Tuesday, September 13, 2016

No, Jesus was not a "Syrian refugee."


"Jesus is a Syrian Refugee."

That was the headline of a blog post put out by the "Fig Tree Revolution," a group of "progressive Christians" who "dream of a world filled with peace, economic equality, and freedom from the yoke of oppression for ALL people." According to the post, "baby Jesus and his family were refugees to Egypt," and they surmise that Jesus would be a "refugee from Syria" today. Thus, any Christian who does not advocate for the West to import thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of Muslims from Syria and elsewhere are really turning their backs on "baby Jesus and his family." What sort of Christian would do that?

Well, as it turns out, any good Christian would turn away these "refugees" attempting to enter Christendom. First, there is the fact that the vast majority of "refugees" flooding into Europe are not actually refugees or even Syrian (Source). The fact that these "refugees" are actually just Muslim migrants has been confirmed with neighboring Muslim nations refusing to take them, but still the US and European nations are bullied over not taking in more (Source). Additionally, as of November of last year, nearly 98% of the "Syrian refugees" taken in by the US were Muslims rather than Christians (Source). This is an army of overwhelmingly young, Muslim males with absolutely no business being in the United States or Europe.

Now, let's compare this "refugee crisis" with Jesus. Matthew tells us the story of how King Herod planned to kill Jesus after hearing that he would rule the people of Israel (2:6), so an angel appeared to Joseph and told him to take his family to Egypt until Herod's death (2:13-15). Therein is the entirety of the progressive claim. Jesus was taken to Egypt to avoid Herod, and the "refugees" just want to avoid whoever is trying to kill them.

The problem with this analogy is that Judea came under indirect Roman rule in 63 BC, and Egypt had come under direct Roman rule in 30 BC. This means that Joseph was not fleeing with his family from one country to another to escape persecution, but he was rather going from what amounted to a Roman province to another Roman province. Additionally, Egypt was already home to Hellenized Judeans, and Joseph and his family would not have seemed out of place. There were no issues of cultural subversion, assimilation, &c.

Jesus was a Roman subject in Judea, and he was a Roman subject in Egypt. Hellenized Judeans existed in both Judea and Egypt, and they—unlike some Jewish sects—were not seen as subversive.

Muslim "refugees" are from a number of countries attempting to migrate to entirely different nations on entirely different continents with entirely different cultures. Muslims are actively engaged in jihad against the West, and, as we have seen, the majority of the "refugees" have no legitimate reason to be seeking asylum to begin with. They are foreign invaders moving en masse, subverting the peoples, cultures, and religion everywhere they end up in the West. In the United States, 51% of Muslims think Sharia law should trump the Constitution, and 25% believe it is acceptable to use violence against Americans in the name of jihad (Source).

Christians are under no obligation to welcome wolves into their homes, and turning away foreigners who would only do harm to Christendom is not somehow turning one's back on "baby Jesus and his family." These Muslims do not share our heritage, genes, culture, or religion. They would subvert everything about the West, and we have evidence that they are nothing more than migrants looking to take advantage of the situation for personal gain. Muslims once tried to invade Europe in the 8th century before being turned back. Now, in the 21st century, some "Christians" are seeking to help those same invaders walk in unopposed.

Remember, what would Jesus do? He would whip his enemies, flip over tables, and call them the children of Satan. That is what Jesus would do.

The Subversive Myths of "Judeo-Christianity," "Abrahamic Religions," and "Neoconservatism"

A curious phenomena has occurred among many American Christians in recent decades that has seen them embracing multiculturalism as both a necessity and a natural good. In the 2016 election cycle, it has been a common refrain among both the American right and left that it would be "un-American" and "un-Christian" to prevent potentially dangerous foreigners from entering the country simply because of their religion. Similar attitudes can also be found in Europe. One could easily point to the Naturalization Act of 1790 to show that the United States was never meant to be a multicultural utopia, but that only further highlights how odd this modern attitude is for Americans faced with changing demographics and a war on Christendom itself.



