THE INCOHERENCE OF CHRISTIAN ZIONISM - David Skrbina, Ph.D.
|
Time
Text
Well, it's a great pleasure for me to introduce a fellow philosopher who has done perhaps the most brilliant critique of the nature of Christianity of any I've ever encountered.
If you can find his book, The Jesus Hoax, you will be eternally grateful because he understands what it's all about from a broader geopolitical and psychological perspective, very consistent with what we've just heard from Laura Gunyar.
I am just extremely pleased to have him here and in this elevated schedule.
David, welcome to False Lagland and Conspiracy Conference 2025 on your topic: the incoherence of Christian Zionism.
The mic is yours.
Yeah, thanks.
Thanks, Jim.
Glad to be here.
You can hear me okay.
I assume it's the speakers working.
Microsoft?
Yes, yes, everything's fine.
Okay, great.
Yeah, let me, yeah.
I have to apologize a little bit.
I'm fighting off a little chest cold here, so my voice may break up a little bit, but I'll try to get through it okay.
I also have a PowerPoint here that I'm going to share.
Is that I can do that from here?
Sure, go right ahead.
Just right there in front of you.
You should have the share opportunity mechanism.
Very good.
Yep.
And you can go to screen share, slideshow.
Go to slideshow to get full screen.
show.
Good.
Okay, we're in good shape.
Yep.
You are.
Great.
Yeah, I guess I just wanted to lead in with a supportive comment on what Jim said there.
That was the disgrace or the embarrassment of the Arab world at not aiding the genocide in Gaza.
I felt exactly the same way, Jim, when you said that.
It really seemed like we missed an opportunity here for the whole Arab world to really just step in and take control, and they just really failed to do that.
That's quite a disappointment.
I don't not sure it's going to help the Israeli state in the long run, but yeah, it was quite a disappointment.
But yeah, Laurent made a lot of great, great comments leading into this idea, talking about Christian Zionism, the state of Israel.
He made some nice connections between Christianity and Judaism.
So I want to sort of play on some of that and just talk generally about some of the background, the context, and the problems of Christian Zionism.
So that's what we're going to look at today.
But let me start off with this statement.
You know, we're covering conspiracies here in this event.
And I guess I have to say the biggest conspiracy in world history by far is Christianity.
I don't think it's even close.
It's the oldest.
It's the biggest.
It's the most pervasive.
It's the foundation and the root of many other existing current conspiracies in the world today.
Yeah, it's the mother of all conspiracies, is Christianity.
So we really have to take it in that light.
Yeah, the Christian conspiracy has huge consequences for all aspects of the modern world.
So it's really important to understand the origins, the context, the relationship to Judaism and the Jews.
And yeah, in particular, the Zionist movement today on both the Jewish side and the Christian side.
I mean, there's a lot of people that are involved here, obviously.
If you just look at Christianity as a religion, it's about two and a half billion people on earth call themselves Christians of some sort.
So that's like a third of all of humanity.
It's the number one religion on the earth.
So this is a hugely important topic, this conspiracy called Christianity, that we really understand where this thing came from, what the implications are, and what we might do about it.
So a little agenda here today.
I don't have a lot of slides, but a few points that I want to talk to.
Just a four-part outline.
We're going to look at some basic definitions so that we are clear in what we're talking about.
We'll look at a little bit of history so that everything is set in the proper context.
We have to sort of, again, situate things and ideas in a proper timeframe.
So we'll do that.
Third, we will look in some detail at the Christian conspiracy itself just to see what it is and what the implications are.
And then generally, we'll look at this idea of incoherence, which is actually putting it very mildly.
This is the polite form, the incoherence of Christian Zionism.
I guess we might call it the insanity of Christian Zionism, which is probably more correct.
So basically, a four-part talk here today.
So let's start with a few definitions.
We have Zionism.
Again, we talked about that in the last presentation.
Basically, the idea that Jews were promised a national homeland in Palestine by God.
So Zion, it's an interesting word, Zion.
It's actually quite a bit ambiguous.
Sometimes, especially in early contexts, it means the city of Jerusalem.
In other contexts, it means the greater Israel territory.
