Recently, the formerly highly respected web essayist, John Kaminski, wrote a new piece entitled “Parasite alert: Outing those who pretend to be friends of the truth” in which he took a strange jab at yours truly as follows:
[...] It’s also interesting that Daryl writes about Zionists but agrees with French law that one may not speak about the Holocaust, a colossal act of cowardice that should send people running from his site and should de-legitimize anything he says in the minds of anybody who can think. [...] Another person who falls into this category is channeler Laura Knight-Jadczyk, who has inveigled many with her prescient psychological pronouncements that it is a percentage of psychopaths that hold the world in thrall through savagery. K-J’s encyclopedic and endlessly perfect papers about aspects of human behavior scare the shit out of me, because her new science of ponerology could serve perfectly as a new template for totalitarianism, to be imposed by the very people who get to fund spooky think tanks like these. Thankfully, she has not caught on in any of the groups I observe working on the world’s problems. [See our Forum Thread for the entire essay]
John is right: understanding what is really going on here on the BBM has not caught on in any of the groups he observes “working on the world’s problems.” We can also note that none of these groups seem to be making any progress because the very science that could help them to understand the first level of what they need to solve before anything can ever get done “scares the shite” out of them. Now, why would that be?
It’s an interesting question, and I want to share a story about someone else who was working on solving the world’s problems at another time and place in history, similar to our present day, in order to make a particular point. I want to talk about Frtiz Gerlich’s Bloody Spectacles. Now, before I get to Fritz, let me first say a few words about David Irving. In my previous blogpost, I discussed the truly scary idea that is taking hold in many anti-Zionist circles that, because the Zionists seem to be at the root of the world’s problems today, that Hitler must have been a good guy because he saw the Jews as being at the root of all the world’s ills then. David Irving seems to be one of the ringleaders of this idea. I recently read an interview with Irving where he says that the “defining moment” for him was when he had penetrated the “inner circle” of the people who had been close to Hitler and he realized that they were all “well-educated, nice and decent”. So, of course, if all these well-educated, nice people with deep thoughts and insights thought Hitler was a good guy, then of course, he must be! Irving was caught in the psychopath’s trap just like all the people in Hitler’s inner circle were caught… . He’s not the first, either. Nor will he be the last. In fact, it’s almost epidemic nowadays. I won’t belabor the point; those of you familiar with the problem know exactly what I’m talking about. What is problematical is what this “conviction” has driven Irving to do: cherry pick and spin data. More than that, it has driven him to emulate his hero in certain respects. About the people who support him, Irving has been recorded to say:
“I find it odious to be in the same company as these people. There is no question that there are certain organizations that propagate these theories which are cracked anti-Semites.”
He then asserts that he’s only using these “cracked anti-Semites” cynically. He plans to jettison them as soon as he can find more respectable forums:
“If I’ve been denied a platform worldwide, where else can I make my voice heard? As soon as I get back onto regular debating platforms I shall shake off this ill-fitting shoe which I’m standing on at present. I’m not blind. I know these people have done me a lot of damage, a lot of harm, because I get associated then with those stupid actions.” [Interviewed by Ron Rosenbaum in Explaining Hitler, 1998, Random House]
The history of psychopaths having followers who worship the ground they walk on is legion. Manipulation is the key to the psychopath’s conquests. Initially, the psychopath will feign false emotions to create empathy, and many of them study the tricks that can be employed by the empathy technique. Psychopaths are often able to incite pity from people because they seem like “lost souls” as Guggenbuhl-Craig writes. So the pity factor is one reason why victims often fall for these “poor” people. Martha Stout, who has studied these types of people and manipulations in great deal, writes about the “pity play” in her book The Sociopath Next Door:
“The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy… “More than admiration — more even than fear — pity from good people is carte blanche…. Pity and sympathy are forces for good when they are reactions to deserving people who have fallen on misfortune. But when these sentiments are wrestled out of us by the undeserving, by people whose behavior is consistently anti-social, this is a sure sign that something is wrong, a potentially useful danger signal that we often overlook.”
Robert Hare, who has devoted his career to the study of psychopathy, cites a famous case where a psychopath was “Man of the Year” and president of the Chamber of Commerce in his small town. (Remember that John Wayne Gacy was running for Jaycee President at the very time of his first murder conviction!) The man in question had claimed to have a Ph.D. from Berkeley. He ran for a position on the school board which he then planned to parlay into a position on the county commission which paid more. At some point, a local reporter suddenly had the idea to check up on the guy – to see if his credentials were real. What the reporter found out was that the only thing that was true about this up and coming politician’s “faked bio” was the place and date of birth. Everything else was fictitious. Not only was the man a complete impostor, he had a long history of antisocial behavior, fraud, impersonation, and imprisonment. His only contact with a university was a series of extension courses by mail that he took while in Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary. What is even more amazing is the fact that before he was a con-man, he was a “con-boy.” For two decades he had dodged his way across America one step ahead of those he had hoodwinked. Along the way he had married three women and had four children, and he didn’t even know what had happened to them. And now, he was on a roll! But darn that pesky reporter! When he was exposed, he was completely unconcerned. “These trusting people will stand behind me. A good liar is a good judge of people,” he said. Amazingly, he was right. Far from being outraged at the fact that they had all been completely deceived and lied to from top to bottom, the local community he had conned so completely to accrue benefits and honors to himself that he had not earned, rushed to his support! I kid you not! And it wasn’t just “token support.” The local Republican party chairman wrote about him: “I assess his genuineness, integrity, and devotion to duty to rank right alongside of President Abraham Lincoln.”
As Hare dryly notes, this dimwit was easily swayed by words, and was blind to deeds. And that seems to have been the case with the “intellectuals” associated with Hitler. So, of course, having decided that Hitler had to be a nice guy because all these nice, well-educated people said he was, everything Irving has done since then was predicated on his need to cleanse Hitler of any sins. The fact is, Hitler was a lying, evil psychopath who murdered millions upon millions of decent human beings, a large proportion of them being Jews. Which brings me to Fritz Gerlich and the Munich Post. I’ve often wanted to get my hands on the German newspapers of the time before and after Hitler came to power so as to try to understand what was really going on in Germany at that moment. I wondered if we could draw any lessons from it for our present time. I’ve asked many people if they have ever seen any such articles reproduced anywhere, or have they heard of them, and I’ve always drawn a blank on that question. After all, if we suppose that our present time under the Bush Reich has any similarity to the Third Reich of Hitler, it would be nice to have some concrete material that was written in real time, at the time, on which to base comparisons. As it happens, Ron Rosenbaum was curious about it too but for a different reason. He interviewed a Holocaust survivor who mentioned an article that he remembered from the time, and Rosenbaum went looking for it. He found a lot more than he bargained for. He found Fritz Gerlich and theMunich Post. Rosenbaum calls Fritz and his ilk the “First Explainers.”
The heroic anti-Hitler Munich journalists who, from 1920 to 1933 (when many were jailed or murdered) bravely went about the daily task of attempting to tell the world about the strange figure who had arisen from the Munich streets to become leader of a movement that would seize power and inscribe a new chapter in the history of evil. My fascination with these largely forgotten figures, the reporters who were the first to investigate the political and personal life, the criminality and scandals of Hitler and “the Hitler party,” as they astutely called it, began to grow as I first began to pick up echoes and traces of their struggle with Hitler, buried in the footnotes of postwar historains… My fascination deepened when I came upon a nearly complete collection of flaking and yellowing, seven-decades-old back issues of the anti-Hitler Munich Post, moldering away in the basement of Munich’s Monacensia library archives. They’ve since been transferred to midcrofilm, but there was somthing about communing with the acutal crumbling copies of the newspaper Hitler’s party called “the Poison Kitchen,” issues in which Hitler was a living figure stalking the pages, that served to give me a painfully immediate intimation of the maddenlying unbearable Cassandra-like frustration the Munich Post journalists must have felt. They were the first to sense the dimensions of Hitler’s potential for evil – and to see the way the world ignored the desperate warnings in their work.As a journalist, I felt simultaneously a growing awe at what they’d accomplished, how much they’d exposed, and how completely they’d been forgotten. Theirs was the first sustained attempt to fathom the depths of the Hitler phenomenon as it began to unfold…. The vision of the First Explainers was the vision of the men and women who were critical witnesses to the now-lost spectacle of Hitler becoming Hitler. In addition to the courageous reporters and editors of the Munich Post, there were others such as Rudolf Olden, Konrad Heiden, Walter Schaber… and Fritz Gerlich. The iconoclastic editor of a conservative anti-Marxist, anti-Nazi opposition paper called Der Gerade Weg (The Right Way, or Straight Path), celebrated as a journalistic nemesis of Hitler in his time, largely forgotten now. Gerlich was murdered in Dachau for attempting to print a damaging expose of Hitler five weeks after the Nazis had seized power and crushed the rest of the opposition press. A fascinating figure, Gerlich, a scathing Swiftian satirical scourge of Hitler, he possessed an uncanny insight into the racial dynamics of Hitler’s pathology. A skeptical historical scholar, Gerlich nonetheless came to believe in the prophetic powers of a controversial, probably fraudulent, Bavarian stigmatic and found in her a source of the faith that led him to gamble his life on a last-ditch effort to bring Hitler down with his pen and printing press. With and expose to end all exposes of Hitler, he hoped: one final story that would shock the public and cause President Paul von Hindenburg to depose the newly installed Chancellor Hitler before it was too late. It was a desperate gamble that failed.