Why are European and Euro-American Christians going out of their way to import foreigners who do not share their heritage, culture, or religion? Simply put, this is the purposeful result of social engineering. This is demonstrated by how quickly even supposed "conservatives" scramble to denounce any effort to actually conserve one's people, culture, or religion as "racist." It is a conditioned response like Pavlov's dogs. They hear the bell, and they react without questioning it. It never even enters their minds that they are advocating for their own destruction because there is no real thought process involved. They have been programmed to see any sort of chauvinism on the part of Europeans and, particularly, European Christians as something to viciously attack. They repeat ad nauseam that "real American values" stand in strict opposition to any notion of preserving one's own. They cannot tell you the real reason the Statue of Liberty stands there, but they can recite key lines of a poem added to it decades later regarding immigration. They do not know anything about historical immigration into the United States, but they can offer the conditioned response that it is "a nation of immigrants." The dogs are drooling, and they have no idea why.

Barbara Lerner Spectre has some idea of why, however. She is an American-born Jew who spent three decades living in Israel before moving to Sweden in 1999, where she founded the European Institute for Jewish Studies in 2001. In 2007, Spectre, an avowed Zionist said, "We need a Jewish community in Europe ... Israel cannot exist ... without Europe. They are necessary advocates for Jewish issues." In case anyone did not understand Spectre's motivation and intent, she gave an interview in 2010 in which she said, "Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think [Jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were ... Jews are going to be at the center of that." Spectre is not a native European. Her husband, Rabbi Philip Spectre, also is not a native European. They are American-born, Zionist Jews whose only concern is for "Jewish issues," and they support importing non-Europeans into Europe because it "must take place" so that Europe will no longer consist of "monolithic societies." Oddly enough, all of the Spectres' children and grandchildren live in Israel, away from the multiculturalism that they advocate so strongly for Europeans.

This speaks to the reality that Zionists have been working to manipulate the West and to divert efforts away from domestic issues to instead focus on "Jewish issues." Barbara Spectre has only been active since 2001, but she is part of a much larger effort that stretches back decades. For example, the Institute for Social Research was founded by Felix Weil—an Argentinian-born Jew—in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, in 1923. The purpose of the ISR was to engage in the study of "sociology" from a Marxist perspective, and the institute was coincidentally home to many Jewish Marxists. That is why the ISR fled Germany in 1933 after Adolf Hitler was named chancellor; moving first to Switzerland and then to New York City in 1935. As then-director of the ISR, Max Horkheimer—a German-born Jew—wrote Traditional and Critical Theory in 1937, which was the real beginning for what is known today as the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism.

Horkheimer's "critical theory" is important because it is a rather nebulous application of Marxist ideas to aspects of society, and it can be freely adapted by cultural Marxists to "critique" anything. Despite first appearing in the 1930s, World War II and the beginning of the Cold War ensured that most in the West would not embrace such open Marxism, albeit these Jewish Marxists did initially find a safe haven among academics in New York City. By the 1960s, however, the American Left was openly espousing Marxist ideology including the Frankfurt School, and they quickly gave birth to so-called "critical gender theory," "critical race theory," and "queer theory," which are at the very heart of things like radical feminism, black power movements, and the push for normalizing degeneracy. Going hand-in-hand with these efforts has been the push to control speech so as to control how people think, which has become known as the "PC culture" where the American Left has defined everything to be offensive including factual information.


The charts above are taken from the Google Books Ngram Viewer, and they show the prevalence of terms in books over the decades. We can see in the first chart that feminist/feminism and racist/racism only became prevalent after 1960, and the second chart shows that "social construct"—the cultural Marxist term used to deny both gender and race—came into use in that same decade. Interestingly, "transsexual"—the idea that gender can be separate from biological sex—also popped up at that time. "Gay marriage" also began to rise in the mid-1960s, but it wasn't until the late 1980s—following the AIDS epidemic and leftist attempts to make gays victims of society rather than victims of their own degeneracy—that the issue really gained steam.

Of particular interest is the last chart showing that "neoconservative" and "secular humanism" both began to takeoff in the early 1970s and followed a similar pattern over the succeeding decades. This is important because the United States has seen a steady march toward the political left, and this has gone hand-in-hand with two things: namely, the demonizing of Christian conservatives and the Right being subverted by so-called "neoconservatives." Unsurprisingly, the supposed dichotomy between "left" and "right" in the last few decades only serves to highlight the prevalence of Jews controlling both sides of this battle of ideologies.