So it's either Jerusalem as the center, the capital of Israel, or Israel proper.
That's generally what we would refer to as Zion.
The term Zion appears in the Old Testament.
It's about 150 times in total in the Old Testament.
It is not in the Torah.
It's not in the first five books, but it's in the later books of the Old Testament.
I believe the first mention is in 2 Samuel, which was written about 900 BC.
So the term Zion is quite old.
I believe it has a pretty ambiguous etymological origin.
I'm not really sure they understand the origins of that actual term.
But apparently, it's a very old term, not important enough to be in the Torah, but still an important term in Judaism.
So yeah, let's look at then at Christian Zionism.
So Christian Zionism is a Christian belief that Jews must return to Palestine and convert to Christianity before Jesus will return.
So yeah, we'll say more about it.
I'll give some details in a moment.
But in short, it often involves political and financial support for both Jews and for the state of Israel.
It often involves a personal commitment to defend Jews, to oppose anti-Semitism, so forth.
Unfortunately, though, there seems to be almost no biblical basis for this idea that the Jews have to do something like return to Palestine and convert before Jesus comes again.
So, we'll look at sort of the very shaky basis for the whole idea in the first place.
But again, it's a lot of people.
I guess I was going to say that before I go to the second part here.
I mean, it's a lot of people who count as Christian Zionists.
There's something like 44 million evangelical Protestants in the United States.
So that's a very large number of people.
We don't know how many of those would qualify as Christian Zionists, but probably most of the evangelical Protestants are Zionist of some sorts.
They would be Christian Zionists.
It must be 90% of those.
So probably 40 million people, as a fair guess, in the United States alone would count as Christian Zionists.
So it's in terms of numbers of people, it's a very large question here in the U.S. for sure.
All right, so a bit of history.
So there's these various claims that come out of the Old Testament.
One is that God allegedly promised the earth to the Jews in the Old Testament.
But we have to keep some things in mind here, just again, keep our thinking straight.
The Old Testament is the Jewish Bible.
So it was written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews.
It's a thoroughly Jewish document.
Everything that it says, everything it refers to, its values, its codes of action and behavior, they're for Jews and they're not for anybody else.
The Old Testament was never intended to be read by Gentiles.
Technically speaking, it has no relevance for Gentiles.
It does indirectly because we have to deal with the Jews, but the document itself has no relevance.
Basically, the Old Testament is a fair amount of mythology mixed with a few shreds of actual history.
Yeah, typical for ancient documents.
But more than that, it's not really even a religious document.
This has been said by a number of people over the years and over the centuries.
There's really not much of a theology per se in the Old Testament.
It's more of a documentation of the Jews and how they interact with the non-Jews around them.
I always like Schopenhauer here.
He called the Old Testament a war manual for the Jewish people.
It's basically how to conduct war with the Gentiles.
You know, our history of how we beat them and we slaughter them and God told us to destroy them.
And we wiped out the Canaanites, we wiped out the Midianites.
And yeah, and here's how we deal with the hated non-Jews.
It's really like a war manual.
It's not really even a religious document per se.
Basically, it's kind of a document that tells you how to control, conquer, and subdue the non-Jews.
That's really what the Old Testament is.
So secondly, we have this idea that God gave the Jews the earth and Palestine.
So there's some passages where this is supported.
You can go back to Genesis.
The Jews are commanded to fill the earth and subdue it.
God says, the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on everything that moves.
I will give to you Canaan, which is, again, another ambiguous concept.
We don't really know what Canaan was back at the time, but we believe it was basically present-day Israel, along with part of Lebanon and part of Jordan.
Third thing, third point, God also told the Jews to dominate the Gentiles.
Again, this is quoted directly in the Old Testament.
Genesis, let the nations bow down to you.
The Gentiles shall tremble and be in anguish because of you.
From Deuteronomy, God will deliver to you the Gentiles.
You will destroy them.
Kings will lick the dust from your feet, says Isaiah.
You shall eat the wealth of nations.
So, yeah, pretty brutal, dominating.
There's far more.
These are just a few of the highlights that I've picked up.
There's far more terms that discuss this.