On March 9, 1933, storm troopers burst into Gerlich’s newspaper office, ripped his last story from the presses, beat him senseless, and dragged him off to Dachau, where he was murdered on the Night of the Long Knives in June 1934. The nature of the expose he’d been about to publish – some said it concerned the circumstances of the death of Hitler’s half-niece Geli Raubal in his apartment, others said it concerned the truth about the February 1933 Reichstag fire or foreign funding of the Nazis – has been effectively lost to history; it is one of the evidentiary trails I’ve pursued to the bitter end. … I managed to track down in Munich one of Gerlich’s last living colleagues, Dr. Johannes Steiner, a retired publisher in his nineties who had been a partner in Gerlich’s doomed anti-Hitler attack sheet, Der Gerade Weg. Dr. Steiner’s memory of that awful time, particularly the last days of Gerlich, when they were all on the run, was fragmentary. But there was one moment, one memory he’d preserved with frightening clarity for six decades: a memory of the Gestapo and Fritz Gerlich’s spectacles. Gerlich’s steel-rimmed glasses had become a kind of signature image for the combative newspaperman among those who knew him in Munich, an emblem almost of his steely determination and clarity of vision. But after a year in Dachau, after the Gestapo had dragged him out of his cell and shot him in the head on the Night of the Long Knives, Hitler’s thugs chose a cruel and chilling way to notify Gerlich’s wife. Dr. Steiner recalled: “They sent to his widow, Sophie, Gerlich’s spectacles, all spattered with blood.” [Ron Rosenbaum, Explaining Hitler]
Rosenbaum sees the cruel gesture as, perhaps, an acknowledgment by Hitler’s thugs that Gerlich had seen too much and knew too much, “a token of how much his vision was feared and hated by the Hitler inner circle, for having seen through them.” Now, did you notice anything particularly interesting in the above, brief account of the who, what, when, and where of Fritz Gerlich? It probably slipped right by, but it was this: “A skeptical historical scholar, Gerlich nonetheless came to believe in the prophetic powers of a controversial, probably fraudulent, Bavarian stigmatic and found in her a source of the faith that led him to gamble his life on a last-ditch effort to bring Hitler down with his pen and printing press.” What is Rosenbaum talking about? A “Bavarian stigmatic”? Well, before we get to that, let’s talk about Fritz Gerlich and “The Trial of Hitler’s Nose.” In July of 1932, an extraordinary photocomposite image of Hitler appeared on the front page of one of Munich’s leading newspapers. I tried, without success, to obtain an image of this issue – but a reader found it:
The photo shows Hitler in top hat and tails, arm in arm with a black bride in a wedding scene and the headline read: “Does Hitler Have Mongolian Blood?” It seems that caricatures of Hitler had appeared in many of the opposition papers and on posters for years, but most of these tended to focus on the mustache and forelock or facial exaggeration. This image struck much closer to home and certainly was Gerlich’s death warrant. To publish an attack as vicious as this one, an attack that was more far reaching and deeply wounding in the body of the text than even the sensational photo and headline would indicate, was an act of great personal courage by a desperate and doomed prophet. In his hitpiece, Gerlich proposes that the reader apply the “racial science” of one of Hitler’s favorite racial theorists, Dr. Hans Gunther – who had prescribed the precise shape and dimension of each and every head and facial feature of “the Nordic type” – to Hitler’s own head and face, especially to his nose. With accompanying photographs, Gerlich proceeds to demonstrate that Hitler was not, in fact, Aryan, but was, rather, of the Mongolian type. Gerlich went further in writing a “brilliant critique which resulted in the devastating conclusion that Hitler – by his own lights – not only lacked Aryan physiognomy, he lacked an Aryan soul.” Rosenbaum writes:
[It gave] great satisfaction that at least here, one anti-Hitler journalist had gone all out, had gone for the jugular, had given vent to the anger and contempt that all felt before they were all silenced. I suspect this no-holds-barred fatal recklessness has something to do with my own fascination with Gerlich. It’s surprising to discover, when you look at the literature on Hitler and the Nazi leadership before and after the war, inside and outside Germany, how little outright, heartfelt hatred and loathing is expressed in print. The tone and tendency of prewar explainers was to condescend to Hitler, to treat him as a phenomenon beneath contempt, much less serious consideration. Rather than urge the necessity of combating Hitler, prewar explainers acted as if he could be wished away with words, belittled into oblivion. They diminished him to the point where he was not even a worthy target for antagonism. Postwar literature tends to diminish Hitler in a different way; knowing well what he wrought, the tendency is to argue it wasn’t really him, it was the deeper and more profound forces behind and beneath him, the wave on which he rode…. The rare exception to it like Gerlich throws the absence of passion elsewhere into stark relief. …The reckless yet exquisitely well-honed hatred beneath the surface of Gerlich’s satire …was more than a howl, it was a razor-edged analytic tool that cut to the heart of Hitler’s pathology before anyone else did, before it was too late – if anyone had listened. [Ron Rosenbaum, Explaining Hitler]
So, Ron Rosenbaum, a Jew, has found a heroic standard bearer in the life and work of Fritz Gerlich; but he has a problem. He says that Gerlich was “driven by his obsession with Hitler from the rational to the irrational…” Why does he see the man who performed such acts of journalistic resistance against Hitler – acts that he admires so much, even right to the end, as “irrational”? The same reason that John Kaminski refers to me pejoratively as a “channeler.” It’s the problem of the “Bavarian Stigmatic” which I’m getting to; be patient. Fritz Gerlich was born Protestant and received a doctorate in history at university in Munich. By 1923, he was a respected and influential figure in the nationalist movement and was, therefore, an early supporter of Hitler. However, in the spring of 1923, he received a visitor in his apartment, that rising star of the right-wing nationalist forces, Adolf Hitler himself. No one knows what happened at that meeting, but it seems that something said then, connected with things Hitler did later, turned Gerlich into an implacable foe. Apparently, Gerlich had seen something, the “two faces of Adolf Hitler.” Gerlich formed a close-knit group of colleagues who all worked first at the Munchener Neueste Nachrichten, and then later, with Gerlich on his own spinoff anti-Hitler paper, Der Gerade Weg. For ten years, from 1923 until 1933, this group was the most outspoken center of anti-Hitler journalism among conservatives in Germany. The Gerlich group members who escaped arrest in the raid on the paper in March of 1933 went on to become the nucleus of the anti-Hitler movement that culminated in Claus von Stauffenberg’s failed assassination attempt on Hitler in July of 1944. As you might guess, at that point, they were executed. We go to Rosenbaum now to learn about Gerlich and Neumann:
But something strange happened to Gerlich and this little group in the late twenties: They forged a highly improbably alliance, one that became a source of the faith that fueled their courageous anti-Hitler campaign. Gerlich and his friends became deeply involved with a holy stigmatic – a highly controversial, probably fraudulent, yet widely worshipped Bavarian woman: Therese Neumann. It still seems remarkable to me that a skeptical, Protestant, rationalist historian such as Gerlich, the no-nonsense newspaper editor with the gimlet eye behind the steel-rimmed glasses, would be taken in by this primitive, bedridden, Catholic mystic whose own church was skeptical… One of [Therese's] visitors – an aristocratic Catholic conservative, Count Erwin von Aretin, who survived to become Gerlich’s postwar biographer – became a believer…. Finally, after repeated urgings from his colleagues, the skeptical Potestant Gerlich decided to pay a visit to the stigmatic. To the surprise of just about everyone, he came back deeply impressed. More than that, he returned repeatedly, found himself drawn deeper and deeper into the peasant girl’s circle, would transcribe her visionary utterances, and translate them into warnings and prophecies about the growing crisis in Germany. … Dr. Johannes Steiner, Gerlich’s colleague, portrays Gerlich first going to Konnersreuth “determined to unmask every fraud he encountered… If there were any to be found.” [Ron Rosenbaum, Explaining Hitler]
Yes indeedy, Rosenbaum’s hero was hooked up with a real live “channeler.” And Rosenbaum, the Jew, simply can’t bear it. He goes on for some paragraphs assuring us that Therese Neumann was a fraud, a charlatan, and undoubtedly it was something wrong with Gerlich’s mind that led him into this nonsense, never mind that he continued to do excellent work, and was, in fact, among the bravest of those journalists that stood against Hitler. More than this, it seems that the channeler was literally the inspiration for much of Gerlich’s work, and Rosenbaum turns impressive cerebral cartwheels trying to talk his way around that! Now, how can that be? Rosenbaum can hardly stomach it. As it happens, it seems that Therese Neumann was NOT a fraud:
Wonder or fake-investigations in the case of the stigmatisation of Therese Neumann von Konnersreuth. Rolf B, Bayer B, Anslinger K. Institute of Legal Medicine, Ludwigs-Maximilians-Universitat, Frauenlobstr. 7 a, 80337, Munich, Germany, Burkhard.Rolf@med.uni-muenchen.de. We investigated two compresses used by Therese Neumann (T.N.), a woman who lived from 1898 until 1962 in Konnersreuth, Germany. The compresses were soaked with blood during the appearance of stigmata on T.N.’s body on a Friday. T.N. became very popular among the faithful in Germany at this time. The question was whether this blood was from T.N. herself or from a family relative or an animal. The comparison of the HV1 and HV2 mtDNA sequence obtained from the compresses with the sequences from a reference sample from a maternally related niece of T.N. revealed an identity. Furthermore, we obtained a short tandem repeat (STR) profile from the bloodstains that were identical with the STR profile from a gummed envelope. The envelope contained a letter written by T.N. in the 1930s. Therefore, our investigations gave no indication for any manipulation.
Now, let’s get down to brass tacks here. Those of you that have read Controversy of Zion are aware that Douglas Reed makes the charge that the World Revolution is intended to “destroy Christianity.” I think the issue is much deeper than just the destruction of “Christianity,” though that is a useful tag to put on the intention. But let’s look at this a bit more deeply. In Controversy of Zion, Reed takes some time to analyze the Protocols of Zion. Now, we all know that the Protocals were a hoax, that they had nothing to do with the Jews, but it is certainly clear to anyone with two neurons firing that there is something mysterious about those Protocols. As a matter of fact, they describe perfectly the situation we see in our world today. But these conditions are not just “Jewish,” or even just Zionist; the conditions are created by pathological deviants that infected Judaism and Christianity and Islam. In every area of life, they penetrate every group; they are the bad apples that spoil every barrel. If you have never read the Protocols, now might be a good time to do so, substituting “pathocrat” for “the speakers and “normal people” or “ordinary people” for references to “goyim”. You will then understand that we are dealing with individuals with unlimited power, resources, and, it seems, a whole lot more psychological knowledge about human beings than most psychologists and psychiatrists even dream of; specialized knowledge at that. So, let me quote a bit of what Reed had to say about the Protocols because some interesting little tidbits about our theme emerge there:
It is informed by a mass of knowledge (particularly of human weaknesses) which can only have sprung from the accumulated experience and continuing study of centuries, or of ages. It is written in a tone of lofty superiority, as by beings perched on some Olympian pinnacle of sardonic and ancient wisdom, and of mocking scorn for the writhing masses far below (“the mob” . . . “alcoholized animals” . . . “cattle” . . . “bloodthirsty beasts”) who vainly struggle to elude the “nippers” which are closing on them; these nippers are “the power of gold” and the brute force of the mob, incited to destroy its only protectors and consequently itself. [Controversy of Zion]
Andrzej Lobaczewski describes the essential psychopath in a similar way:
In spite of their deficiencies in normal psychological and moral knowledge, they develop and then have at their disposal a knowledge of their own, something lacked by people with a natural world view. They learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to them. They also become conscious of being different from the world of those other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance, like a para-specific variety. Natural human reactions – which often fail to elicit interest to normal people because they are considered self-evident – strike the psychopath as strange and, interesting, and even comical. They therefore observe us, deriving conclusions, forming their different world of concepts. They become experts in our weaknesses and sometimes effect heartless experiments. The suffering and injustice they cause inspire no guilt within them, since such reactions from others are simply a result of their being different and apply only to “those other” people they perceive to be not quite conspecific. Neither a normal person nor our natural world view can fully conceive nor properly evaluate the existence of this world of different concepts. A researcher into such phenomena can glimpse the deviant knowledge of the psychopath through long-term studies of the personalities of such people, using it with some difficulty, like a foreign language. As we shall see below, such practical skill becomes rather widespread in nations afflicted by that macrosocial pathological phenomenon wherein this anomaly plays the inspiring role. A normal person can learn to speak their conceptual language even somewhat proficiently, but the psychopath is never able to incorporate the world view of a normal person, although they often try to do so all their lives. The product of their efforts is only a role and a mask behind which they hide their deviant reality. [Lobaczewski, Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes]
The items in the Protocols that relate to my theme of Fritz Gerlich and the Bavarian stigmatic, and how that relates to the pejorative manner in which John Kaminski referred to me as a “channeler” and promoter of knowledge that “scares” him are in the following passage from Reed’s book, in bold text:
The resemblance to Weishaupt’s documents is very strong in the passages which relate to the infiltration of public departments, professions and parties, for instance:
“It is from us that the all-engulfing terror proceeds. We have in our service persons of all opinions, of all doctrines, restorating monarchists, demagogues, socialists, communists, and utopian dreamers of every kind. We have harnessed them all to the task: each one of them on his own account is boring away at the last remnants of authority, is striving to overthrow all established form of order. By these acts all States are in torture; they exhort to tranquility, are ready to sacrifice everything for peace; but we will not give them peace until they openly acknowledge our international Super-Government, and with submissiveness”.