Indeed, recently, Jews in the media, particularly the leftist media, have taken to identifying themselves with (((echoes))) on Twitter because members of the Alt-Right had already been doing so. Some within the neocon media have done the same, but key Jewish figures such as Bill Kristol, of The Weekly Standard, and David Frum, of The Atlantic, have not done so. This is likely because they do not want people connecting their Jewishness with their neoconservationism, which they also go out of their way to avoid acknowledging. Kristol, for example, often holds himself up as the Fidei defensor, the Defender of the Faith, for classical conservatism. Kristol's father, Irving Kristol, however, was one of the fathers of neoconservatism.

Writing in 1976, Irving Kristol acknowledged that there could "be no doubt that the political tendency deemed neoconservative does exist ... that it has become quite influential as of late in shaping political attitudes in intellectual and academic circles, and that its views have even infiltrated the world of media and government" (Source). In 1995, he also wrote that "the United States is a 'creedal' nation" and that being "American has nothing to do with ethnicity, or blood ties of any kind, or lineage, or length of residence even. What we scornfully call 'nativism' in the United States is what passes for authentic patriotism among many Germans and Frenchmen" (Source). Now, compare this neoconservative view of the United States with what the likes of George Washington, John Adams, and their compatriots said and did in 1790.

It is not hard to understand how Jews came to control the American Left. After all, Jewish Marxists of the Frankfurt School were welcomed with open arms by domestic Marxists, and their ideology offers ready-made excuses for radical leftists who want to blame their failings on the bourgeoisie whether that means white people, Christians, non-degenerates, or whoever else. Regardless of who the specific enemy is, these modern Marxists agree that they are owed something and that government must be used to punish their enemies. The real question is how Jews came to subvert the American Right with a slightly less radical form of leftism.


As we can see from this chart, the terms "Judeo-Christian" and "Abrahamic religions" largely came into use in the late 1950s yet did not truly become prevalent until the late 1970s, which also happens to coincide with the rise of neoconservatism. This is the key to understanding why gentiles like Erick Erickson, of The Resurgent, rabidly defend neoconservatism as the "true conservatism," working to undermine everything that is actually traditional about the United States in the process. For his part, Erickson, a Presbyterian, was primed for ideals such as multiculturalism as he lived in the United Arab Emirates from age 5 until he was 15. It is worthy of note that Erickson's hometown, Jackson, Louisiana, was already 25% non-white in 1980 when his family moved overseas, and the non-white population had increased to 43% by 1990 when they moved back (Source). While Erickson himself may have been an easy target for neoconservatism, we must not underestimate how subversive and manipulative this movement has truly been.

How do you convince conservatives to stop conserving things? Simply put, you have to convince them that they live in Bizarro World where up is down, left is right, right is wrong. Simply telling them that conserving their people, culture, and religion was wrong obviously would not work, so the fledgling neoconservatives instead needed to expand the concepts of people, culture, and religion until conservatives were trying to conserve others and, as a consequence, sacrificing their own to do so. Thus, conservatives were told that the United States was not founded by white men for their own posterity, and they were assured that the nation's principles were not specifically Christian in nature despite the vast majority of the Founders being Christian, founding documents referencing the Creator, &c. That was racist and bigoted, they were told. Instead, the United States was founded on "Judeo-Christian" values, and the nation was always "creedal" in nature where the Founders intended for the borders to be open to the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" wherever they were found, especially if they were Jewish. Questioning these assertions, we have been told, is the sort of thing the Nazis did right before the Holocaust. Such thought crimes will not be tolerated by the Jewish Right just as it is attacked by the Jewish Left. Of course, that is just a coincidence.

The concept of the "Abrahamic religions" reinforces the "Judeo-Christian United States" from a more specifically religious angle. The reasoning is that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same deity, the God of Abraham. Accepting the validity of this requires that Christians lower their own religion to being one possible interpretation of God's will. Jews and Muslims may not believe in Jesus, we are told, but they nonetheless worship the same God. Jews are given credit for the "Judeo-Christian values" of the United States, and Christians are bludgeoned over the head with the "Abrahamic religions" being equally valid, peaceful, and welcome in the West. This is seen by the countless articles written by Jews telling us that it is downright "un-American" and "un-Christian" to not open our borders to Muslims, the same Muslims who pose an endless threat to Israel according to the same Jewish media, the same Muslims murdering Christians across the globe.