But the bottom line, the end result is we have this situation where we have basically the Jewish mandate to dominate the world, Jewish dominion, supposedly given by God, plus a Jewish misanthropy, which is basically this hatred of non-Jews, hatred of humanity, which we see over and over in the Old Testament.
So these two main themes, Jewish dominion, combined with Jewish misanthropy, leads to Jewish supremacism.
That's really kind of the bottom line result that comes out of the Old Testament.
This is ingrained in all Jews.
It's not really a religious, technically a religious concept.
It's religious Jews believe it, secular Jews believe it.
It seems to be ingrained somehow in all Jews in their thinking, that somehow they have a right to dominate the world, that they have contempt for others, and therefore that they adopt this supremacist mindset.
Basically, all Gentiles are only fit to be used for Jewish purposes and ends.
They can be used or abused or mistreated, killed, strictly instrumental value to Jews.
And of course, when Jews have money and power and influence, then this becomes a terrible situation.
So I would say this Jewish supremacism, which comes out of the Old Testament, is probably the most highly destructive ideology in existence today.
Yeah, it's a horrible, horrible thing to have to live with, and we're dealing with it on multiple levels.
Comes right out of the Old Testament.
It's detailed and elaborated greatly in the Talmud.
I'm not going to go into that today because there's a lot of side points and side issues that we could talk about.
The Talmud is very explicit in its Jewish supremacism in its misanthropy.
You see these things over and over in the Talmudic thinking, but it's also there.
The important point is these key points are also there in the Old Testament.
It's not strictly a Talmudic idea.
Okay.
So let's go on then and look at Christian Zionism.
Again, there's a little bit of a history here.
It's a long and sort of tangled process.
I won't go into all the details here.
Main, I would say mainstream Christian Zionism began around the year 1600.
And certain thinkers, Christian thinkers, picked on just a couple of passages in the New Testament to justify their Zionist beliefs.
And one of the key passages for these early Christian Zionists was Romans 11:25.
And Paul is speaking to his fellow Jews in Rome.
So here's the passage.
He says, Paul is speaking, lest you be wise in your own conceits.
I want you to understand this mystery, brethren, my brother Jews.
A hardening has come upon part of Israel until the full number of the Gentiles come in, and so all Israel will be saved.
So that's a very strange passage.
We're not really sure what it means.
It's typical for these cryptic passages in the Bible.
It can be interpreted multiple ways.
A hardening has come upon part of Israel until all the Gentiles come in, and then all of Israel will be saved.
So, what is that?
It could sound like, and this was the Zionist interpretation, it sounds like some kind of mass conversion.
If Israel is going to be saved and you're a Christian, that's like saying, well, all the Jews are going to convert and they're going to be saved, because that's the only way you could be saved if you're a Christian is because you believe in Jesus.
I think Paul is not thinking that.
Paul is not thinking the Jews are going to convert to Christianity.
I think he's got something else in mind.
We'll get to that momentarily.
You know, what is this hardening?
A hardening has come upon part of Israel, meaning some of the Jews.
If you look up the traditional analysis of this passage, they'll say a hardening is some kind of temporary spiritual blindness of the Jews, which is again a kind of a weird thing, like they're just sort of momentarily confused that they don't see the light of Jesus or something.
But that's not really what's going on.
I think a better answer is that Paul is really saying, look, there's Jewish resistance to this Jesus idea, this new Messiah, which is obviously in conflict with traditional Judaism.
And the Jews are hard against this.
There's a hardening there.
They're against us.
But I think Paul wants to say, well, look, you know, when we get to all the Gentiles, then they'll find out, look, we were right all along, and the Jews will be saved in the end.
I really kind of think that's what he's trying to say here.
So, yeah, I think in that light, it makes sense to the Christian Zionists of the 1600s.
They're just thinking, well, look, until all the Jews convert, there won't be a mass salvation or an end time or something at that point in time, right?
Also, so that was one piece, this conversion of the Jews.
The other piece is the return to their homeland.
And there are some passages in the Old Testament where God seems to promise the Jews that they will return somewhere.
So, for example, in Deuteronomy, the Lord your God will bring back your exiles.
He will once again gather you from all the nations where the Lord your God had dispensed, dispersed you.