The allusions to the permeation of universities in particular, and of education in general, also spring directly from Weishaupt, or from whatever earlier source he received them:
“. . . We shall emasculate the universities . . . Their officials and professors will be prepared for their business by detailed secret programmes of action from which they will not with immunity diverge, not by one iota. They will be appointed with especial precaution, and will be so placed as to be wholly dependent upon the Government”
This secret permeation of universities (which was successful in the German ones in Weishaupt’s day, as his documents show) was very largely effective in our generation. The two British government officials who after their flight to Moscow were paraded before the international press in 1956 to state that they had been captured by Communism at their universities, were typical products of this method, described by the Protocols early in this century and by Weishaupt in 1787. Weishaupt’s documents speak of Freemasonry as the best “cover” to be used by the agents of the conspiracy. The Protocols allot the function of “cover” to “Liberalism”:
“When we introduced into the State organism the poison of Liberalism its whole political complexion underwent a change. States have been seized with a mortal illness, blood-poisoning. All that remains is to await the end of their death agony”.
The term “utopian dreamers“, used more than once, is applied to Liberals, and its original source probably resides in the Old Testamentary allusion to “dreamers of dreams” with “false prophets”, are to be put to death. The end of Liberalism, therefore, would be apparent to the student even if the Protocols did not specify it:
“We shall root out liberalism from the important strategic posts of our government on which depends the training of subordinates for our State structure”.
The “Big Brother” regimes of our century, are accurately foretold in the passage,
“Our government will have the appearance of a patriarchal paternal guardianship on the part of our ruler”.
Republicanism, too, is to be a “cover” for the conspiracy. The Protocols are especially contemptuous of republicanism, in which (and in liberalism) they see the weapon of self-destruction forged out of “the mob”:
“. . . then it was that the era of republics became possible of realization; and then it was that we replaced the ruler by a caricature of a government, by a president, taken from the mob, from the midst of our puppet creatures, our slaves. This was the foundation of the mine which we have laid under the peoples”.
Then the unknown scribes of some time before 1905 describe the position to which American presidents have been reduced in our century. The passage begins, “In the near future we shall establish the responsibility of presidents”. This, as the sequence shows, means personal responsibility, as distinct from responsibility curbed by constitutional controls; the president is to become one of the “premier-dictators” earlier foreseen, whose function is to be to break down the constitutional defences of states and thus prepare “unification under our sovereign rule”. During the First and Second World Wars the American presidents did in fact become “premier-dictators” in this sense, claiming that “the emergency” and the need for “victory” dictated this seizure of powers of personal responsibility; powers which would be restored to “the people” when “the emergency” was past. Readers of sufficient years will recall how inconceivable this appeared before it happened and how passively it was accepted in the event. The passage then continues:
“The chamber of deputies will provide cover for, will protect, will elect presidents, but we shall take from it the right to propose new, or make changes in existing laws, for this right will be given by us to the responsible president, a puppet in our hands. . . Independently of this we shall invest the president with the right of declaring a state of war. We shall justify this last right on the ground that the president as chief of the whole army of the country must have it at his disposal in case of need. . . It is easy to understand that in these conditions the key of the shrine will lie in our hands. and that no one outside ourselves will any longer direct the force of legislation. . . The president will. at our discretion, interpret the sense of such of the existing laws as admit of various interpretation; he will further annul them when we indicate to him the necessity to do so, besides this, he will have the right to propose temporary laws, and even new departures in the government constitutional working, the pretext both for the one and the other being the requirements for the supreme welfare of the state. By such measures we shall obtain the power of destroying little by little, step by step, all that at the outset when we enter on our rights, we are compelled to introduce into the constitutions of states to prepare for the transition to an imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution, and then the time is come to turn every government into our despotism”.
This forecast of 1905 or earlier particularly deserves Lord Sydenham’s tribute of “deadly accuracy”. American presidents in the two wars of this century have acted as here shown. They did take the right of declaring and making war, and it has been used at least once (in Korea) since the Second World War ended; any attempt in Congress or outside to deprive them of this power, or curb them in the use of it meets with violently hostile attack. So the Protocols continue. The peoples, on their progress “from one disenchantment to another”, will not be allowed “a breathing-space”. Any country “which dares to oppose us” must be met with war, and any collective opposition with “universal war”. The peoples will not be allowed “to contend with sedition” (here is the key to the furious attacks of the 1790′s, 1920 and today on all demands for “investigation”, “Witch-hunting”, “McCarthyism” and the like). In the Super-State to come the obligation will fall on members of one family to denounce dissident s within the family circle (the Old Testamentary dispensation earlier mentioned). The “complete wrecking of the Christian religion” will not be long delayed. The peoples will be kept distracted by trivial amusements (“people’s palaces”) from becoming troublesome and asking questions. History will be rewritten for their delusion (another precept since fulfilled in communized Russia), for
“…we shall erase from the memory of men all facts of previous centuries which are undesirable to us, and leave only those which depict all the errors of the national governments”. “All the wheels of the machinery of all States go by the force of the engine, which is in our hands, and that engine of the machinery of States is Gold”.
And the end of it all:
“What we have to get at is that there should be in all the States of the world, beside ourselves, only the masses of the proletariat, a few millionaires devoted to our interests, police and soldiers. . . The recognition of our despot. . . will come when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence. . . of their rulers, will clamour: ‘Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of discords, frontiers, nationalities, religions, State debts, who will give us peace and quiet, which we cannot find under our rulers and representatives’ “.
In two or three of these passages I have substituted “people” or “masses” for “Goyim “, because the use of that word relates to the unproven assertion contained in the book’s title, and I do not want to confuse the issues; evidence about the identity of the authors of the conspiracy must be sought elsewhere than in an unsupported allegation. The authors may have been Jewish, non-Jewish or anti-Jewish. That is immaterial. When it was published this work was the typescript of a drama which had not been performed; today it has been running for [over] fifty years and its title is The Twentieth Century. The characters depicted in it move on our contemporary stage, play the parts foretold and produce the events foreseen. Only the denouement remains, fiasco or fulfillment. … But it has existed for at least 180 years and probably for much longer, and the Protocols provided one more proof in a chain of proofs that has since been greatly lengthened. The conspiracy for world dominion through a world slave state exists and cannot at this stage be abruptly checked or broken off; of the momentum which it has acquired it now must go on to fulfillment or failure. Either will be destructive for a time, and hard for those of the time in which the denouement comes. [...]
Notice that Reed points out the Old Testamentary allusion to “dreamers of dreams” and “false prophets” being slated for death. Now, let’s have a look at an excerpt from another text, Red Symphony, which purports to be a 1938 Stalinist police (NKVD) interrogation of a founder of the Communist International, Christian G. Rakovsky, 65, who was facing execution for plotting to overthrow Stalin. The 50-page transcript of his interrogation, dubbed “The Red Symphony,” was never intended to be made public. It discusses the idea that there is an evil cabal (not necessarily Jewish, but certainly with some Jewish members as well as Gentile – the only qualification seems to be to be a pathological deviant) that plans to use World Revolution to establish a Global dictatorship of the deviants. The Rakovsky interrogation reveals that the Cabal not only put Hitler in power, they then found that their Frankenstein escaped their control and it was necessary to destroy him.
Christian Rakovsky was a veteran Communist insider. Born Chaim Rakeover in 1873, he studied medicine in France before becoming a revolutionary. He was the leader of a terror group that attacked government officials. In 1919, Lenin put him in charge of the Soviet Ukraine government. He successfully kept the area for the Bolsheviks during the Civil War. Stalin appointed him Russian ambassador to Paris in 1925. Rakovsky belonged to the powerful Trotskyite faction that took their orders from the Rothschilds. Many of this group were shot in Stalin’s 1937 Communist Party purge.
So, here is the segment of the interrogation that has an item in it (and I have included a longer excerpt for context) of great significance to my theme:
Rakovsky: Owing to the fact that I was in a hurry I did not express myself quite correctly and you did not understand me well. If it is true that “They” financed Hitler, then that does not mean that they disclosed to him their existence and their aims. The ambassador Warburg presented himself under a false name and Hitler did not even guess his race; he also lied regarding whose representative he was. He told him that he had been sent by the financial circles of Wall Street who were interested in financing the National-Socialist movement with the aim of creating a threat to France, whose governments pursue a financial policy which provokes a crisis in the USA.
G.: And Hitler believed it?
Rakovsky: We do not know. That was not so important, whether he did or did not believe our explanations; our aim was to provoke a war … and Hitler was war. Do you now understand? [...]
Rakovsky: If I had the time in order to explain their full scheme, then you would already know about the reasons for their approval. At the present moment I shall condense them to three:
G: Just which?
