|
From Nancy Horn,
Pennsylvania:
Dear Israel Adam,
I am reeling, with horror at
the subject matter and awe at what you have done with it, the depth
and breadth not only of your knowledge but, far more important, your
brilliance.
While I adore the elegiac
prose you cannot NOT use when describing Palestine, and had thought
nothing could surpass Galilee Flowers, I think -- no, I KNOW -- you
have done so with this one.
You have not only seen with
greater clarity and depth the very things we have noticed, you have
explained their interconnectedness with this abhorrent whole.
My deepest congratulations
to you on the production of a really superb, monumental treatment of
our world and what ails us.
Thank you, Shamir, for
making sense of things.
Nancy
From Hans Olav Brendberg,
Norway:
PaRDeS is a tour de force
through your main themes.
From Gerald Jugant, France
With the reading of PaRDeS,
I feel the spirit of Simone Weil, but in a way even more conscious
and obvious, you belong to the great tradition of the Jewish mystic
teaching, the Cabbala. Undoubtedly you attempt to revive this very
old, mainly lost, wisdom of humanity, who has as a base the golden
age, the original paradise, the very old time of the man in harmony
with nature and its own nature.
From John Spritzler, the US
Dear Israel,
I just finished reading all
of Pardes. I found it fascinating because it helped me
understand (somewhat) -- for the first time actually -- your overall
world view. I see that you use the phrase "the Jews" (without the
quotation marks) to denote a world view embodied for thousands of
years in Jewish culture and writings -- a world view which
individual people (Jew or not) may adopt or reject, or serve (like
the Messiah's Donkey) without even being aware of it. I also see
that your "the Jews" concept has a lot in common with the modern
capitalist ideology of individualism and rejection of the dignity of
all human beings (seeing them as objects to be exploited). I think
that the source of our agreement on things like opposition to
Zionism and support for a one-state solution where Jews and non-Jews
are all equal and opposition to oppression in general stems from the
fact that your "the Jews" and my "Capitalism" are concepts that
overlap a good deal.
While I understand that your
"the Jews" is not a nationalistic (or racist) concept, don't you
worry at all that the phrase (especially without the quotation marks
around it) encourages nationalistic thinking? I do. Why not replace
it with something less susceptible to misuse? I think "the Jews" is
a less useful concept than "Capitalism" for understanding the world
we live in. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree about
that.
Thank you for sharing your
very eloquently written and fascinating-to-read Pardes with
me.
--John
From Windsor, Washington
Dear Israel,
You have produced a powerful indictment of the morally bankrupt and
intellectually exhausted Masters of the World. Money and power are
far more addictive and debilitating than any mere narcotic and our
Over Lords seem to be so desperate for another fix that they are
willing to risk bringing the whole house down around them. It's
funny in a non-haha way to hear them blame the poor on welfare for
contributing to the collapse of The Empire through their dependence
on food stamps and homeless shelters while they desperately search
for that spare hundred million they thought they stashed behind the
platinum toilet for a rainy day.
My gut feeling is that 'the Jews' are just hired guns, or rather
hired accountants and lawyers, plantation overseers, who went into
that line of work because they had and uncle who could get them on
with CitiBank or ABC. I'm having a really hard time getting mad at
anyone involved in this hell. The devils are the damned, the damned
are devils to the other damned.
Windsor
From Joachim Martillo
I like the analogy to the
troops that do not see the big picture during war. I sometimes use
analogies to neural networks or the ideas of management theorists
when they discuss organizational behaviour.
I am not sure the analysis
of New Christian behaviour in the Iberian peninsula works. The
conversion of Jews in Spain gave them an advantage because they were
able to forge even stronger ties (including marriage) with the
aristocracy and the nobility. The attacks on New Christian
behaviour seem to have begun in an internal dispute among connected
and non-connected New Christians. Only later did the argument and
vitriol spread to the larger public.
While there certainly are
large connections between Ashkenazi and proto-Ashkenazi communities
and Jews of other ethnic groups, and we can trace these ties back to
the 10th century, I am not sure that the distinction between
Ashkenazi Jews and Jews of other ethnic groups can be ignored. In
Israel there is a certain homogenizing effect because there was a
strong effort to forcibly remould the Jews of other ethnicities to
Ashkenazi thinking, behaviour and mores. You probably deal with the
2nd and 3rd generation descendants of non-Ashkenazi Jews that came
to Israel. They have been fairly thoroughly deracinated from their
parents and grandparents cultures. In some sense so have Ashkenazim
because of historical developments since the 1830s.