We have already seen that the Founding Fathers had no qualms about barring non-whites from receiving naturalized citizenship in 1790. Mind you, the free population of the United States was already 98.15% white at the time. Obviously, they did not intend for the nation to be a multicultural, multiracial utopia. But what of Jesus? Did he tell Christians to embrace the Pharisees, predecessors of modern rabbinic Jews? Would Jesus be lecturing Christians today that they must open their nations to violent savages?

In Matthew 2:6, the wise men prophesied that Jesus would be "a Governor, that shall rule [the] people of Israel." Indeed, in John 14:6, Jesus said, "No one comes to the Father except through me." In John 8:42-47, Jesus said to the Pharisees that if "God were [their] Father, [they] would love [him]," but they were "of [their] father the devil, and the lusts of [their] father [they] will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." In John 2:15, Jesus whipped the Pharisees at the Temple, flipped over tables, and chased them all out. In Revelation 3:9, we are warned about the "synagogue of Satan," which is comprised of people who say they are Judeans (people of Israel) but are not.

In which part of this are we seeing "Judeo-Christian values"? Where Jesus condemns the future rabbinic Jews as the murderous, dishonest children of Satan? Or where he made his own whip just to beat them and chase them from the Temple? Or where he specifically rejected those who rejected him as the son of the Father? We can safely dismiss "Judeo-Christian," and any "Christian" who continues to embrace the Pharisees should just acknowledge that they only truly care about the "Judeo."

This also serves to highlight why "Abrahamic religions" is a meaningless term for any real Christian. Beyond Jesus condemning the Pharisees and saying they have no special path to God, there is also a long history showing that modern Judaism is far removed from Christianity. For example, the Babylonian Talmud was not compiled until the early 6th century AD with edits occurring later, and the Masoretic Text—the definitive version of the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible—was compiled between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. Rabbinic Judaism also has a number of Post-Talmudic writings dating from between the 8th and 12th centuries AD. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have been dated to between 5th century BC and 4th century AD, were discovered between 1946-1956, and scholars have discovered changes that appear in the Masoretic Text.

In short, Judaism as it exists today did not exist in Jesus's time. Following the destruction of the Second Temple, the Pharisaic sect shifted from relying on priests to relying on rabbis, and the new religion continued to evolve until the Middle Ages. Referring to "Judeo-Christian" or the "Abrahamic religions" masks the fact that Judaism is not the same thing as the ancient Hebraic religion and has nothing to do with Jesus's time. The Pharisees doubling down again and again on being Pharisees did not produce something closer to God.

Now, let's consider that Muhammad was born in Mecca in the late 6th century AD. Neither Christianity nor Judaism was prevalent in Western Arabia, but Muhammad may have had some knowledge of these other religions since Mecca was a center of trade with other peoples. Muhammad revealed his new religion to his followers in the early 7th century AD, and it gained prominence among poor Arabs as Muhammad—himself from a poorer clan and denied inheritance from his father due to his posthumous birth—encouraged the wealthy to provide for the poor. The new religion was resisted by other Arabs, but Muhammad ultimately conquered Mecca with its pagan structures as well as the rest of Arabia by the time of his death in AD 632. By 661, Muslims had conquered many lands from the Eastern Roman and Persian empires in the Levant, North Africa, and West Asia, which naturally brought countless Christians and Zoroastrians under Muslim control. It was from among these that the Muslims found many bureaucrats, scholars, &c.

The Quran itself was not compiled until the decades following Muhammad's death as he only ever told his followers of his visions and divine messages. Of course, this means we do not know exactly what Muhammad's earliest followers believed, or how Muhammad himself explained being prophet for a religion that was not found among his own people. We must at least entertain the idea that the earliest incarnation of Islam was rather nebulous and only took on "Abrahamic" elements following Islam's violent expansion into Christian lands. After all, Muslims still pray facing the Kaaba in Mecca, a pagan structure that already existed in Muhammad's time. Why do they pray to a structure built to house pagan deities and idols?