Rakovsky: One is that which I had already mentioned. Hitler, this uneducated and elementary man, has restored thanks to his natural intuition and even against the technical opinion of Schacht, an economic system of a very dangerous kind. Being illiterate in all economic theories and being guided only by necessity he removed, as we had done it in the USSR, the private and international capital. That means that he took over for himself the privilege of manufacturing money, and not only physical moneys, but also financial ones; he took over the untouched machinery of falsification and put it to work for the benefit of the State. He exceeded us, as we, having abolished it in Russia, replaced it merely by this crude apparatus called State Capitalism; this was a very expensive triumph in view of the necessities of pre-revolutionary demagogy…
Here I give you two real facts for comparison. I shall even say that Hitler had been lucky; he had almost no gold and for that reason he was not tempted to create a gold reserve. Insofar as he only possessed a full monetary guarantee of technical equipment and colossal working capacity of the Germans, his “gold reserve” was technical capacity and work …, something so completely counter-revolutionary that, as you already see, he has by means of magic, as it were, radically eliminated unemployment among more than seven million technicians and workers.
G.: Thanks to increased re-armament.
Rakovsky: What does your re-armament give? If Hitler reached this despite all the bourgeois economists who surround him, then he was quite capable, in the absence of the danger of war, of applying his system also to peaceful production… Are you capable of imagining what would have come of this system if it had infected a number of other States and brought about the creation of a period of autarky… For example the Commonwealth. If you can, then imagine its counter-revolutionary functions… The danger is not yet inevitable, as we have had luck in that Hitler restored his system not according to some previous theory, but empirically, and he did not make any formulations of a scientific kind. This means that insofar as he did not think in the light of a deductive process based on intelligence, he has no scientific terms or a formulated doctrine; yet there is a hidden danger as at any moment there can appear, as the consequence of deduction, a formula. This is very serious. Much more so that all the external and cruel factors in National-Socialism. We do not attack it in our propaganda as it could happen that through theoretical polemics we would ourselves provoke a formulation and systematization of this so decisive economic doctrine. There is only one solution-war.
G.: And the second motive?
Rakovsky: If the Termidor triumphed in the Soviet revolution then this happened as the result of the existence of the former Russian nationalism. Without such a nationalism bonapartism would have been impossible. And if that happened in Russia, where nationalism was only embryonic in the person of the Tsar, then what obstacles must Marxism meet in the fully developed nationalism of Western Europe? Marx was wrong with respect to the advantages for the success of the revolution. Marxism won not in the most industrialized country, but in Russia, where the proletariat was small. Apart from other reasons our victory here is explained by the fact that in Russia there was no real nationalism, and in other countries it was in its full apogee. You see how it is reborn under this extraordinary power of fascism, and how infectious it is. You can understand that apart from that it can benefit Stalin, the need for the destruction of nationalism is alone worth a war in Europe.
G.: In sum you have set out, Rakovsky, one economic and one political reason. Which is the third?
Rakovsky: That is easy to guess. We have yet another reason, a religious one. Communism cannot be the victor if it will not have suppressed the still living Christianity. History speaks very clearly about this: the permanent revolution required seventeen centuries in order to achieve its first partial victory-by means of the creation of the first split in Christendom. In reality Christianity is our only real enemy, since all the political and economic phenomena in the bourgeois States are only its consequences. Christianity, controlling the individual, is capable of annulling the revolutionary projection of the neutral Soviet or atheistic State by choking it and, as we see it in Russia, things have reached the point of the creation of that spiritual nihilism which is dominant in the ruling masses, which have, nevertheless, remained Christian: this obstacle has not yet been removed during twenty years of Marxism. Let us admit in relation to Stalin that towards religion he was not bonapartistic. We would not have done more than he and would have acted in the same way. And if Stalin had dared, like Napoleon, to cross the Rubikon of Christianity, then his nationalism and counter-revolutionary power would have been increased a thousandfold. [ Red Symphony]
The question is, of course, what kind of Christianity is it necessary to destroy in order to institute a New World Order under Talmudic Judaism? Certainly not what passes for Christianity today. No, it must be some other Christianity, something older, older even than Jesus… Boris Mouravieff, author of the three volumes Gnosis, remarked about Gurdjieff:
People interested in esoteric matters will probably have read the book by P.D. Ouspensky, published posthumously, titled In Search of the Miraculous: Fragments of an Unknown Teaching. The ideas in that book were presented to Ouspensky by Georges Gurdjieff. Gurdjieff indicates the basis of his teaching: “for the benefit of those who know already, I will say that, if you like, this is esoteric Christianity.” [Mouravieff, Gnosis]
I would like to note here that the work of Mouravieff provides that ineluctable bridge between the works of Gurdjieff, the Sufi Shaykh, Ibn al-’Arabi, the esoteric Christianity that I have conjectured to have existed during megalithic times and of which we only have ancient Siberian Shamanism as a shadow of a relic, hermeticism/alchemy, and the Cassiopaean Transmissions – my own “channeling.” It should be noted that the Cassiopaeans – us in the future – have definitively supported the existence and work of a man around whom the Jesus legend formed – though they tell us that the story in the Bible that is supposed to be history is a myth – and from the other sources mentioned, we are able to assemble a body of teachings that lends background to this view, as well as supplemental information that elucidates the many clues offered by the Cassiopaeans – us in the future. This view received unexpected support from New Testament Scholar, Burton Mack, in his book The Lost Gospel. Mack’s discussion shows how the Jesus movement was a vigorous social experiment that was generated for reasons other than an “originating event” such as a “religious experience” or the “birth of the son of God.” The Jesus movement seems to have been a response to troubled and difficult times. Mack outlines and describes the times, and shows how the pressures of the milieu led to thinking new thoughts about traditional values and experimenting with associations that crossed ethnic and cultural boundaries. The Jesus movement was composed of novel social notions and lifestyles that denied and rejected traditional systems of honor based on power, wealth, and place in hierarchical social structures. Ancient religious codes of ritual purity, taboos against intercourse across ethnic boundaries, were rejected. People were encouraged to think of themselves as belonging to the larger, human family. Q says: “If you embrace only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?” The Jesus people not only rejected the old order of things, they were actively at work on the questions of what ideal social order they wanted to manifest and promote. The attraction of the Jesus people to its followers was not at all based on any ideas to reform a religious tradition that had gone wrong, nor was it even thought of as a new religion in any way. It was quite simply a social movement that sought to enhance human values that grew out of an unmanageable world of confusing cultures and social histories. It was a group of like-minded individuals that created a forum for thinking about the world in new ways, coming up with new ideas that included the shocking notion that an ethnically mixed group could form its own kind of community and live by its own rules. Mack writes:
At first no one was in charge of the groups that formed around such teachings. Conversation and mutual support were enough to encourage an individual to act “naturally,” as if the normal expectations of acquiescence to social conventions did not apply. As groups formed in support of like-minded individuals, however, loyalty to the Jesus movement strengthened, a social vision for human well-being was generated within the group, and social codes for the movement had to be agreed upon. Why not ask when in need and share what one had when asked, they wondered? Eventually, therefore, the Jesus movement took the form of small groups meeting together as extended families in the heady pursuit of what they called God’s kingdom. To explore human community based on fictive kinship without regard to standard taboos against association based on class, status, gender, or ethnicity would have created quite a stir, and would have been its own reward. Since there was no grand design for actualizing such a vision, different groups settled into practices that varied from one another. Judging from the many forms of community that developed within the Jesus movement, as documented in literature that begins to appear toward the end of the first century, these groups continued to share a basic set of attitudes. They all had a certain critical stance toward the way life was lived in the Greco-Roman world. They all struggled not to be determined by the emptiness of human pursuits in a world of codes they held to be superficial. [...] Despite these agreements, however, every group went its own way and drew different conclusions about what to think and do. [The Lost Gospel by Burton L. Mack]
In addition to reconstructing the times in which the Jesus people lived, Mack presents the Q document itself, showing that it was built up in three layers, each layer being additions made in response to external pressures on the group. What is most interesting is the analysis of the first layer, the one that must be composed of the actual teachings of the man called Jesus. It seems that Jesus’ challenge to his followers was to take a deeper look at their world and challenge it in how they lived their lives. Seven clusters of teachings, or sayings, emerged from the study of Q, and each of these express a coherent set of issues. These sayings comprise a comprehensive set of sage observations that delight in critical comment on the everyday world and unorthodox instructions that recommend unconventional behavior! The ever-present theme of Jesus’ teachings was a review of life and conventional values that promoted the idea that customary pretensions are hollow: wealth, learning, possessions, secrets, rank, and power are meaningless in terms of the true value of a human being. Jesus was promoting the idea that the Emperor is naked, though in no way did he propose any idea of changing the system. Implicit in his critique is the idea that there is a better way to live. The challenge was to be able to live without being consumed with worry even if one was fully aware that the world “out there” was a dangerous jungle that required care to navigate. When fully analyzed and compared with other norms of the time, Jesus emerges as a man living the life of the popular philosophy of the Cynic. This is striking because the Cynics are remembered as distinctly unlovable because they promoted biting sarcasm and public behavior that was designed to call attention to the absurdity of standard conventions. Cynics were:
“…critics of conventional values and oppressive forms of government. [...] Their gifts and graces ranged from the endurance of a life of renunciation in full public view, through the courage to offer social critique in high places, to the learning and sophistication required for the espousal of Cynic views at the highest level of literary composition. Justly famous as irritants to those who lived by the system and enjoyed the blessings of privilege, prosperity, and power, the Cynics were rightly regarded for their achievement in honing the virtue of self-sufficiency in the midst of uncertain times. The crisp sayings of Jesus in Q show that his followers thought of him as a Cynic-like sage. [...] These popular philosophers of a natural way of life did not wander off to suffer in silence. Their props were a setup for a little game of gotcha with the citizens of the town. [...] The Cynic’s purpose was to point out the disparities sustained by the social system and refuse to let the system put him in his place. [...] The marketplace was the Cynic’s platform, the place to display a living example of freedom from social and cultural constraints, and a place from which to address townspeople about the current state of affairs. [...] The challenge for a Cynic was to see the humor in a situation and quickly turn it to advantage. [...] In our time there is no single social role with which to compare the ancient Cynics. But we do recognize the social critic and take for granted a number of ways in which social and cultural critique are expressed. These compare nicely with various aspects of the Cynic’s profession. For example, we are accustomed to the social critique of political cartoonists, standup comedians, and especially of satire in the genre of the cabaret. All of these use humor to make their point. We are also accustomed to social critique in a more serious and philosophical vein, such as that represented by political commentary.