Being Ashkenazi today is far
different from being Ashkenazi circa 1900. Without Zionism, small
communities of religious Jews might have survived like Zoroastrians,
but probably there would be no serious Jewish ethnic identity
today. I think one could take some of Uri Ram's analysis to argue
that Zionists took the core Ashkenazi identity to create a sort of
Jewishness-lite (Yidishkayt-qal) that they have either disseminated
or imposed on Jewish groups and communities throughout the world.
If we follow Baruch Kimmerling's analysis, we might conclude that
Jewishness-lite succeeded even as Israeli-ness failed.
This Jewishness-lite
connects Israeli Jews to American Jews and Jews throughout the
world. It would probably even survive the demise of Israel.
I admit that the notion is
really half-baked, but it might provide an interesting standpoint to
analyze Jewish behaviour today. Jewishness-Lite might also work as
a catchy book title.
Joachim Martillo
Dear Shamir,
I read your essay, PaRDeS. What I think ? Probably you will shock
many "petit bourgeois". I apologize, but my English is not good and
I follow in French.
Je suis convaincu que vos objectifs sont des
plus dignes et je les partage pleinement. Vous voulez aider les
Juifs à leur salut, les rendre bons, qu'ils mettent leur énergie au
service du peuple, de l'humanité dans son ensemble. Seulement, à ce
stade, seule une élite juive peut vous comprendre et vous suivre
dans cette voie.
Je pense qu'Hitler et le nationalisme européen ont fait
considérablement régressé cette perspective d'une solution à la
Question Juive, mais que plus de 50 ans après la guerre et la
création de l'Etat d'Israël, elle se pose à nouveau dans toute sa
plénitude.
L'assimilation des Juifs est un processus éminemment complexe et
discutable. Il semble actuellement bloqué tant pour des raisons
historiques que compte tenu des rapports de force mondiaux et de
l'hégémonie (néo) libérale sur l'ensemble de la planète. Je verrais
plutôt la recherche d'un nouvel internationalisme de citoyenneté
mondiale respectueux des identités et des cultures, dans lequel les
Juifs trouvent pleinement à s'épanouir sur des rapports d'égalité.
Comment concilier son identité juive avec le nouvel universalisme ?
La solution passe par la Palestine. Le choix est un scénario à la
sud-africaine ou à l'algérienne.
A la lecture de PaRDeS, je crois quà l'instar de Simone Weil, mais
de manière encore plus consciente et évidente, vous êtes dans la
grande tradition de la mystique juive, de la kabbale. Il s'agit sans
doute aujourd'hui de réssusciter cette sagesse très ancienne de
l'humanité, en grande partie perdue, qui a pour fondement l'âge
d'or, le paradis originel , le temps très ancien de l'homme en
harmonie avec la nature et sa propre nature.
Friendly yours.
G. Jugant
From Ron
I want to thank you for the fine work you have
done thus far in shedding light on the most fundamental issues
plaguing our world. Your essay, Pardes, is rings true on every
level. Indeed, you are doing your job, which, in reality, is the
solemn task of all created beings—to discover the truth and speak it
plainly and unflinchingly. May God continue to guide and bless your
endeavors.
Sincerely,
Ron
From Lucille
Enlightening and enjoyable
to read for it's truth and exposure of the 'great game'.
I am not sure if I agree
that Jewish intermarriage is always a way out of Jewry. With
American Zionism, it is not that unusual to be a quasi-Jew, a
low-class half-breed Jewish family. Usually when Jews marry
Christians, they still celebrate all the Jewish holidays in addition
to the Christian ones. Most times the Christian half of the
intermarriage is even more vehemently pro-Israel and anti-Islam than
an average Jew, since a display of fidelity to Jewish causes implies
marital fidelity and honour in their minds.
I agree with you in theory that Jews and others should be free to
intermarry and mix DNA. However, in experience I do not recommend
marriage out of one's culture unless the host culture is actually
willing and able to accept newcomers, which is not usually the case.
I thought it was not important to be until I tried. We had none of
the same common assumptions, language was a huge barrier, he didn't
get my jokes, he hated my food, our interaction styles were totally
different; His fantasies were not my fantasies...but worst of all
the racism of the community. I have no idea how a Russian convert to
Christianity would be treated by his or her Palestinian in-laws. I
know that white or black Americans in general are never considered
real family members by their Arab or other outside-culture in-laws.
They are merely tolerated, if that. They are obligated to attend
family gatherings but they are not included in the conversations,
nor visited in their homes.