Such elements of Arabian paganism have since been repackaged for "Abrahamic" consumption. For example, Muslims claim that the Kaaba was originally constructed by Abraham himself along with Ishmael, his son by the slave Hagar. Over time, they claim, the Ishmaelites (Arabs) lost their way and gave into paganism and idolatry. Of course, we know this is false as Abraham and the Hebrews were not an Arabian people, and they certainly were not the founders of Mecca. The Arabs did not turn to paganism, but they were rather pagan all along. It is true that the Old Testament tells the story of Abraham casting out Hagar and Ishmael after the latter mocked Isaac, but the point is explaining why the Israelites and Ishmaelites did not get along. Indeed, Genesis 16:12 tells us that Ishmael was a "wild ass of a man" and that "his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him." Does that not sound like Muslims of today?

So what exactly ties Islam to Christianity? Nothing whatsoever except that the Muslims spent their first several centuries of existence invading Christendom. They can claim that they were doing the Lord's work, but being monotheistic and claiming a shared origin after the fact is not proof in and of itself. Muhammad was not a Christian, or even a Pharisee. He was an Arabian pagan born among Arabian pagans, and his religion retained elements of that paganism. It was only after Muhammad's followers were immersed in Christendom and Christianity that we know for certain they claimed to be Ishmaelites spreading the "true Word of God."

Modern Islam, like modern Judaism, is the product of centuries of developments following the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus himself condemned the Pharisees as worshiping Satan, and he said that if they truly knew the Father that they would know him. Apply the same standard to both modern Judaism and Islam. Each claims to represent the true will of God, but both reject Jesus. There can be no such thing as "Judeo-Christianity," and there can be only one valid religion following God. Christians must wake up and recognize why they have been subverted, by whom they have been subverted, and how they have been subverted. Christians cannot continue as Pavlov's dogs, drooling all over themselves each time the bell rings.

Wednesday, September 7, 2016

Protestant Progressivism, Revisionist History, and Dividing Christendom

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." - 2 Peter 3:16

Protestantism is inherently progressive and egalitarian, and this is particularly true for low-church denominations. After all, they reject the traditional hierarchy of the Church, and virtually all go so far as to not only reject the history of the Church but to set themselves in opposition to it. Every tradition and historical event is recast with the Church in the role of The Ancient Evil. This is no different than political progressives dismissing the Founding Fathers of the United States as those "racist, white slave owners."

And therein lies the difference between schismatics and protestants. For example, the Great Schism of 1054 resulted in a split between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Catholic churches. Latin and Greek Christians have certainly had conflicts since that time, but the churches have not really tried to declare the other to be satanic, or deny their history altogether. Schismatics disagree on some doctrinal point, and they go their own way while remaining roughly the same. Latin and Greek clerics may dress a little differently and such, but the Roman and Orthodox churches are not that far removed.

Now, let's compare that to some of the ahistorical claims put forth by many protestants that make cooperation impossible let alone reconciliation.

I. The Church tried to keep Christians from reading the Bible: The basis for this argument is that the language of the Church is Latin, and most people at the time of the Reformation could not read Latin. Thus, many protestants have asserted that the Church's use thereof was a shadowy tactic meant to keep the masses from reading the Bible for themselves. This is nonsensical at best and only serves to demonstrate a fundamental lack of historical understanding. Latin is the language of the Church because it was the language of the Roman Empire during the earliest days of Christianity. The Vulgate was commissioned approximately one century before the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Since it became the commonly used version (what Vulgate actually means), it continued to be used by the Church.

In much of Europe, however, the people did not speak Latin, so they were not capable of reading the Vulgate for themselves, or anything else really since most people were not literate at the time. That latter fact makes sense when we consider that books were still printed by hand using expensive materials, so literacy was limited to the wealthy and the Church. This also explains why it was not possible for every nation to have their own vulgar translations. There was no grand conspiracy to prevent people from reading the Bible, and, indeed, those who could afford a fine education often learned Latin as well as any cleric. To return to the hand-printed books, we must also wonder why the Church would preserve texts that, according to protestants, proves that The Ancient Evil was up to something nefarious. Why not simply modify the texts in the early centuries when no one outside of the Church would have known any better? What sort of grand conspiracy fails to actually engage in its own conspiracy?

This brings us to 2 Peter 3:16 quoted above. The Church may not have been trying to prevent the masses from reading the Bible, but we have seen what happens when those who are "unlearned and unstable" have access to vulgar translations. Translations, mind you, that often have their own flaws to which the "unlearned and unstable" are oblivious. Protestantism encourages divisions that serve to breed ever growing chasms as the masses constantly interpret and reinterpret the Bible to further their own ends. There is no tradition or history to keep Christendom tethered and nailed down, which makes it easy for the false teachers to rob good people blind. Every time you see someone argue that "homosexuality isn't really a sin," that is only possible because Protestantism decided that the "unlearned and unstable" should read the Bible themselves.