And the Lord your God will bring you to the land which your forefathers possessed, and you will take possession of it.
So that's a little bit of a return promise, right?
And again, in Isaiah, the Lord shall continue to apply his hand a second time, and he shall gather the lost of Israel.
All right, so there's this return idea, bringing them back, hopefully, a kind of mass conversion and the sort of confused thinking of the Christians of the 1600s.
They're like, well, this is what has to happen.
This is a kind of prophecy, and we should support this happening.
In fact, we want to help this happen as soon as possible.
So that seems to be what the Christian Zionists were thinking at the time.
That's sort of the origin, the original thinking, mode of thinking of these people.
But I think there's a sort of a reality behind this, right, that's really going on here.
So, for me, the way I see it, Paul has a goal.
His goal is and always was to save Israel first.
To save them meant to save them from the Romans, right?
We have to remember the whole Christian story is in the context of a Roman invasion of Palestine in 63 BC.
They threw the Jews out of power, they sacked the Jewish temple.
The Jews were incensed, they rebelled, they developed resistance movements, the Sicarii, and so forth.
So, Paul is really trying to save the Jews first, Israel first, but he can't do it alone.
He can't do it with the small group of Jews because they're overwhelmed by the might and the power of the Roman Empire.
So to do this, he needs all the Gentiles to come in.
So this is his motive.
Bring the Gentiles in to the Jewish side.
So, he hopes this is going to work.
This is his plan, right?
He hoped that the Jews would again return again and rule in Zion, not the Romans, who had been there since about the year 63 BC.
To convince the Gentile masses, he had to conspire.
He had to create a conspiracy to work with a handful of other Jews to construct what I've called the Jesus hoax.
This was his plan to get the Gentiles to come in to the Jewish side so that Israel would be saved.
Excuse me.
So, this leads us to the Christian conspiracy part three of the talk here.
So, the following is based on my book.
Jim kindly mentioned it at the beginning.
It's the Jesus hoax book.
That's the second edition.
The first edition came up in 2016.
This is 2024.
It's revised and expanded edition.
It's been quite a popular work, so I'm quite happy how it goes.
It lays out pretty clearly the whole story.
The source information for a lot of the material that I'm about to give comes from this book.
If you're curious, you could check that book.
But so, some people may be wondering this basic question: right, why is Christianity a conspiracy?
Well, the short answer is because it was constructed in secret by a group of men, a group of Jews, who had political objectives in mind, namely weakening the masses and undermining the Roman Empire.
That's like a classic conspiracy, and that to me is exactly what happened.
How do we know this happened?
Because the official Jesus story is impossible and absurd.
We could spend another hour going through the impossibilities and the absurdities of the Christian, the Jesus story, and the claims in the New Testament.
I won't go through all that today.
But here's a few of the highlights of the story that are relevant, I guess, to the point at hand.
So, first of all, we really have no, there's a problem of evidence, a general problem of evidence for events back at that time.
Now, of course, we always have a problem of evidence from things that are thousands of years old.
But this is a very unique situation because Jesus is a very unique guy, supposedly, right?
He's a son of God, or maybe he's God Himself and He worked miracles.
So, this is an extreme case where we really have a very high bar to meet, if you will, right?
We should really be demanding and expecting when God comes to earth in embodied in a personal form, we should expect a mountain of evidence.
But unfortunately, we have nothing.
So, during Jesus' lifetime, if we say roughly the year zero to the year 30, we have absolutely zero mention of him or his life or what he did or what he said by anyone by Jews, by Romans, by pagans, by Greeks, anybody.
Nothing documented, written, or transcribed from that time frame, nothing from the year zero to 30.
Of course, maybe you say, Well, look, he wasn't really famous yet, so what about right after the crucifixion?
Well, it doesn't get any better because for the next 20 years after the crucifixion, we have literally zero mention, no mention for 20 years, the years 30 to 50 AD, absolutely zero mention of Jesus, his life, his sayings, what he did by anyone, by Jews, Romans, pagans, Greeks, friends, enemies, neutral third parties.
Nobody mentioned anything.
Son of God comes to earth, works miracles, died to save all of humanity, and nobody said anything, nothing that survives.