I loved the idea of the Biblical exegesis style of explaining your
political viewpoints. The only thing was I had to read it 2 or 3
times to get what you were doing. It was unclear what the four
levels meant, and how they connected with the subject matter you
were discussing. With a little redundancy you might be able to
connect your headings and intros and conclusions more clearly. Like
you can say, "I am now going to explain to you what the Jews want on
four different levels, using these terms...The mystical meaning of
these terms relates to this explanation in the following way..."
Otherwise people of lesser intellect such as myself are forced to
flip back and forth back to the overly brief intro of PaRDeS before
the beginning of The Man Higher Up chapter. Also you didn't clarify
if PaRDeS is something you came up with on your own or is this an
old Hebrew concept, or how do people usually interpret PaRDeS when
not connecting it with anti-Zionism?
In fact, you may wish to begin the entire essay with your
explanation of PaRDes and then go to the battle scene, pedantically
explaining that this is an example illustrating your point ...
Again, because what you are trying to do is very unique and charming
and people should try to get it.
Like even at the second reading I was unsure how Paradise (peshat)
relates to swindlers or a literal reading of swindlers. It just
needed a little further clarification.
You quote James Woolsey, "Anti-Semitism threatens the rule of law
and intolerance of Jews is a first step toward dictatorial rule."
This statement is so absurd that it deserves further analysis.
You are putting forth very bravely a theory, which is accurate, of a
rebellion in Judaism against God. However I think you are still
contradicting yourself in your assertion that the primary struggle
is being waged by The Church on behalf of God against Judaic
Satanism. You say: "Yisrael dwelt in the dead bodies of the
churchless nations." If Israel is a vampire living in the dead body
of the Church, then by your own admission the Church is dead. The
lingering remains of Christianity smoulder as embers in the Orthodox
Christian community of Palestine, and little embers here and there
among the true peacemakers of the world. But the Church in this
debilitated or dead state cannot fight this war. If there is a
struggle going on it is someone else, not the Church, carrying the
torch that Jesus lit.
First of all, Lucifer is a creation of God and Lucifer is the enemy
of Mankind. The Eternal Struggle is not, as the Zoroastrians
believed, a war between God and Satan. The Jews are not the enemy of
God, they cannot even hurt God. The Jews are the enemies of Mankind.
The King of Israel recorded in Islamic Prophecy is a False Messiah,
a Pharaoh, a master magician and rejecter of Truth. But like the
Egyptian Pharaoh of old, this enemy of the Believers is still God's
servant. God uses him to test the Believers and to strengthen them
internally through purification of other than God.
At one time, the Children of Israel were the Believers because they
were the followers of the current prophet of that time, Moses. The
covenant was through Moses. Then came Jesus and the Covenant was
made through Jesus because he was God's prophet of that time. Those
who rejected Jesus became Disbelievers while those who accepted
Jesus became the Chosen Ones. After Jesus came Mohammad, who is the
prophet that Moses predicted would be like unto him, who would bring
the Law to the Gentiles and conquer many nations. Jesus also
foretold the coming of Mohammad, the Mercy to Mankind, as the
Comforter who would come after him. (Gospel of John 14:16, 15:26,
and 16:7)
To reject Mohammad is to reject the most recent Covenant with God.
There is no moral excuse for Christians not to accept Mohammad as
their prophet and accept Islam. The Christians rejected God's
prophet, pretending, like the Jews, that Mohammad was perhaps a
great leader of others, but not sent for themselves. Because the
Christians rejected Mohammad as their prophet, God revoked His
Covenant with them. The Christians are now members of a Church of
Disbelief. That is why God destroyed the Church. Your efforts to
reform the Church and bring Christians back to Orthodoxy is a sweet
idea, but unlikely to work because you cannot go back in time. God's
prophet Mohammad already called the true Christians to accept Islam.
There is no Church that represents God anymore. Mohammad is the Seal
of the Prophet that is the culmination of east and west prophecy,
universalizing the Covenant to the world.
I also think that your statement that Jesus came for all of mankind
is not supported by the words of Jesus. What you are quoting is the
philosophical doctrine of Paul. But if you actually read the Gospel,
Jesus is always clear that he came in particular to admonish the
Children of Israel.
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, Go ye not
into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans
enter ye not: But go ye rather unto The Lost Sheep Of The House Of
Israel. " Matthew 10:5-6
For more Bible/Quran analysis of Jesus by Shaykh Ahmed Deedat see
http://www.sharif.org.uk/successor.htm
When you say "Muslim influence is not liable to help besieged
Christendom against its oldest enemy," you are seriously overlooking
something. Your oldest enemy is Satan. Satan was your enemy before
the Jews were your enemy. Islam will save Christian souls but it
will not save the Church. As you mentioned, the Church has no soul
except that it is possessed by a vampire called Yisrael. Muslims
cannot save a corpse.