And there is precedent for taking up an alternative lifestyle as social protest, from the utopian movement of the nineteenth century, to the counterculture movement of the 1960s, to the environmentalist protest of the 1980s and 1990s. The list could be greatly expanded, for much modern entertainment also sets its scenes against the backdrop of the unexamined taboos and prejudices prevailing in our time. Each of these approaches to critical assessment of our society (satire, commentary, and alternative lifestyle), bears some resemblance to the profession of the Cynic sage in late antiquity. [...] Noting the Cynic’s wit should not divert our attention from their sense of vocation and purpose. Epictetus wrote that the Cynic could be likened to a spy or scout from another world or kingdom, whose assignment was to observe human behavior and render a judgment upon it. The Cynic could also be likened to a physician sent to diagnose and heal a society’s ills. [...] The Stoics sometimes claimed the Cynics as their precursors. [...] [The Cynics] were much more interested in the question of virtue, or how an individual should live given the failure of social and political systems to support what they called a natural way of life. They borrowed freely from any and every popular ethical philosophy, such as that of the Stoics, to get a certain point across. That point was the cost to one’s intelligence and integrity if one blindly followed social convention and accepted its customary rationalizations. [...] What counted most, they said, was a sense of personal worth and integrity. One should not allow others to determine one’s worth on the scale of social position. One already possessed all the resources one needed to live sanely and well by virtue of being a human being. Why not be true to the way in which the world actually impinges upon you [objectively]?
Say what you want and what you mean. Respond to a situation as you see it in truth, not as the usual proprieties dictate. Do not let the world squeeze you into its mold. Speak up and act out. The invitation was to take courage and swim against the social currents that threatened to overwhelm and silence a person’s sense of verve. [...] The Jesus people are best understood as those who noticed the challenge of the times in Galilee. They took advantage of the mix of peoples to tweak the authorities of any cultural tradition that presumed to set the standard for others. They found a way to encourage one another in the pursuit of sane and simple living. And they developed a discourse that exuded the Cynic spirit. [...] Beliefs were not a major concern. Behavior was what mattered and the arena for the action was in public. The public sphere was not subjected to a systematic analysis, however, as if society’s ills had been traced to this or that particular cause. The social world was under review, to be sure, for the behavior recommended was intentionally non-conventional, mildly disruptive, and implicitly countercultural. But there is no indication that the purpose of this behavior was to change society at large. The way society worked in general was taken for granted, in the sense of “What more can one expect?” Instead, the imperatives were addressed to individuals as if they could live by other rules if they chose to do so. [...] It is important to see that the purpose of the change was not a social reform. The Jesus people were not organizing to fight Roman power or to reform Jewish religion. [The Lost Gospel by Burton L. Mack]
Apparently many responded to the movement and associations of like-minded people began to form. And then, something very interesting happened… Suddenly, in the next layer of Q, a heightened sense of belonging to a movement becomes obvious because injunctions given as aphorisms now become rules supported by arguments. At this point, the idea of the “Kingdom of God” enters the picture. This “Kingdom” was, apparently, a realm or domain in which the rule of God is actualized. The rule of God is what the Q people said they were representing in the world. For the Jesus people, this meant something quite different from what Christians now assume it to mean. First of all, there was nothing at all apocalyptic about it (all that came later). For the Jesus people, the Kingdom of God was compared repeatedly to the natural process of growth as witnessed in Nature. Everything about this “Kingdom of God” was practical, having to do with things that can be accomplished in contrast to the conventional life. The match between the Cynics and the Jesus people is not exact in all cases because the Jesus people didhave an interest in the “Divine” aspect of “God.” Unfortunately, there is little in the Q document that explains this Divine source other than the fact that the Jesus people represented it as a “Father”, and those who could successfully resist the ruin of social evils were the “children of God.” The way the Jesus people referred to God was a bit more serious than the way the Cynics referred to such ideas. The Q people were concerned with the care of their members as a “family.” I would suggest that there was a perception of differences in human beings among the Q people, though Mack does not make a special point of analyzing that issue. The question is, of course, what happened? The document doesn’t tell us, though it hints at the nature of the problem by virtue of the additional text that dealt with the issues. There were, obviously, painful experiences that were turned to a lesson. Mack suggests that the formation of Jesus people “families” must have seriously offended certain authorities. He writes:
This concern for loyalty to the movement is matched by signs of social distress. Tensions within the movement are indicated by the saying on scandals and the instruction to forgive a brother if he has a change of heart. But changes of heart have apparently not been the rule. Families have been torn asunder and the divisions have been rationalized as fully in keeping with the importance and purpose of the movement. Painful? Yes, but to be expected.
It seems that families were being split, and ethnic conventions were being personally challenged over loyalty to the movement. The evidence indicates that this occurred in relation to Judaism.
The story of the Beelzebub accusation is about rejection, conflict, and labeling Jesus and his followers as agents of a foreign (Syrian) god. Jesus’ retort about “your sons” turns the challenge back upon his questioners and directs the issue of conflict to the social world that Jesus shares with them. There are instructions about what to do in case one is called before the village authorities. [...] The people of Q2 had not organized their movement to become a society with membership requirements and officers, much less with rites of entrance. But the rule of God that they represented was certainly in the process of being reconceived as a discrete domain or kingdom, and there was now a great deal of talk about “entering into” the kingdom or being excluded from it. [...] Loyalty to the Jesus movement had run up against the challenge of Jewish propriety and the question of belonging to the people of God as the children of Abraham, or Israel. And the Jesus people had taken this challenge seriously. The evidence for this includes the repeated appeals to biblical traditions, the preaching of John about the children of Abraham, the import of the Beelzebub accusation, and the list of counter charges leveled against Pharisees and lawyers. [The Lost Gospel by Burton L. Mack]
Here we find the most fascinating twist of all in the development of Christianity. If the Jesus people had not been attacked by the Jewish authorities, they would not have sought to justify their movement in terms of the Jewish religion. It was only in defense that they did this. They ran afoul of the Pharisaic code, probably because they had Jewish members whose families were horrified at the participation of their children or relatives in the new movement. The issue of loyalty came to be phrased as a “Jewish” question, and the Jesus people felt they had to answer it in Jewish terms.
The charges against the Pharisees and lawyers are especially interesting in this regard. The issues under debate were just what one might expect – washings, giving to charity, tithes, justice, honor, and knowledge. The list combines items typical for the Pharisaic code of ritual purity with items for which scribal representatives of the temple system of courts and taxation would be known. Such standards had apparently been held up as exemplary by families and village leaders seeking to chide their Jesus people into postures of propriety. Apparently the people of Q were not impressed. [...] True to their Cynic heritage, the Jesus people were still capable of engaging in a bit of caustic riposte. The Pharisees were like tombs (so much for their desire to be honored), and the lawyers treated people like beasts of burden (so much for their claims to know the law and administer justice). [...] Lo and behold, the people of Q linked the Pharisees and lawyers to the history of what their fathers did to the prophets. … That is some ante. … It is clear that the offense had registered and that the defense would be to beat the Jewish exemplars at their own game. [The Lost Gospel by Burton L. Mack]
As it happens, Douglas Reed discusses the other side of this issue, the obvious anxiety that the Jews had about Christianity and the steps they took to combat it. In Controversy of Zion, he writes:
The Talmud was essentially the hostile answer to Christianity, the order-of-battle revised in the light of “the enemy’s” new dispositions. The lay encyclopaedias (which in our generation have been made untrustworthy on subjects related to Judaism) disguise this fact from Gentile readers. The one now before me, for instance, says, “The Talmud has been attacked by Christians at times – quite unfairly – as anti-Christian”. The insertion of two suggestive words by some partisan Scribe causes this volume to purvey demonstrable untruth and to convert a factual statement into a propagandist one. The attack on Christianity gave the Talmud its distinctive tone and is indeed the only new thing in the Talmud. Its other teaching remains that of Ezekiel and the Pharisees. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, “It is the tendency of Jewish legends in the Talmud, the Midrash” (the sermons in the synagogues) “and in the Life of Jesus Christ (Toledoth Jeshua) that originated in the Middle Ages to belittle the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic and a shameful death”. He is generally alluded to as “that anonymous one”, “liar”, “impostor” or “bastard” (the attribution of bastardy is intended to bring him under The Law as stated in Deuteronomy 23.2: “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord”). Mention of the name, Jesus, is prohibited in Jewish households.
The work cited by the Jewish Encyclopaedia as having “originated in the Middle Ages” is not merely a discreditable memory of an ancient past, as that allusion might suggest; it is used in Hebrew schools today. It was a rabbinical production of the Talmudic era and repeated all the ritual of mockery of Calvary itself in a different form. Jesus is depicted as the illegitimate son of Mary, a hairdresser’s wife, and of a Roman soldier called Panthera. Jesus himself is referred to by a name which might be translated “Joey Virgo”. He is shown as being taken by his stepfather to Egypt and there learning sorcery. The significant thing about this bogus life-story (the only information about Jesus which Jews were supposed to read) is that in it Jesus is not crucified by Romans. After his appearance in Jerusalem and his arrest there as an agitator and a sorcerer he is turned over to the Sanhedrin and spends forty days in the pillory before being stoned and hanged at the Feast of the Passover; this form of death exactly fulfils the Law laid down in Deuteronomy 21.22 and 17.5, whereas crucifixion would not have been in compliance with that Judaic Law. The book then states that in hell he suffers the torture of boiling mud.
The Talmud also refers to Jesus as “Fool”, “sorcerer”, “profane person”, “idolator”, “dog”, “child of lust” and the like more; the effect of this teaching, over a period of centuries, is shown by the book of the Spanish Jew Mose de Leon, republished in 1880, which speaks of Jesus as a “dead dog” that lies “buried in a dunghill”. The original Hebrew texts of these Talmudic allusions appear in Laible’s Jesus Christus im Talmud. This scholar says that during the period of the Talmudists hatred of Jesus became “the most national trait of Judaism”, that “at the approach of Christianity the Jews were seized ever and again with a fury and hatred that were akin to madness”, that “the hatred and scorn of the Jews was always directed in the first place against the person of Jesus” and that “the Jesus-hatred of the Jews is a firmly-established fact, but they want to show it as little as possible”. [...] This vilification of the founder of another religion sets Judaism apart from other creeds and the Talmud from other literature published in the name of religion. Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians, Christians and others do not hate other creeds or their founders as such. They are content to differ and to believe that the paths may one day meet, God deciding the meeting-point. For instance, the Koran describes Jesus as “strengthened with the Holy Spirit” and the Jews are reproached with rejecting “the Apostle of God”, to whom was given “the Evangel with its guidance and light”.