II. The Church killed 50 million "real Christians" for reading the Bible: This myth is intertwined with that above. As the story goes, the Inquisitions and Crusades in Europe were all motivated by the Church's desire to prevent the masses from reading the Bible themselves. Some go so far as to claim that every heretical sect throughout history was a link in a chain leading from the earliest Christians to the modern protestants, who would actually not be protestant at all but rather the "real Christians." This "theory" is known as successionism. There are some obvious problems with this tale of Catholic persecution of "real Christians."

First, we need to be more specific than "the Inquisitions and Crusades." The Medieval Inquisition began in 1184 and lasted into the 1230s, and a number of crusades were launched in Europe from approximately 1200-1300. The Spanish Inquisition started in 1478 with royal decrees in 1492 and 1502 focusing on Jews and Muslims in Spain, and, while it lasted for a few centuries, the total death toll is estimated to have only been 3,000-5,000 over the entire course of the Spanish Inquisition.

Second, from 1200-1300 AD, the total population of Europe increased from an estimated 68 million to 79 million. That is despite the vast majority of the Medieval Inquisition and European crusades falling within that century. If the myth of the Church killing 50 million "real Christians" in "the Inquisitions and Crusades" is to be believed, we have to accept that the population naturally grew by 11 million, or 16.2%, in addition to tens of millions of people dying. Is it plausible that Europe had a massive, unprecedented population boom that was entirely masked by the Church committing genocide on a record scale? In a word, no.

III. The Church created Islam to kill "real Christians" and Jews: Another part of the Church's supposed plan to kill "real Christians and Jews" apparently involved training an Arab from western Arabia to create a new religion, form an army, and invade Christendom on behalf of the Pope. That Arab was none other than Muhammad, father of Islam and also apparently secret agent of the Vatican. We should note the inherent "Christian Zionist" element here, pitting both Protestantism and Judaism against the Church.

The first problem with this "theory" is that it comes from Alberto Rivera, a conman who made a career out of anti-Catholic conspiracy theories until his death in 1997. Rivera being the source is important because he only had a tenuous relationship with reality at best. For example, he claimed to have been a Jesuit priest, trained by the Vatican as an infiltrator and assassin, and virtually all of his claims were evidence-free and relied entirely on <insert Catholic figure here> telling him <insert secret history here> at some point. Rivera knew that the Jesuits were behind the Medieval Inquisition of the 13th century despite the Jesuits not existing until the 16th century. He also knew that Pentecostalism was really a plot by the Vatican to infiltrate Protestantism somehow. Rivera was a conman turned protestant fundamentalist.

The second problem is that Christendom was synonymous with the Catholic Church in 600 AD, and it would still be another few centuries before the northern and eastern parts of Europe would convert to Christianity. While Europe was already the focal point of Christendom, Christian lands still spread into North Africa, the Levant, and Asia Minor. This is important because Rivera claimed that Islam was meant to be a great, conquering army to take North Africa and the Levant for the Vatican. Why would the Church want to create a false religion, turn foreigners into fanatics of that religion, and then have them invade lands that were already in the hands of Christians under the Church? How does any of that make sense?

Also, despite Rivera's claims, Arabia was not a hotbed of Christian activity at the time, and there certainly were no Arab nuns being trained to seduce Muhammad so as to convince him to start a new religion. Indeed, Muhammad was born in Mecca among a merchant tribe that was in control of the region, and there is absolutely no evidence that his first wife was a secret agent of the Vatican, sent to use the skills she learned as a nun to win Muhammad over.

By Muhammad's death in 632, Muslims were in control of the entirety of Arabia. By 661, they had taken Persia, the Levant, Afghanistan, and spread into North Africa. By 750, they had taken all of North Africa and spread into Spain and South Asia. At no point during that expansion did any non-Christian lands go to the Vatican despite Rivera claiming that was the plan, but many Eastern Catholics found themselves under Muslim control. The Battle of Tours in 732 was the only thing that kept Islam from spreading further into Europe. Rivera claimed that the Pope was actively giving the Muslims permission to invade those lands and that the Muslims only later turned on the Vatican, but there is no evidence for any of that. We are left with a ridiculously and comically complex plan that makes zero sense on the part of the Church.