But Muslim influence is lacking because Muslims lack knowledge of
Christ. The true Christians have to join the Islamic community in
order to flood the Muslims' intellectual vacuum with Christ Light.
Not in order to take Muslims away from Islam, but to add to the
power of Islam in order to defeat the enemy. The Church has to
decide what is more important, self-preservation as an institution
or preserving the Covenant of God and fighting for Islam with Jesus
against the Jews. Muslims need the Christians to convert to Islam in
order to counteract the Judaic tendencies of the Wahhabis, who are
actually crypto Zionists.
If Christianity dies, it does not mean that the Covenant has been
cancelled. Allah is the Ever-Living. The religion of God is
something alive and present. If the Church does not embody this
spirit, then we must find it elsewhere, for God has promised that if
a group to whom He has given guidance refuses to follow that
guidance, God will raise another people who will follow Him. So we
have to open our eyes. The Arab world is in a state of decline
because the Arabs forgot Jesus and took to nationalism. But there is
no new Covenant. Islam is still the religion of God, and it is open
to the true Believers of any race.
The only group of people on earth who refuse on principle to accept
the legitimacy of the State of Israel are the orthodox Muslims. It
is a religious issue, because they refuse to consider Jews as the
Chosen. For all their faults, they are right about the essential
issue that you have described. They recognize Judaism as Satanic.
The Christians should stop
trying to convert these Muslims to Christianity and instead, the
Christians
should join Islam. The influx of Christian manners into Islamic
culture
might be enough of a morale boost to give victory to the Believers.
The Biblical quote "And I will bless them that bless thee (Abraham)"
is
clear to Muslims. Muslims are the only religious group that every
day in
every ritual prayer invoke blessings upon Abraham, his family, his
descendants and his followers. Whenever you bless a prophet, the
prophet
blesses you. The Muslims are the most blessed people on earth in
this
regard. It is clear that Islam is the religion of Abraham. The
essential
conflict is not Jewish or Christian, as you say, contradicting
yourself. The
Reality is that there is no conflict. There are many universes, and
Allah
created them all.
My belief is that Zionism can be cured through the Buddha's four
noble
truths. The blend of east and west inevitably leads to Mohammad and
to
Islam. This is the final victory of Truth. It's here.
Maria
From Hermann, Madrid
I have just finished the
translation of Pardes. It was, as usual with your writings, but even
more so this time, an exceptional pleasure to work on such a
masterpiece from the point of view of
intelligence, wit, style and research.
From Jocelyn Braddel
Dear Israel,
Though I am unfortunately
not the professional reviewer you might have wished for this letter
- I feel obliged to chance my arm for an appraisal as I appreciate
your kind gesture in sending the whole text to me.
First I have to tell you of
a friend with whom, as a convert from the Protestant religion to the
Catholic, I have had many and many an argument. I finally extracted
from him in recent years this explanation: "my religion and my life
are like the perpetual struggle of Jacob and the Angel, and when I
realised that I also realised that I must commit myself to that
struggle for a lifetime."
So, to Pardes and you the
author. Considering the above anecdote and many of your essays I
might almost find you in the same struggle and shrug off any serious
interest - but quite unlike the artistic activities of my Irish
friend whose windows and paintings cannot be considered for effect
outside his religious concerns - you, by contrast have pitted your
belief and course against and into a political fracas that many
different people are conjoined to. Because you are tied in this way
to a distinctly living struggle your pursuit of a place in the
political struggle makes me very uneasy, and this uneasiness is
actually largely a result of this document .
In one respect I consider
your paper an exceedingly dangerous text.
You have exhibited in this
tremendously energetic writing career a lot of strength to carry
burdens and arguments forward in time toward the future. What if one
of those burdens is not what you believe it to be?
By arrogating freedom
seekers of every kind, including of course freedom from belief in
God, as an active example of submission to the Jewish move to
victory over the goy, you are taking an incredible stance. Can it
not occur to you that enclosing all mankind in a "spiritual"
religious argument is an unpleasant arrogance?