So, this is sort of ludicrously impossible, frankly.
I mean, the Romans, if nothing else.
The Romans were in charge, they knew what was going on, they're documenting things, even if they don't believe it.
They're going to document it, nothing, not a word, all the way through the year 50 AD.
It doesn't get much better after that.
For the next 20 years, from 50 to 70 AD, all we have is a literal handful of letters from one guy, Paul, who's trying to build up the conspiracy because it's his idea.
We have basically only seven authentic, so-called authentic letters from Paul, even those are sort of dubious.
Again, I won't go into those.
Let's just assume the standard attribution here.
If we look at these letters from Paul, I won't go into details here.
We see strange things.
There's no quotations from Jesus, basically, one small exception in one of them.
There's no miracle stories, there's no life details.
Excuse me.
All we see is a very simple theology.
This God-man, Jesus, died and was risen for our sins.
He's going to save us all.
Everyone's involved, everyone's welcome in, everyone's equal before God.
And that's pretty much it.
It's a really stripped-down theology.
And that takes us to like the year 70.
And somewhere in there, late 60s, 70, according to traditional chronology, Paul dies.
So he's done, he's gone.
Then we know there was factually, of course, there was a revolt.
The Jews revolt.
They had hated the Roman rule since the Romans rolled in in 63 BC.
The Jews revolt to Jerusalem starting the year 66.
By the year 70, they're crushed.
The Romans move in, wipe them out, destroy the temple in Jerusalem.
And then, and only then, do the Gospels begin to appear.
And again, this is the traditional chronology.
Some would put the Gospels even much later, which makes it even worse.
So I'm being generous here.
But the traditional kind of consensus timing is that Mark was the first gospel to appear.
It came right after the destruction of the temple, right after the Jewish defeat.
So right about the year 70, or within a year or so after that.
Matthew and Luke, being very similar gospels, probably appeared about the same time.
Those seem to have come in around 85 AD.
And then the fourth Gospel of John seemed to be written and issued about 95 AD.
Again, these are very speculative.
They're sort of making inferences about when they think these events happened and kind of going on textual clues and so forth.
I guess I have to sort of remind people: it's not like we actually have an actual Mark gospel from the year 70 AD or an actual Matthew Gospel from the year 85.
We don't have anything like that.
The only physical, actual fragments that exist come from at least 100 years later.
The oldest fragment of Matthew is from about 175 AD.
The oldest Luke is from like 200.
The oldest Mark is from 250 AD.
So, I mean, these are hundreds of years that we have actual physical piece of paper that we've dated.
We're just guessing that these things were written and released about those times.
Again, there's a lot of speculation involved there, too.
But basically, in these gospels, a lot of new things appear that did not appear in the world at all before the Gospels showed up.
They were certainly not in the letters of Paul.
So, all the famous things that we're familiar with, the virgin birth, right?
The star of Bethlehem, all the direct quotations of Jesus, all the miracle stories, those things never existed in world history until the gospel writers wrote them down in the 70s, 80s, and 90s AD.
This is 50 to 60 years after the fact.
So, you can imagine how much truth, shall we say, or non-truth is in those stories that came out decades after they were supposedly occurred.
Okay, so that's another problem.
The other sort of interesting thing, I think, is that consistent with the plan, the conspiracy plan was to really get rid of the Romans.
The Jews wanted to resume control, power in Palestine.
They wanted to get rid of the Romans.
They didn't have the power to do it themselves, so they needed to get the Gentile masses on their side, at least ideologically or spiritually, if not sort of literally, but at least ideologically on their side, so that they would be at least sympathetic to the Jews, maybe slightly antipathetic towards the Romans, maybe even hostile towards the Romans,
depending how it was spun.
So, what you see in both the letters to Paul and then more here, I'll show you in the Gospels, just a few passages, is a message of resistance.
So, this is part of conspiracy, a resistance to Roman rule.
There are several passages, sort of generic passages of resistance in the letters of Paul, but let's look at the Gospels.
So, here's the Gospel of Mark: The last shall be first, who are the last, the last of the Jews, because they're the oppressed ones by the Romans.
Nation will rise up against nation, says in Mark.