IV. The Church is satanic. Just look at the hats: This claim is based on the shape of the hats worn by bishops. As the theory goes, the silhouette of the mitre resembles ancient reliefs of the Canaanite deity, Dagon, who was depicted wearing a hat in the shape of a fish's mouth. Apparently, every Catholic bishop is—knowingly or not—really a high priest of the shadowy cult of Dagon.

The most obvious problem with this theory is that the mitre was first attested in the 11th century, several hundred years after any sign of Dagon had died out. Additionally, the earliest mitres were of a different form than those seen today and do not fit with the conspiracy theory at all. This can be seen with the mitres worn by Orthodox bishops, which share a common ancestor with their Roman counterparts.

If Roman Catholic mitres were developed as an outward sign of Dagon worship, it would need to be shown that the current design was introduced without being related to previous incarnations. That is obviously not the case, however, as depictions of Pope Innocent III in the early 13th century show an early mitre with elements that are still seen today. Are we supposed to believe that the Church decided in the 11th century to dress bishops as priests of Dagon as part of a secret cult and then took centuries to slowly implement that plan?

V. The Church is satanic. They call priests "father":This one begins with Matthew 23:9: "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven." The argument is that Jesus said, "call no man your father," yet Catholics refer to priests as "father," which is evidence of the Church subverting God.

There is no denying the text of Matthew 23:9, but it must be placed within its proper context. Jesus is not making a random statement, but he is rather criticizing the Pharisees for using their positions to accumulate power and titles without actually helping people. Jesus also used the words διδάσκαλος (teacher) and καθηγητὴς (instructor) in Matthew 23:8-10, but we obviously know that he did not literally mean that Christians should never refer to anyone as "father," "teacher," or "instructor." After all, most people refer to their own fathers as such, and we still have teachers, professors, and so on.

It is important to note here that Matthew 23 does not carve out exceptions for such uses. If we are to take Jesus's words literally here, they apply equally to any use of such titles, which is obviously absurd. This is why context is so important. Jesus was criticizing the Pharisees for getting the best spots during feasts, the best seats in temple, and the like without actually serving their people. This is a specific criticism aimed at a particular group of people for a specific wrongdoing. Further context is found in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) where Jesus himself uses "Father Abraham" in the story, which suggests that there is both a proper and improper use of the title.

For Catholics, use of the title "father" goes back to the early Church. Indeed, even St. Paul discussed himself having begotten his "beloved sons" who were his "followers" (1 Corinthians 4:14-17). We must then understand that referring to priests as "father" is not some newfangled subversion of the faith, but it is rather as old as the Church itself. A priest is the head of the local congregation, a spiritual head of household as it were. He has the responsibility of shepherding his flock and being there for them in times of need. Just as St. Paul referred to his "beloved sons" whom he had "begotten ... through the gospel," a priest must see his flock in the same light.

______________________________________________________

Now, think about the importance of Christendom standing united against Islam. According to Pew in 2011, 62.3% of Europeans were Roman or Orthodox Catholic compared to just 13.6% who belonged to a Protestant denomination. According to the American Religion Identification Survey in 2008, 25.1% of Americans were Roman Catholic compared to 50.3% were some sort of Protestant. All told, there are approximately 519.3 million Roman and Orthodox Catholics in Europe and the US compared to 213.7 million Protestants.

Christendom does not need a minority population attacking the majority as "satanic," "murderous," or whatever else. Christendom does not need an egalitarian movement that promotes the "unlearned and unstable" such as Alberto Rivera to positions of authority. Christendom does not need a progressive movement that attacks 2,000-year-old traditions while ordaining women in direct contravention of 1 Timothy 2:12—"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence."

What Christendom needs is a united front against those who would destroy Western civilization and the European people just as Christians fought against Muslim invaders for centuries.


Saturday, September 3, 2016

Why the Episcopal Church is Dying


From 2006-2014, the Episcopal Church in the United States lost 15.7% of their active membership with a total loss of 542 dioceses. Behold a prime example of why that is the case. Wil Gafney lists herself as a "womanist, feminist, professor, priest" who is "fighting white supremacy and patriarchy." Her twitter bio makes it quite clear that "priest" comes secondary to "womanist & feminist," and she also throws in that her blackness and anti-white attitude are also important.