To resume now, from my
reading, and from a history of the Jewish Church that I am also
reading, I perforce must come to the conclusion that the Jewish
notion of their difference and isolation in their notion of being
the chosen people of God is utterly fraudulent. Their relationship
to the other Arab races is very evident is it not? If Abraham could
understand his nomadic journey to the south, if David could
acknowledge the crimes of his militancy, if betrayal which from
Abraham on was a central twist to tribal loyalties between brothers
and then entered national history in David's ancestor, the woman who
betrayed her tribes to allow Moses tribal descendents penetrate
Palestine, if violence which is evidently crucial to the occupation
today as it was under Saul etc., and if the material consequence of
a financial ambition can also be said to be mirrored by Arabs, their
closest relatives, it becomes of course imperative to you to take a
political stand. And for you to use weapons of knowledge and example
against the Jewish political militancy in evidence everywhere, from
Mossad's secret assignations in distant countries to the televised
present occupation, reels of their violence in Palestine.
Because of Jewish history
itself the field for your engagement in text and argument is clear
and open ground. Something that curiously enough this protestant
history written in 1800’s precisely pinpoints. This is the fact
that tablet, text, history, psalm and song are an intrinsic part of
Jewish history, the consequence of which associates them with the
origins of their Assyrian background and the parallel of Greece.
Both Jews and Greeks developed the written sign, word, to encompass
other material than mere agricultural and trade records. They
introduced social philosophy, concepts of "the teacher", the poem,
and history which was then called prophecy. A surge of development
toward the future was thus brought to life. Through Mohammed, later,
the Arabs also developed similar themes, paintings, poems and social
philosophy that ultimately was frustrated by tribal leaders without
these concepts and finally by the English and French mandates and
"kings". I think the Arab has always clung to the concept of a
personal freedom through poetry despite this.
I would describe this
evolution of mental activity as occurring because the mind became
"indwelling", that was maintained within a religious "system"
exclusive and militant, which the Wahabbis lacked, having only
militancy to sustain them beyond the Koran. However because of this
exclusive "indwelling" the Jews failed to develop a co-ordinating
life-style of vigorous peasant agriculture. They preferred to use
the work of other tribes, as today, having dismissed the thousands
of Palestinian workers, they now use Thais and Chinese etc.
The above can easily be
found relevant with the development of the swift and vigorous mental
life developed in Greece. And don't you see how the Romans, Virgil
and others fitted into the understanding that I am emphasising by
writing their books of educational agriculture and poetic myths of
Ovid in order to maintain the contact with nature and natural life.
Academic knowledge accumulated and enabled the protestant cleric to
make an equitable comparison with the Jews as examples of human
development with the Greeks(whom as you know all English worship),
as it was then in the1800s,when there was a growing European surge
of interest in the Middle East.
The misfortune ultimately of
the Jews and of the Greeks was in the latter noticeable in Plato,
the association of literacy with religion, an aristocracy, and with
militant victory.
The diaspora of the Jews
however had an extraordinary and different development. Armenians
developed, (almost global trading!), all over the surface of Europe
and Asia. This trade the Jews permeated and finally took over. And
this I suggest is the true source of the energetic enterprise in
that activity; money balance, trade and usury that might almost now
be considered their "genetic" impulse - ?This trading enabled them
make small and useful settlements all over the place, pleasing to
themselves and the foreign nations where they settled. One such has
just been demonstrated in India of ancient establishment - as there
was in Kabul where only two Jews remain (who detest one another!)
However I am neglecting to
write a little about your essay, instead of my thoughts on the
matter!
The plan of your structure
for this essay is very interesting and magnetic, a simple structure
of research that allows your profuse talent to illustrate in your
very own style that is so much admired. But, man dear, in my opinion
you have betrayed it and rushed into it - opening doors here and
there for cross currents of illumination for the dark corners you
want to turn out. You label and even name some of the political
criminals you wish to identify unadvisedly, such as the following: "
Sir Conrad Black...admittedly married to a nasty Jewish
supremacist." and I think you deserve a strong dose of criticism for
that for a start! Another: "for it is not only impossible for you to
join the Jews, it is also not to be desired, for Jewry is not a good
set-up - as we shall try to show.."
Undesirable manifestations
indeed of rule and tradition. The "reason" for Hitler's support may
have been the money he thought he would have available to prosecute
his war in Europe for the German expansion. Expansion that the
weak-minded Woodrow Wilson thought he was putting to an end with the
Versailles Treaty. Some of your allusions and quotations refer to
problems that were not essentially Jewish but the problems citizens
all over the world became familiar with : the World Wars that
culminated in the explosions of the Atom Bombs, Problems which for
an outcome outcome demanded that citizens everywhere find an escape
from the hegemony of government tyranny and military ambitions. Of
course this all appeared to recede as politicians everywhere simply
recreated the old formulas for their governance as today we can see
that in Europe, Russia, England and USA governments are going to
corrupt the rule of Law even further to give them "virtual" control
of every citizen. These politicians have the arrogance to describe
their intrusions of control the "Art of the Possible".
