God, as Abraham did so ingeniously over Sodom and Gomorrah—for the lives of their people. Queen Esther did the same before King Ahasuerus (or Xerxes); Moses petitioned Pharaoh for his people, and so on. That’s what real leadership is about—uphold and fight for the people’s natural right to FUCKING LIVE.

By these criteria, Zelensky and Biden are failed leaders.

To the American Jacobins and their Ukrainian Zelenskyite puppets, TALKING ‘OUR VALUES’ is all it takes to make a good leader. Talk the neocon talk.

BY ©2022 ILANA MERCER

NEW COLUMN: ‘Whip Or Rein’ Was Never The Question

Argument, Democrats, Hebrew Testament, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Nationhood, Republicans

1 Reply

NEW COLUMN is “In Praise Of Whipping Horsemen: ‘Whip Or Rein’ Was Never The Question.” It’s now on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews.com,
The New American, and American Greatness.

Excerpt:

Let’s see: Heroic horsemen rode to the rescue at Del Rio, Texas, along the U.S.-Mexico border. Republicans could’ve whipped the open-border Democrat degenerates with a first-principles case for sovereignty and self-defense, the thing Border Patrol horsemen were exercising so instinctively. Instead, the Right chose to beat around the bush, sweating the redundant details:

“Was it a whip or a rein?”

Who cares, when our border-patrol heroes—the last of the He-Men—were doing the work of the Lord! And, what on earth is wrong with the whip, in this context?

Did not the Lord teach—in The Book of Proverbs, through his emissaries—that, “He who spares his rod hates his son”? I believe Proverbs has a broader and deeper meaning: Libertine formative figures who fail to teach the young and the lawless right from wrong hate both their disciples and the society upon which they unleash them.

Let’s rewind: The reference is, as CNN put it, to “recent images that appear to show U.S. Border Patrol agents on horseback confronting migrants along the Rio Grande.”

“Videos taken by Al Jazeera and Reuters … show law enforcement officers on horseback using aggressive tactics when confronting migrants, who [were] largely Haitian, to prevent them from crossing into the US.”

So far so good.

“The Biden administration expressed horror,” promising to proceed aggressively against the poor horseback officers, who work in near-impossible conditions, without institutional support and for meager wages.

How does the Right respond? Republicans responded with a weak refrain: “Was it a whip or a rein?” they bickered. The horse-riding Border Patrol agents were wielding a rein, not a whip, was the sum of our side’s “case” in defense of our guardian agents.

That’s the anatomy of a typical Republican retort. It’s also why Democrats are the perennial winners.

There is only one winning—and correct—answer, in the case of the whip versus the rein, and it is this:

If it was not a whip, it ought to have been one, and if our Guardian Angel of the border used a rein as whip—then hooray for him. The End….

… READ THE REST of  “In Praise Of Whipping Horsemen: ‘Whip Or Rein’ Was Never The Question” on WND.COM, The Unz Review, CNSNews.com,
The New American and American Greatness.

 

NEW COLUMN: White Guilt: Where Does It Originate And How To Fight It

Christianity, Hebrew Testament, IMMIGRATION, Judaism & Jews, Nationalism, Race, The State, The West

NEW COLUMN IS “White Guilt: Where Does It Originate And How To Fight It.” It’s on The Unz Review and on WND.COM.

An excerpt:

Is white guilt a Christian affliction? Edward Gibbon would probably say so.

Gibbon was the genius who wrote, in 1776, the 12 volumes that comprise “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,” wherein he saddled nascent Christianity with the downfall of the Roman Empire, no less. (I read the 1943 version, which was “condensed for modern reading.”)

By so surmising, Gibbon brought upon himself the wrath of “bishops, deans and dons”—not to mention that of the great Dr. Samuel Johnson’s biographer, James Boswell. Boswell called Gibbon an “infidel wasp” for “the chapter in which he showed that the fall of Rome was hastened by the rise of Christianity.”

And indeed, Gibbon seems to point toward Christianity’s self-immolating, progressive, pathologically inclusive nature, remarking on the courting by early Christians of “criminals and women.” [Not my words.]

Even more infuriating to his detractors was Gibbon’s prodigious scholarship. “No one could disprove Gibbon’s basic facts,” notes American author Willson Whitman.