Of his mother, the Koran says, “O Mary! verily hath God chosen thee and purified thee, and chosen thee above the women of the world”, and, “Jesus, the son of Mary, illustrious in this world, and in the next, and one of those who have near access to God”. The central message of the Talmud, the newest “new Law”, is plain: it specifically extended the Law to apply to Christianity and left no doubt about the duty of a Jew towards it. … [T]he Jewish Encyclopaedia says, “The Talmudists made the Torah into a penal code”. For once, in this painstakingly accurate work, the meaning is not quite clear; the Torah already was a penal code (as perusal of it today will show), and its penalties had sometimes been applied (by Ezra and Nehemiah against the Jews; and for that matter by the Romans, at the behest of the Sanhedrin, against the “prophet and dreamer of dreams”, Jesus). Possibly the meaning is that, under the Talmudists, the penal code was regularly enforced, and its provisions strengthened. [...] The command, “destroy”, forms the very basis of the Law which the Levites made. If it be deleted, what remains is not “the Mosaic Law”, or the same religion, but something different; the imperative, “destroy”, is the mark of identity. It must have been deliberately chosen. Many other words could have been used; for instance, conquer, defeat, vanquish, subdue; but destroy was chosen, It was put in the mouth of God, but obviously was the choice of the scribes. This was the kind of perversion which Jesus attacked: “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men.”
Reed has a great deal to say about Jesus and Christianity and the particular mind set that Christianity represents, which deviants of all types seek to destroy:
In few words he swept aside the entire mass of racial politics, which the ruling sect had heaped on the earlier, moral law, and like an excavator revealed again what had been buried. The Pharisees at once recognized a most dangerous “prophet and dreamer of dreams”. The fact that he found so large a following among the Judeans shows that, even if the mass of the people wanted a militant, nationalist Messiah who would liberate them from the Romans, many among them must subconsciously have realised that their true captivity was of the spirit and of the Pharisees, more than of the Romans. Nevertheless, the mass responded mechanically to the Pharisaic politicians’ charge that the man was a blasphemer and bogus Messiah. By this response they bequeathed to all future generations of Jews a tormenting doubt, no less insistent because it must not be uttered (for the name Jesus may not even be mentioned in a pious Jewish home): Did the Messiah appear, only to be rejected by the Jews, and if so, what is their future, under The Law? What manner of man was this? Another paradox in the story of Zion is that in our generation Christian divines and theologians often insist that “Jesus was a Jew”, whereas the Judaist elders refuse to allow this (those Zionist rabbis who occasionally tell political or “interfaith” audiences that Jesus was a Jew are not true exceptions to this rule; they would not make the statement among Jews and seek to produce an effect among their non-Jewish listeners, for political reasons).
This public assertion, “Jesus was a Jew”, is always used in our century for political purposes. It is often employed to quell objections to the Zionist influence in international politics or to the Zionist invasion of Palestine, the suggestion being that, as Jesus was a Jew, none ought to object to anything purporting to be done in the name of Jews. The irrelevance is obvious, but mobs are moved by such phrases, and the paradoxical result, once again, is that a statement, most offensive to literal Jews, is most frequently made by non-Jewish politicians and ecclesiastics who seek Jewish favour. The English abbreviation, “Jew”, is recent and does not correspond to anything denoted by the Aramaic, Greek or Roman terms for “Judahite” or “Judean”, which were in use during the lifetime of Jesus. In fact, the English noun “Jew” cannot be defined (so that dictionaries, which are scrupulously careful about all other words, are reduced to such obvious absurdities as “A person of Hebrew race”); and the Zionist state has no legal definition of the term (which is natural, because the Torah, which is the Law, exacts pure Judahite descent, and a person of this lineage is hardly to be found in the entire world). If the statement, “Jesus was a Jew”, has meaning therefore, it must apply to the conditions prevailing in his time. In that case it would mean one of three things, or all of them: that Jesus was of the tribe of Judah (therefore Judahite); that he was of Judean domicile (and therefore Judean); that he was religiously “a Jew”, if any religion denoted by that term existed in his time. Race, residence, religion, then.
This book is not the place to argue the question of Jesus’ racial descent, and the surprising thing is that Christian divines allow themselves some of the statements which they make. The reader should form his own opinion, if he desires to have one in this question. The genealogy of Mary is not given in the New Testament, but three passages might imply that she was of Davidic descent; St. Matthew and St. Luke trace the descent of Joseph from David and Judah, but Joseph was not the blood father of Jesus. The Judaist authorities discredit all these references to descent, holding that they were inserted to bring the narrative into line with prophecy. As to residence, St. John states that Jesus was born at Bethlehem in Judea through the chance that his mother had to go there from Galilee to register; Judaist authorities, again, hold that this was inserted to make the account agree with Micah’s prophecy that “a ruler” would “come out of Bethlehem”. The Jewish Encyclopaedia insists that Nazareth was Jesus’ native town, and indeed, general agreement exists that he was a Galilean, whatever the chance of his actual birthplace. Galilee, where nearly all his life was spent, was politically entirely separate from Judea, under its own Roman tetrarch, and stood to Judea in the relationship of “a foreign country” (Graetz). Marriage between a Judean and a Galilean was forbidden and even before Jesus’ birth all Judeans living in Galilee had been forced by Simon Tharsi, one of the Maccabean princes, to migrate to Judah. Thus, the Galileans were racially and politically distinct from the Judeans. [As Burton Mack points out, Jesus probably wasn't a Jew at all; he was probably a Celt.]
Was this Galilean, religiously, what might today be called “a Jew”? The Judaist authorities, of course, deny that most strenuously of all; the statement, often heard from the platform and pulpit, might cause a riot in the synagogue. It is difficult to see what responsible public men can mean when they use the phrase. There was in the time of Jesus no “Jewish” (or even Judahite or Judaist or Judean) religion. There was Jehovahism, and there were the various sects, Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes, which disputed violently between themselves and contended, around the temple, for power over the people. They were not only sects, but also political parties, and the most powerful of them were the Pharisees with their “oral traditions” of what God had said to Moses. If today the Zionists are “the Jews” (and this is the claim accepted by all great Western nations), then the party which in Judea in the time of Jesus corresponded to the Zionists was that of the Pharisees. Jesus brought the whole weight of his attack to bear on these Pharisees. He also rebuked the Sadducees and the scribes, but the Gospels show that he held the Pharisees to be the foe of God and man and that he used an especial scarifying scorn towards them. The things which he singled out for attack, in them and in their creed, are the very things which today’s Zionists claim to be the identifying features of Jews, Jewishness and Judaism. Religiously, Jesus seems beyond doubt to have been the opposite and adversary of all that which would make a literal Jew today or would have made a literal Pharisee then. None can say with certainty who or what he was, and these suggestive statements by non-Jewish politicians ring as false as the derisive and mocking lampoons about “the bastard” which circulated in the Jewish ghettoes.
What is much more significant, he had known no rabbinical schools or priestly training. His enemies, the Pharisees, testify to that; had he been of their clan or kind they would not have asked, “Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works”. What gives the teaching of this unlettered young man its effect of blinding revelation, the quality of light first discovered, is the black background, of the Levitical Law and the Pharisaic tradition, against which he moved when he went to Judea. Even today the sudden fullness of enlightenment, in the Sermon on the Mount, dazzles the student who has emerged from a critical perusal of the Old Testament; it is as if high noon came at midnight. The Law, when Jesus came to “fulfill” it, had grown into a huge mass of legislation, stifling and lethal in its immense complexity. The Torah was but the start; heaped on it were all the interpretations and commentaries and rabbinical rulings; the elders, like pious silkworms, spun the thread ever further in the effort to catch up in it every conceivable act of man; generations of lawyers had laboured to reach the conclusion that an egg must not be eaten on the Sabbath day if the greater part of it had been laid before a second star was visible in the sky.
Already the Law and all the commentaries needed a library to themselves, and a committee of international jurists, called to give an opinion on it, would have required years to sift the accumulated layers. The unschooled youth from Galilee reached out a finger and thrust aside the entire mass, revealing at once the truth and the heresy. He reduced “all the Law and the Prophets” to the two commandments, Love God with all thy heart and thy neighbour as thyself. This was the exposure and condemnation of the basic heresy which the Levites and Pharisees, in the course of centuries, had woven into the Law. Leviticus contained the injunction, “Love thy neighbour as thyself”, but it was governed by the limitation of “neighbour” to fellow-Judeans. Jesus now reinstated the forgotten, earlier tradition, of neighbourly love irrespective of race or creed; this was clearly what he meant by the words, “I am not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill”. He made his meaning plain when he added, “Ye have heard that it hath been said . . . hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemy”. (The artful objection is sometimes made that the specific commandment, “Hate thine enemy”, nowhere appears in the Old Testament. Jesus’ meaning was clear; the innumerable injunctions to the murder and massacre of neighbours who were not “neighbours”, in which the Old Testament abounds, certainly required hatred and enmity).
This was a direct challenge to The Law as the Pharisees represented it, and Jesus carried the challenge further by deliberately refusing to play the part of the nationalist liberator and conqueror of territory for which the prophecies had cast the Messiah. Probably he could have had a much larger following, and possibly the support of the Pharisees, if he had accepted that role. His rebuke, again, was terse and clear: “My kingdom is not of this world . . . The kingdom of Heaven is within you . . . Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth. . . but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal”. Everything he said, in such simple words as these, was a quiet, but direct challenge to the most powerful men of his time and place, and a blow at the foundations of the creed which the sect had built up in the course of centuries. What the entire Old Testament taught in hundreds of pages, the Sermon on the Mount confuted in a few words. It opposed love to hatred, mercy to vengeance, charity to malice, neighbourliness to segregation, justice to discrimination, affirmation (or reaffirmation) to denial, and life to death. It began (like the “blessings-or-cursings” chapters of Deuteronomy) with blessings, but there the resemblance ended. Deuteronomy offered material blessings, in the form of territory, loot and slaughter, in return for strict performance of thousands of “statutes and judgments”, some of them enjoining murder. The Sermon on the Mount offered no material rewards, but simply taught that moral behaviour, humility, the effort to do right, mercy, purity, peaceableness and fortitude would be blessed for their own sake and receive spiritual reward. Deuteronomy followed its “blessings” with “cursings”. The Sermon on the Mount made no threats; it did not require that the transgressor be “stoned to death” or “hanged on a tree”, or offer absolution for non-observance at the price of washing the hands in the blood of a heifer.