Israel I am not going to
work through your essay nit-picking, I think it is a secure and
serious evocation of religious anxieties and certain fates. The
system illustrated by the O.Henry story is an amusing introduction
and instructive to difficult rigours of Jewish ideas. You develop
from this threads that hang from the Gordian knot of this terrible
strife. Also your optimism is positively saintly, although side by
side with a deep loathing of the violence and material philosophies
of the modern world.
The major objection I have
is to this notion of yours that of freedom as a form of subjection
to Zionist projects. I don't think you have any right to contaminate
the innocent human recurrence of the search for an individual's
freedom that has been an ancient historical and sustained clangour
rung out against oppression, repression and recurring defeat. Such
defeats are nothing whatsoever to do with an overwhelming vision of
spiritual development, despite having been entangled again and again
in religious claims, heresies, and tragedies from Troy to Joe Soap
at war in Iraq.
That is all I can manage to
say at the moment, maybe reading it again sometime I will have other
acknowledgement. Regards and thanks for the opportunity to read your
2004 magnum opus,
Jocelyn Baddell.
From Marcel
Israel Adam, my dear brother
in Christ, thanks for the PARDES text. I read it with great interest
and profit. It confirmed me even more in my mission. What an
excellent job you're doing to serve Truth and He who said "I am the
Truth...". It reminds me of the apocalyptic words: "You must
prophecy AGAIN against many peoples, and nations, languages and
kings" (Rev 10,11). That's what we're doing, you in your world and I
in mine.
There are points I'd like to
exchange with you. I was convinced, and now even more, that honest
Jews are the first victims of Zionism offered on the altar of Baal.
Just as honest Christians and Muslims are victims of their
respective clergy. What you say about Simone Weil changes my opinion
favourably about her.
The revolution you're doing
in the Jewish communities is like the one I'm doing on my level and
possibilities in the Christian (...or so-called) World. A new
apocalyptic priesthood is actually been formed by Jesus. He is
already spiritually back in the world to renew the relation between
his followers and his Father in a simple family relation. He is to
make priests of those who open the door for Him to come in and have
supper together en "tête à tête" as we say in France (Revelation 1,6
/ 3,20 / 5,6/ 20,6/ Luke12,35-40). I'm sure He'd like you to "open
the door and let Him in to have HIS Supper with you", to share his
blessed Body and Blood in simplicity, not in Churches where He is no
more. This is the time of "the renewal of all things" (Acts 3,21),
the "New Jerusalem descending from Heaven and the New World built up
by the One who sits on the Throne" (Rev 21,1-5). You are more of a
Christian priest than any priest or bishop I met. Now is the Lord's
"wedding feast" (Mat 22 / Rev 19,7) now is the time to answer, and
for the "wise virgins to wake up" (Mat 25).
I don't think either "that
the MISSION of the Church is over". Its sacred Mission will go on
being carried by new modern apostles like a certain Israel Adam
Shamir and others. Had the Church been alive, she would have spoken
like you, like me, and others who dare to speak, and "Simone Weil,
the little Communist Christian saint would not have avoided
full communion with the Church for she felt the Church to be too
pro-Jewish" (I'd even say too pro-zionist. PaRDeS Chapter 2). You
also admit that "The Church does not wish to confer priesthood upon
its laity" (PaRDeS: chapter "The spiritual Pump"). This is because
the Church is dead. But the living and everlasting Messiah, Jesus,
explicitly wishes to confer his priesthood to laity because we are
all priests. This is one aspect of the New Apocalyptic Earth and
Heaven on earth. That's the reason of my indestructible optimistic
faith.