Imagine walking into an Episcopal church for the first time, and the "priest" is a blank woman telling you about her "sanctified imagination" fantasizing about how amazing it must have been to be a rich, bisexual, Canaanite prostitute who rubs elbows (and other parts) with royalty while wearing fine silks when not in a state of undress. "Reverend" Gafney has given that exact sermon, entitled, "Who are you calling a whore?"

In Joshua 2, we see that Rahab, a Canaanite whore, does help Israelite spies in Jericho, and she asks that her parents and siblings be spared. The spies agree that anyone within her home—the one place they encountered her—would be spared. When Jericho fell to the Israelite army, we are told that her family was indeed spared (Joshua 6:23-25). That is the entirety of the description of Rahab.

Now, let's compare the Bible to the "sanctified imagination" of this "womanist & feminist Hebrew Biblical scholar, professor, priest." There's no mention of Rahab being wealthy, or that she had sex with kings and queens. There's nothing about her mother and sisters being whores with her, or that she was the head of the household over her father. Nothing "Reverend" Gafney imagines appears in the story. Indeed, Gafney made a point in the sermon of saying that Rahab never mentions her father having his own house, which Gafney says implies Rahab was the head of household. By extension, the Israelite spies are also cast as patriarchal sexists for mentioning Rahab's father's house rather than acknowledging the empowered prostitute being in control of herself. But Joshua 2:12 shows Rahab specifically mentioning her father's household.

We can thus see that the entire premise of "Reverend" Gafney's sermon is false. Rahab was not some sort of wealthy brothel owner engaged in spying for the King of Jericho in addition to servicing him and his queen. She was not adorned in fine silks, and she was not the head of her family over her father. Absolutely nothing Gafney said can be found in the text itself, and the moral of the story is that Rahab was spared for protecting her guests despite Gafney saying that Christians should instead think of Rahab as an "ethnic minority," a victim of patriarchy because she was described as a whore while her customers were not. The point of the sermon does not appear to be about encouraging good behavior in Christians but rather to defend black harlots and whores today. Indeed, she says to "not count a sister out who fears God no matter how the deck is stacked against her." There is no penitence here. No turning from sin to righteousness. Just embracing sin as acceptable behavior that is mislabeled by the evil patriarchy abusing minorities.

How does one arrive at such a perspective? Apparently, "Reverend" Gafney received a Master of Divinity in Homiletics and Hebrew Bible from Howard University and a Doctor of Philosophy in Hebrew Bible and a Graduate Certificate in Women’s Studies from Duke University.

We can immediately see why she is preaching about the Old Testament to push feminist, black racialist ideology, but we must still wonder about her background since her academic credentials suggest she should know better, albeit a degree does not necessarily make one a cleric. Indeed, when the Apostles ordained clergy, they laid hands upon them, not ask for their curriculum vitae (Acts 6:1-7), so how did this person come to be a "female priest"? Interestingly enough, "Reverend" Gafney got her start with the non-apostolic, connexionalist African Methodist Episcopal Church and teaches at the non-apostolic, congregationalist Brite Divinity School. She is supposedly tied to the Episcopal Diocese of Philadelphia, worships in the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, and is not listed as clergy in either, albeit is apparently licensed to conduct services.

This is all interesting because one does not usually find a person who jumped from one denomination to another after being ordained and who then teaches at a seminary for a third denomination. Does she truly consider herself to be Episcopalian? One wonders as she often dresses in a style seen among black Protestants, not Anglican clergy. Does she still consider herself to be Methodist? Why is an Episcopalian cleric teaching at a school associated with the Disciples of Christ and the United Methodist churches?

Does "Reverend" Gafney benefit from the fact that she is a black racialist/feminist at a time when it is unacceptable to question either of those things? Her theology certainly is not biblical, and it does not appear to fit with the normal teachings of the Anglicans or Methodists. Yet she is somehow able to give sermons to Anglicans and teach Methodists? The fact that this occurs is yet another example of why the Episcopal Church and those on a similar path are withering away. The truly faithful can see that this is not righteous or holy.



"But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." - 1 Timothy 2:12