The worst that was to befall the sinner was that he was to be “the least in the kingdom of heaven”; and most that the obedient might expect was to be “called great in the kingdom of heaven”. The young Galilean never taught subservience, only an inner humility, and in one direction he was consistently and constantly scornful: in his attack on the Pharisees. The name, Pharisees, denoted that they “kept away from persons or things impure”. The Jewish Encyclopaedia says, “Only in regard to intercourse with the unclean and the unwashed multitude did Jesus differ widely from the Pharisees”. Echo may answer, “Only!” This was of course the great cleavage, between the idea of the tribal deity and the idea of the universal god; between the creed of hatred and the teaching of love. The challenge was clear and the Pharisees accepted it at once. They began to bait their traps, in the very manner described by Jeremiah long before: “All my familiars watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him”. The Pharisees watched him and asked, “Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners” (a penal offence under their Law). He was equally their master in debate and in eluding their baited traps, and answered, swiftly but quietly, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick . . . I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance”.
They followed him further and saw his disciples plucking ears of corn to eat on the Sabbath (another offence under the Law), “Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day”. They pursued him with such interrogations, always related to the rite, and never to faith or behaviour; “why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders, for they wash not their hands when they eat bread?”. “Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophecy of you, saying, this people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men”. This was the lie direct: The Law, he charged, was not God’s law, but the law of the Levites and Pharisees: “the commandments of men”! From this moment there could be no compromise, for Jesus turned away from the Pharisees and “called the multitude, and said unto them, Hear, and understand: Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man”.
With these words Jesus cast public scorn on one of the most jealously-guarded of the priestly prerogatives, involving the great mass of dietary laws with the whole ritual of slaughter, draining of blood, rejection of “that which dieth of itself”, and so on. All this was undoubtedly a “commandment of man”, although attributed to Moses, and strict observance of this dietary ritual was held to be of the highest importance by the Pharisees, Ezekiel (the reader will recall) on being commanded by the Lord to eat excrement “to atone for the iniquities of the people”, had pleaded his unfailing observance of the dietary laws and had had his ordeal somewhat mitigated on that account. Even the disciples were apparently so much under the influence of this dietary tradition that they could not understand how “that which cometh out of the mouth” could defile a man, rather than that which went in, and asked for an explanation, remarking that the Pharisees “were offended, after they heard this saying”. The simple truth which Jesus then gave them was abominable heresy to the Pharisees: “Do not ye understand, that what whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile a man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man”.
This last remark was another penal offence under the Law and the Pharisees began to gather for the kill. They prepared the famous trick questions: “Then went the Pharisees and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk”. The two chief questions were, “To whom shall we render tribute?” and “Who then is my neighbour?” A wrong answer to the first would deliver him to punishment by the foreign ruler, Rome. A wrong answer to the second would enable the Pharisees to denounce him to the foreign ruler as an offender against their own Law, and to demand his punishment. This is the method earlier pictured by Jeremiah and still in use today, in the Twentieth Century. All who have had to do with public debate in our time, know the trick question, carefully prepared beforehand, and the difficulty of answering it on the spur of the moment. Various methods of eluding the trap are known to professional debaters (for instance, to say “No comment”, or to reply with another question). To give a complete answer, instead of resorting to such evasions, and in so doing to avoid the trap of incrimination and yet maintain the principle at stake is one of the most difficult things known to man. It demands the highest qualities of quick wittedness, presence of mind and clarity of thought.
The answers given by Jesus to these two questions remain for all time the models, which mortal man can only hope to emulate. “Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?” (the affable tone of honest enquiry can be heard). “But Jesus perceived their wickedness and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? . . . Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s. When they heard these words, they marveled, and left him and went their way”. On the second occasion, “a certain lawyer stood up and tempted him, saying, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” In his answer Jesus again swept aside the great mass of Levitical Law and restated the two essentials: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart . . . and thy neighbour as thyself”. Then came the baited trap: “And who is my neighbour?” What mortal man would have given the answer that Jesus gave? No doubt some mortal men, knowing like Jesus that their lives were at stake, would have said what they believed, for martyrs are by no means rare. But Jesus did much more than that; he disarmed his questioner like an expert swordsman who effortlessly sends his opponent’s rapier spinning into the air. He was being enticed to declare himself openly; to say that “the heathen” were also “neighbours”, and thus to convict himself of transgressing The Law. In fact he replied in this sense, but in such a way that the interrogator was undone; seldom was a lawyer so confounded.
The Levitical-Pharisaic teaching was that only Judeans were “neighbours”, and of all the outcast heathen they especially abominated the Samaritans. The mere touch of a Samaritan was defilement and a major “transgression” (this continues true to the present day). The purpose of the question put to him was to lure Jesus into some statement that would qualify him for the major ban; by choosing the Samaritans, of all peoples, for the purpose of his reply, he displayed an audacity, or genius, that was more than human: He said that a certain man fell among thieves and was left for dead. Then came “a priest” and “likewise a Levite” (the usual stinging rebuke to those who sought the chance to put him to death), who “passed by on the other side”. Last came “a certain Samaritan”, who bound the man’s injuries, took him to an inn, and paid for his care: “which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?” The lawyer, cornered, could not bring himself to pronounce the defiling name “Samaritan”; he said, “He that showed mercy on him” and thereby joined himself (as he probably realized too late) with the condemnation of those for whom he spoke, such as “the priest” and “the Levite”. “Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise”. In these few words, and without any direct allusion, he made his interrogator destroy, out of his own mouth, the entire racial heresy on which the Law had been raised. One moderate Judaist critic, Mr. Montefiore, has made the complaint that Jesus made one exception to his rule of “love thine enemies”; he never said a good word for the Pharisees.
Scholars may debate the point. Jesus knew that they would kill him or any man who exposed them. It is true that he especially arraigned the Pharisees, together with the scribes, and plainly saw in them the sect responsible for the perversion of the Law, so that the entire literature of denunciation contains nothing to equal this: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in . . . ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves ….. ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cumin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith. . . ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess . . . ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. . . ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, and say, if we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have partaken with them in the blood of the prophets. Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers. . .”
These last words of Jesus seem to be quite harsh, and according to Mack, were part of the layer of “sayings” that were added later after significant negative interactions with the Pharisees by the people who followed the social program of the cynic-like sage around whom the Jesus legend accreted. What is clear, however, is that this passage does reflect something real about the innovative ideas of those early “Jesus people” and their awareness of pathological deviants. Now, to get back to my theme, the interesting thing about all of this is that when I read John Kaminski’s disparaging dig at me, I just wondered “huh? What is up with that? I’ve never been anything but nice to the guy; supported him emotionally and financially when everyone else was turning against him, and he does that?” So, certainly I was hurt and puzzled. It was almost immediately afterward that I began reading the Rosenbaum book and noted that odd connection between Fritz Gerlich and Therese Neumann as well as Rosenbaum’s defamatory dismissal of Neumann as a fraud – a typically Jewish stance. Let me explain what I mean. Some years back when I was researching channeling, I noticed a very odd thing: it seems that it is Judaism that has “rationalized” our world and destroyed the very roots of Western/Celtic civilization, i.e. the source of Esoteric Christianity – our very spiritual natures. When one tracks back through all of the ancient “matters” and studies the different groups, trying to follow them as they moved from place to place, studying the genetic morphology in order to keep track of who is who, and comparing linguistics and myth and archaeology, one comes to the startling realization that there were significant polarities throughout space and time. I have tentatively identified these polarities as the Circle People and the Triangle – or Pyramid – People. In a general sense, one can see the broad brush of the triangle people in the Southern hemisphere, in the pyramids and related cultures and artifacts. For the most part, their art is primitive and stylistically rigid. In the northern hemisphere, one sees the circle makers, the spirals, the rough megaliths, the art of Lascaux and Chauvet and the many other caves. One can note a clear difference between the perceptions and the response to the environment between the two trends and groups.
Of course, there are areas where there was obvious mixture of both cultures and styles, and ideological constructions, but overall, there is a very distinct difference. There are many books on “alternative science” being published in the present time about the purported ancient civilizations. One assumption that they all seem to hold in common is that everything was all hunky dory, sweetness and light among all the people, and the only thing that happened was that a nasty cataclysm came along and brought it all to an end. They keep forgetting the issue of the Vedas and Plato’s Timaeus where an ancient war was described, and it was at that point in time, or immediately after, that the cosmic catastrophe occurred. It would then be only reasonable to suspect that the same differences between the warring parties would be carried over into the post cataclysmic world. And it seems to be a reasonable assumption that the “southern influence,” including Egypt, was that of the “Atlanteans” of Plato, and that the “northern influence,” including the builders of Stonehenge, were the “Athenians” of Plato, the “Sons of Boreas,” or the North Wind, keeping in mind that these “Athenians” were obviously not from Athens as we know it today, though we are beginning to suspect that we know who they were. We should also like to note that the so-called “civilizing influence” of the South, of the creators of agricultural civilizations, the instigation of writing and the wheel and so forth, is always connected in some way to “scaly” critters like Fish Gods or Serpents. It isn’t until fairly late that the Serpent makes his appearance among the archaeological finds of Europe and central Asia. Before the serpent appeared there, there were only goddesses, birds, and wavy lines representing water and cosmic energy. I think that it is dangerous to confuse the issues. Again and again we see currents of two completely different processes, two factions, two ways of perceiving and interacting with the cosmos: one that wishes to conceal, and one that wishes to reveal, one that wishes to dominate, one that wishes to share.
We notice that many megalithic sites are located a certain points that correspond with a certain geometry. But, if we look even closer, if we discard the current so-called “Sacred Geometry” and just look at the sites themselves and let them speak – all of them – instead of leaving this one or that one out because it doesn’t quite fit, or only is “very close” to fitting, we may discover another relationship that is suggested by the sites, rather than working to fit the sites into an assumption. So many bizarre ideas are being propagated at the present time, including the preposterous one about the megaliths being set up to absorb the energy of human sacrifices and that the stones “drink blood,” that it is quite discouraging to realize how easily people are misled by nonsense. If such writers cannot figure out that the megaliths were demonized by the church because they were revered by the nature religions, which we theorize are carriers of ancient scientific knowledge, and the nature religions themselves were also demonized, then there isn’t much chance that they will figure anything else out either. Such people also tend to be convinced that the Holy Grail is the cup from the Last Supper, too, and I won’t even comment on that. Regarding the Celts: We are taught almost nothing about them in school, though they seem to be considered as the ancestors of most Europeans, thus also Americans. Why is it that the religion and culture of the Mesopotamian region dominates our lives and our culture when it is, in effect, “foreign”? Celtic vernacular literature, including myths, stories and poems, in its written form, dates mainly from the Middle Ages. It is based on oral transmission that goes far beyond the Christian Era. It is very difficult to get a clear picture of the pre-Christian Celts from the transmitted texts, not only because of the typical mixture of myth and reality, and the lapse of time, but also because the Roman empire sought to stamp it out starting with Caesar and continuing with the Roman church.