The Church is dead because,
as mentioned in PaRDeS, chapter 'The Spiritual Pump': "small
agreements with the Jews caused the submission of Christendom- not
only to the Jews, but also to their Guiding Spirit. It begins (it
began already) with small things...An even worse folly was the
idea of two valid Covenants of Vatican II...In no way may a
Christian state that the Jewish covenant is valid; for it undermines
the very meaning of Christ's sacrifice". This undermining killed the
Church, NOT ITS MISSION. No dialogue with Satan other than a kick in
his buttocks. Our poor "mother" Eve only established an "innocent"
symbolical dialogue with him. She killed humanity. Christ rescued
us. You reveal that Joseph della Reina only lit an innocent candle
at Satan's command. The Church, through John Paul II, did even more,
much more, She visited the Antichrist up to the Wailing Wall, In
Jerusalem, She even sat on a throne with the Cross of Jesus up side
down, She even received Christ's declared enemy gloriously in the
Vatican, exclaiming heartily: "God bless Israel!". I don't see Jesus
saying nor doing all that. I understand why He asked: "When the Son
of man comes, will he find faith on earth?" (Luke 18,8). The Church
is morally dead by becoming Israel's "zombie". But her holy Mission
will go on and on and on and, as you say ending up PaRDeS : "After
Crucifixion (and death) there is Resurrection". This has
already discreetly started in many lay Christian priests. Whether
the traditional Church wants it or not. God's holy Will be done; It
is already being done. My answer to Jesus' question : "Yes, Brother
Lord and Saviour, Yes! You'll find faith on earth in our welcoming
hearts and souls. Our doors are widely open for You".
Glory be to the everlasting
living Jesus, the one and only Christ, our Lord and Saviour...and to
his discreet Holy Mother, our Mediator.
Brotherly yours in Jesus,
the "semite", our Saviour.
Daniel
From Vic
Dear Shamir.
I read your manuscript
PaRDeS and I am indebted to you for bring out and expanding on the
genesis of the problem the world is experiencing today. I agree with
you that only a very small percentage of Jews know of the plans
drawn by even a smaller minority of their compatriots.
You mention that in the
past, until the turn of the 20th Century a good number of
Jews happily assimilated themselves with the various nations where
their wanderings took them and they became fully fledged French,
English, German etc., etc. nationals. You conclude that the
salvation of the world rests with the quick assimilation of this
race.
As a Christian you also look
as the present struggle as a Good versus Evil contest for the soul
of humanity and place your hopes in the Christian Church and its
principles based on the teachings of Paul – “there is not Jew or
Greek, male or female” – within the consciousness of Christ.
But look at the Jews. Here
is a race that has covered the 5 continents with their presence for
thousands of years and despite the claim of assimilation it did not
stop them from being a race. Nowhere was where they settled this
assimilation truly successful. They did not assimilate with the
Egyptians in the time of Moses nor with the Babylonians in the time
of Ezra. They did not assimilate with the Romans, Greeks, Arabs or
the Europeans, and they are not assimilating now.
In the span of 2500 years no
meaningful change has been noted from the original prophetic
utterance of “a people that dwell alone”. Isn’t it time we all
called it quits?
I once heard someone mention
the Catholic Church had a saying that “Give me a child for the first
7 years of his life and he will always be a Roman Catholic” Jews
remain Jews due to two factors – race (or blood) and ideology (one
could also call it Religion) – and every new born Jew, apart from
the ‘blood-tie’ spends more than seven years in an environment that
will indoctrinate him in “the way of the fathers” Samuel Roth in
“Jews Must Live” gives an apt description of this environment in his
“The Bringing Up Of The Little Jew” chapter. You still call yourself
a Jew, although you were born and brought up in Russia. It may well
explain your quote regarding the locusts not having or needing a
leader.
I believe in the concept of
Race and its genetic code, in its many ramifications and in its
numerous groups and sub-groups down to the single individual and
accept the differences between individual units, and these
differences increase as one moves up to sub-groups, groups and
eventually to the general trends of a particular race, where these
differences are most noticeable. Inequality in everything is the
norm in Nature, not equality. This is true also of the human psyche.
It is different in every individual, group and race. And
assimilation and interracial propagation is an aberration of natural
principles. It is, in fact, the true meaning of “adultery” in the
Biblical sense.
The Church, in its belief
that the material world is only a ‘stop-over’, contributed no end to
this aberration of Natural Law in their perceived mission to convert
the world to its ideology. It is still believed that Christ’s second
coming will not take place until the Gospel has been preached to all
the people of the world. While the Church believes in its method of
Salvation through Christ, the Jews believe that their Salvation is
in being Jews. I have no quarrel with either.
The White race has buckled
under a two-pronged attack.
The Jews, as part of their
plan to reach the ultimate goal of world dominance have supplanted
the natural instinct of the preservation of the race and the
inequality principle with an ideology of equality in all spheres of
existence, transformed genes into environment and injected a guilt
complex into the blood stream of the nations.