Whitman, who wrote the 1943 Foreword to the abridged version, remarks on how “Gibbon outraged the Christians of his era by suggesting the ‘human’ reasons for the success of Christianity.”

“Among these reasons [Gibbon] noted that Christianity … attracted to its ‘common tables’ slaves, women, reformed criminals, and other persons of small importance [Whitman’s words, not mine]—in short that Christianity was a ‘people’s movement of low social origin, rising as the people rose.” [His words, not mine.]

To go by Gibbon, Christianity might be called the Social Justice movement of its day. Gibbon certainly seemed to suggest so.

In no way was Gibbon, who “professed Church of England orthodoxy,” diminishing Christianity’s centrality to Western civilization, or its essential goodness and glory. He was just following the evidence.

With Gibbon’s historical analysis in mind, it’s difficult to dispute that America, once identified as a staunch Christian country, seldom stands up for and safeguards Christian interests.

Trust Tucker Carlson to take note. On April 22, 2019, less than two minutes into this broadcast, the TV anchor observed that American foreign policy imperils the already imperiled Christian communities across the Muslim world. For one, the ancient Iraqi Christian community is a shadow of what it was under Saddam Hussein.

To their own dwindling, Western flock, American and European Christian leaders seldom offer succor and support. More often than not, church leaders are inclined to scold Westerners and berate them for insufficient procreation.

Take Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput. For outbreeding Christianity, Chaput offered praise for Islam as a civilization—as if civilizations are great because of huge numbers, rather than human capital—namely, people of superior ideas, abilities and sensibilities; people capable of innovation, exploration, science, philosophy, to say nothing of mercy and charity.

Has not Christianity’s great heart been instrumental in ameliorating famine, and thus enabling Muslim Africa’s population explosion? …

…  READ THE REST. NEW COLUMN, “White Guilt: Where Does It Originate And How To Fight It,” is on The Unz Review and WND.COM.

 

 

Busting Statist and Scripture-Based Fibs for a Borderless America

Christianity, Economy, Hebrew Testament, IMMIGRATION, libertarianism, The State

THE NEW COLUMN IS “Busting Statist and Scripture-Based Fibs for a Borderless America,” now on the Unz Review. Or, WND.com. An excerpt:

When preaching immigration leniency and lawlessness in America, immigration bleeding hearts should lay off the Hebrew Bible, Leviticus 19:34, in particular.

The stranger that sojourneth with you shall be unto you as the home-born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.

One Rev. Ryan M. Eller, on Tucker Carlson’s show, gave a dissembling and misleading reading of the tract, in mitigation of the immigration status of Kate Steinle’s killer.

The reverend glibly translated the word “sojourn” to mean citizens living among you, the latter having created, presumably, an immutable reality on the ground.

In appropriating the Hebrew text to his humanistic ends, Rev. Eller left-out that Leviticus 19:34 is a reference to strangers who are temporarily in your country.

A “sojourn” is a “temporary stay; a brief period of residence.” The Hebrew word “ger” means alien, stranger, not citizen.

The Hebrew Testament is not the New Testament. It’s not the text you want to use in spreading the Christian, “We Are The World” dogma. For it revolves around distinguishing the Jews and their homeland from the nations of the world.

What is commonly called the Old Testament, I read in the Hebrew, free of the bowdlerization that often accompanies the Christianized translations. As I read it, our Bible was not meant to meld the Jewish People with the world.

The opposite is true.

While it evinces ground-breaking exploration of natural, universal justice—and a lot of not-so-merciful meting out of “justice”—the Hebrew Bible is something of a parochial document.

Undergirding what Christians call the Old Testament is a message of particularism, not universalism. The ancient Hebrews would have been appalled by many a modern, left-liberal Jew who has betrayed the nationalistic message underlying the 24 best-written books ever.

Mercy and justice are all Leviticus 19:34 exhorts. The tract reminds the Hebrews only that they suffered in Egypt as slaves to the Egyptians. Consequently, the people of Israel are to be kind to the strangers living temporarily among them.

Were the biblical author to have added a parenthetic statement, it would’ve been: “Fear not, the stranger will soon be on his way, or chased away.”

The Christian Saint Joan of Arc was certainly steeped in a sturdy nativism. …

… READ THE REST.  “Busting Statist and Scripture-Based Fibs for a Borderless America” is now on the Unz Review. Or WND.com.