However, studying what is available closely, one gets the impression of a dynamic, somewhat undisciplined people. The Celts were proud, imaginative, artistic, lovers of freedom and adventure, eloquence, poetry, and arts. You can always discern the Celtic influence by the great artistic talents of these peoples. The Celts were very suspicious of any kind of centralized “authority,” and this is, in the end, what brought about their downfall. They could not stand against the hierarchical war machine of the Roman empire. In a sense, you could almost say that this is how Hitler nearly conquered Europe, most especially France. Gauls take the principles of liberty and equality very seriously – right down to the common man on the street who in no way considers himself inferior to the Prime Minister. One of the principal historians of the Roman era, Julius Caesar, tells us that the Celts were ruled by the Druids. The druids “held all knowledge.” The Druids were charged with all intellectual activities, and were not restricted to religion, per se, which suggests to us that “religion” and “knowledge” in a more or less scientific approach, were considered essential to one another – symbiotic. It is later writers who began to vilify the Celts by accusing them of the usual things that people get accused of when someone wants to demonize them: human sacrifice, homosexuality, and so on. Most of that nonsense goes back to Posidonius, who has been quoted as an “authority” by every other “authority” on the Celts since. Unfortunately, when one checks Posidonius, one finds that he really didn’t have a clue and was probably making stuff up to fulfill an agenda. The lack of written texts by the Celts has been the greatest problem for historians and students of the Celts.
A lot of ideas are “supposed” or ancient sources with agendas have been relied on, and some of them even propose that there was a “taboo” by the Celts on putting things into writing. Well, I suppose that, if our civilization came to an end and all our records on magnetic media were destroyed, people might say that we didn’t put anything in writing either. There has been a lot of nonsense written about why the Celts didn’t write things down, and the most nonsensical, considering what we do know about their culture, is that this was how the Druids “kept their power” or that they believed something silly like: “if the sacred myths were revealed, they would become profaned and thus lose their mystic virtues.” What Caesar said was that the reason for the ban on writing was that the Druids were concerned that their pupils should not neglect the training of their memories, i.e. the Frontal Cortex, by relying on written texts. I discussed the production of ligands and their potential for unlocking DNA in my book Secret History of the World. It seems to be very interesting that the very things that we have learned from the Cassiopaeans, from alchemical texts, from our own experiences, and from research – that “thinking with a hammer” is the key to transformation – was noted as an integral part of the Druidic initiation. It is worth noting that, in the nineteenth century, it was observed that the illiterate Yugoslav bards, who were able to recite interminable poems, actually lost their ability to memorize once they had learned to rely on reading and writing. Although the Druids prohibited certain things from being written down, it’s clear that they did write. Celtic writings in Ogamic script have been found on many ancient stones. Caesar tells us that the Celts were using the Greek alphabet when the Romans arrived in Gaul in the first century BC. However, the knowledge of the initiates was transmitted entirely orally, and with the information about ligands and receptors, we are beginning to understand why. The destruction of Celtic culture was so complete that we know very little about their religion. We do know that they celebrated their “rites” in forests and by lakes without erecting any covered temples or statues of divinities. Tacitus tells us:
They do not think it in keeping with the divine majesty to confine gods within walls, or to portray them in the likeness of any human countenance. Their holy places are woods and groves and they apply the names of deities to that hidden presence which is seen only by the eyes of reverence.
Plato had doubts about the Greek origins of Homer’s work because not only do the physical descriptions in his poems not correspond to the Greek world, but also the Homeric philosophy is very different from the mainstream Greek philosophy we know about today. The latter is based on the dualism of two opposing elements, thesis/antithesis, good/evil, life/death, body/soul, etc. omitting the idea of the Third Force. Since Plato’s times, many have sought to derive “synthesis” from these opposing elements, with little success. The “third force” of Gurdjieff has been brought up many times with little satisfaction in the attempts to understand it, and perhaps it is in what we can derive from the Celtic teachings will help us here. According to Homer, the philosophy of the ancient world was that there was a third element that linked the opposing elements. Between the body and the soul, there is the spirit. Between life and death there is the transformation that is possible to the individual, between father and mother there is the child who takes the characteristics of both father and mother, and between good and evil there is the specific situation that determines which is which and what ought to be done. In other words, there are three simultaneous determinants in any situation that make it impossible to say that any list of things is “good” or “evil” intrinsically, and that the true determinant is the situation. In any event, the symbol of this philosophy is the triskele, representing three waves joined together.
The simultaneous existence of the third element does not mean that the notion of “good” and “evil” did not exist or was not reflected in the Celtic law. What was clear was that it was understood that nothing could be “cut and dried” in terms of law, that each situation was unique and the circumstances had to be carefully weighed. Aristotle considered Gaul to be the “teacher” of Greece and the Druids to be the “inventors of philosophy.” The Greeks also considered the Druids to be the world’s greatest scholars, and whose mathematical knowledge was the source of Pythagoras’ information. It seems that all “primitive” or preliterate cultures had some form of codified communication between “spirits” and the living. Again, let me reiterate that I consider this nomenclature to be simply convention. This phenomenon seems to be universal in the ancient world, and only came under condemnation with the inception of monotheism around 1000 BC. When Yahweh spoke through his channels, they were called prophets and the activity was “divine inspiration”. When anybody else did it, it was necromancy or demonic possession, or even just out and out deception. This was because, obviously, since Jehovah/Yahweh was the only god, those other “gods” did not exist, therefore, anyone who claimed to be communicating with them was lying. Of course that begs the question as to why people were put to death for lying about communicating with gods that were claimed not to exist? And, if they did actually exist, and were actually communicating, as Yahweh was also, then what status does that suggest about Yahweh, since he was the one who claimed to be the only god and that this was true simply because Yahweh said so via channeling? Most curious. In the sixth century BC the Thracian Dionysiac cults were known to be using shamans as trance channels to communicate with the spirits, or what were then known as theoi or gods that were said to be discarnate immortal beings with superhuman powers.
Some scholars suggest that rationalist philosophy was born out of the Dionysiac, Orphic, and Eleusinian mystery cults devoted to the channeling of these gods; certainly much ancient Greek philosophy, especially that of Pythagoras, Heraclitus, and Plato, was saturated with these mysteries. In Plato’s Theagetes Socrates confesses, “By the favour of the Gods, I have since my childhood been attended by a semi-divine being whose voice from time to time dissuades me from some undertaking, but never directs me what I am to do.” The most interesting item of all is the fact that Pythagoras used something like a Ouija board as early as 540 BC: a “mystic table” on wheels moved around and pointed toward signs that were then interpreted by the philosopher himself, or his pupil Philolaus. Even down to the present day, the mysteries of the Pythagoreans are subjects of intense interest to scientists and mystics alike. And here there seems to be evidence that the advanced knowledge of Pythagoras may have been obtained via a Ouija board! This brings us back to the question, of course, as to how “channeled” information, which is most certainly what formed the basis of what was later twisted and contorted in Judaism, could have been the basis of the Rationalist philosophy that there was nothing to channel? Could it be merely a progression of the idea of Yahweh/Jehovah that there was only one god, and he was it? Just another step in stripping away any spiritual support from the lives of human beings? From “many gods”, i.e. our “higher selves,” we were reduced to one, and only one God, and this god was the God of the Jews, or the Judaens as they were known then. Yes, there are variations on this theme, and both Christianity and Islam claim to represent the same god, the one the priests of the Judaens invented as the “only god”.
More than that, there was only one way to “approach” God, and that was through the duly authorized priest or ritual or both. By the time the Romans had conquered Greece, the rationalist movement was turning against spirit-channeling. Cicero, the Roman rationalist whom the early Church Fathers highly revered, railed against spirit-channeling or necromancy on the grounds that it involved ghastly pagan rituals. Perhaps, by that time, it did. Just look at the whole New Age/Spiritualist movement today. What a morass. What seems to have happened is that, eventually, rationalism bit the hand that fed it and began to devour its father, monotheism, by further extending the argument to the idea that there is no god, there are no spirits, nothing survives the death of the physical body, so there is really nobody for us to talk to on the “other side,” so why bother? Science took the view that the whole thing was a con game, and that’s pretty much the current mainstream scientific opinion of the phenomenon today. And science is, as it happens, in many ways dominated by Jews. Moreover, they are proud of the fact of their great intellectual achievements, so stating it is no attack on them. We come back now to consider the passage quoted from Rosenbaum about Gerlich and Therese Neumann, that part of Rosenbaum’s contempt for her was that even her own church did not accept her as a true stigmatic. That may, of course, have had something to do with her politics and perhaps even her philosophy as it was delivered in her channeling.
What is certainly true is that Therese Neumann, a channeler, was the inspiration behind one of the bravest journalists in Germany during the times in which Hitler rose to power. Even after Gerlich’s murder in Dachau, the circle around Therese Neumann continued their participation in the morally significant resistance to Hitler. It was the mystical source of Gerlich’s strength that infused his incisive, surgical dissection of Hitler’s mentality. And it is this legacy he has left behind for all of us. Throughout history, extending back and back before any written records, people obtained much strength from mystical sources. As we have seen in this article, such sources came under attack with the rise of the monotheistic religions. The connection between an emotional knowledge of the world and an intellectual knowledge of the world was snapped. We live under the horrific conditions that are the result of this break. A large part of mankind is now slave to his intellect. The apprehending of the world via the emotions, the intuition, inspiration, which I suggest are the basis for mystical experiences and genuine channeling — that is, a link with the higher centers discussed by Gurdjieff and Mouravieff and part of the Tradition taught by the historical personage who later became transformed into the Jesus of the New Testament — go outside of the hierarchical structures the rational mind has built to imprison us, be it materialistic science on the one hand or the need to communicate with the divine via priests and other representatives on the other hand. In the people of the circle, everyone had his or her own link to the center point, at least potentially. In the people of the triangle or pyramid, the base must pass through all the intermediate layers to reach the peak. Monotheism is the ideal representation of this structure. The direct connection with the divine was killed; it had to be killed. This death of our own divinity is the true legacy bequeathed to us by the priests who built the walls around the people of Judea. I began by citing John Kaminski’s attack on me and his pejorative reference to channeling. It is ironic, but ultimately sad, that a man who has fallen into such rabid anti-Semitism should himself be held captive and enchained by a legacy that has its origins with those he sees as his bitterist enemies.