The Church, with their cry
of “mea culpa, mea culpa”, gladly accepted this ‘guilt trip’ and
taught its flock that we are all guilty of sin and that sin was what
made Christ – a Jew – suffer and die at Calvary. No wonder those
that saw Mel’s film came out of the theatre with a better
understanding of how they, personally, crucified Jesus. (The irony
of it all is that the Bible, and Jesus himself, clearly states that
his mission on earth was for the Jews only) It went further by
depicting Jews as the “chosen ones” who, albeit misguided for now,
would eventually have their names (and their names only) engraved
over the 12 portals of the New Jerusalem, built by God in heaven and
beamed down to earth at the end of time. This is the position today.
At the start it tried to differentiate between old and new Israel
(itself) but it was eventually infiltrated with a new ideology and
lost its primary zeal. It was bound to happen for it used the Old
Testament to formulate its doctrines.
The Bible is, in my view, a
Jewish book – from Genesis to Revelation - that concerns itself
primarily (‘overwhelmingly’, I should say) with Jewish fortunes and
all other nations are treated as side items, whose people may get
some of the crumbs that fall from the Master’s table. The New
Testament was produced to, perhaps, counteract the Old but in trying
to prove their point by using the fulfilment of prophecy as their
‘proof ‘ the writers tied the Old to the New in a way that cannot
easily be undone. Thus the acceptance that both parts formed a
whole, indivisible, and this is further endorsed with the stamp of
‘holiness’.
It matters little if one
spiritualises the stories presented or if one accepts them as
historical facts. And it matter even less if one is to marry both.
Then one gets a myriad of interpretations and beliefs as is the case
today.
I accept Hitler’s
interpretation of National Socialism. A State is a racial organism.
One is a member of that State by the virtue that your psyche and
your blood is German, from German parents and carries the genetic
code of that particular sub-group. Place of birth, religious belief
and group association does not make one a German, neither does one
loose one’s ‘German ness’ through these factors. The same goes for
any other people. A Chinese does not alter his features because
he/she was born in Europe He may became fully Europeanised but he
remains a Chinese.
Another point you bring out
in connection with the destruction of Europe during WWII that it was
due to National Socialist policies is, to me, not valid. War came
because the Jews wanted it for they saw National Socialism as a
threat to their own plans, and the Holocaust myth gave a tremendous
impetus to their cult of ‘victimhood’ and helped their cause, no
end.
Throughout history, and
before, men and nations always had the desire to rule others – it
seems it is a human trait – so there is no ‘sin’ in the Jews wanting
to control the rest of the peoples in the world. Some conquerors are
magnanimous, others tyrannical. From what you describe the Jews fall
in the latter category. Still, borders were not drawn by God on a
world map so man is under no obligation to maintain them
I understand that nobody can
change somebody else unless that someone is willing to change, thus
I admire the Jews for remaining Jews and in their endeavours to
reach the goal they were ‘promised’ so long ago and reserve my utter
contempt to my so-called leaders who were elected to the task of
ensuring my independence and well-being. They are the traitors and
criminals. And the ‘shabbesgoyim’ fall in this same category.
Somehow, I cannot see myself
including Ariel Sharon in this list. He and the Jews believe that
the end justifies the means, albeit with some self sacrifices, and
are prepared to allow some Jews to perish for the greater good of
the race. And to counteract their racial ideology only a similar
ideology has any chance of success. If the nations of the world
adopted similar trends in their respective lands it would lead to
equilibrium.
I see no need for a belief
in a higher plane as a fundamental requirement for people. I believe
that Hitler sought to replace the Judeo-Christian religion with a
‘Nature’ religion which he referred to as “Fate” and having spoken
to some Germans, Hungarians and Italians (those not too scared to
talk), that lived through those days, it seems they look at that
period as a Golden Era of Central Europe. In fact, I spoke to
British veterans that said that ‘if they knew then what they know
now’ they would have fought on the German side.
Having read “Mein Kampf” I
can honestly say that I find no fault in the book, taking into
consideration the period in which it was written.
Please look at this letter
as my own interpretation of events and not as a critique of your
most excellently formulated manuscript. I hope you forgive its
length. .
I am puzzled, though, seeing
that you live in Israel, that you have been allowed to remain, so
far, relatively untouched by the powers that be and able to write
what you write on a subject that seems to be taboo in the Western
nations. May you be allowed to continue, as the world needs people
such as yourself.
Keep well.
Vic
From Xavier Lavaud
Dear Israel,
I have read the first three parts of Pardes.
My opinion is that it is absolutely perfect.
And purely Marxist as far as I understand.
I want to check this point with a few Marxist experts, sooner or
later they
will have to make a choice.
|