The kingdom of God, of course, we mean the Jewish God, will come with power and it's going to get ugly.
According to Matthew, brother will deliver up brother to death.
All who abandon their families for this coming battle, this cosmic battle, wherein we'll inherit eternal life.
Jesus himself says in Matthew, I have not come to bring peace but a sword.
He's a warrior.
More passages of resistance.
I, Jesus, have come to set a man against his father.
So he's really an insurrectionist.
He who is not with me is against me.
So it's a typical Jewish black and white, you know, either or Manichaean mindset.
Jesus says, I came to cast fire upon the earth.
Okay.
I came to give not peace but division.
That's right.
And a follower must hate his own father, mother, wife, children.
Yeah.
In fact, Jesus says, Let him who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one.
So give up everything for your weapon and be prepared to fight the battle against the great Satan.
And then lastly, this famous line from Luke: Jesus says, Bring my enemies here and slay them before me.
So these are not typical lines that we're used to hearing Jesus say.
You don't hear those in your Sunday church sermon very often, but in fact, they are there in the Bible.
What's going on here, right?
Let's just look at the sort of the big picture: what's happening at this point.
So, Paul, just kind of recap, Paul first, and then the gospel writers, all these people are Jews, have constructed a Jesus story based on a kernel of truth.
A crucified rabbi, Jesus of Nazareth.
So, I'm not saying that there was no Jesus.
I think there probably was.
There probably was an actual guy, Jesus of Nazareth.
He was an agitator for the Jews.
He was a rabbi.
They called him rabbi.
It's all over the several passages in the New Testament where Jesus is called a rabbi.
And as an insurrectionist against Rome, he probably suffered the Roman punishment, which was crucifixion.
That probably actually happened.
And that was probably it.
But then Paul and his friends come in and they want to do something different here.
They want to take this story and they want to use it to convert the Gentile masses to a pro-Jewish, anti-Roman ideology.
And you can see it, it's in there black and white in Christianity.
What's in Christianity?
Well, you get to worship the Jewish God, right?
You're not worshiping Zeus and Hera and Apollo, the Roman gods.
No, you're worshiping the Jewish God.
You get to worship a Jewish rabbi named Jesus.
You are supposed to worship the Jewess Mary, Virgin Mary.
You'll worship the Jewish prophets in the Old Testament.
You will give up hope for salvation in this life and put your hope in the next life, the afterlife.
And in this life, you're willing to put up with any kind of nonsense, suffering, pain, hardship, because of all these goodies you've been promised in the afterlife.
So, just be a good worshiper of the Jewish God and these Jewish figures in this life, and that's really what you're supposed to do.
And the funny thing is that it works.
This conspiracy works, right?
Rome starts to decline not long after Christianity begins to spread.
It's debatable when and how, the long story of Roman decline, but let's say about 150 AD.
Emperor Constantine converts to Christianity in the year 312.
Emperor Theodosius declares Rome to be a Christian empire in the year 380.
And then, just 15 years later, in 395, the empire collapses, and the classic Western half of the Roman Empire disintegrates.
The Eastern half lives on, but the Western half is gone.
So, basically, for all intents and purposes, the Jews win.
So, the conspiracy worked.
And Paul wins.
His strategy wins.
Takes a long time.
It takes four centuries, but that's okay.
You know, better later rather than never, right?
So they're willing to wait, and they wait four centuries, and Rome collapses, goes away, and the Jews win.
I mean, there's been people over the years have understood that this is basically the kind of the story that I'm relating and outlining is basically has to be something like it has to be true.
Some kind of conspiracy to draw in Christians to make them Zionists.
That has to be sort of the root of the whole hoax that's going on here.
And yeah, you know, one of the great figures, of course, from philosophy is Frederick Nietzsche.
And so here's a nice line, nice passage from Genealogy of Morals.
Nietzsche says, Which of them has proved victorious for the time being, Rome or Judea?
Surely there's not the slightest doubt.
Just think of who it is that people bow down to today in Rome itself as the personification of all the highest values in front of three Jews, as we know, and one Jewess, Jesus of Nazareth, the fisherman Peter, the carpet maker Paul, and the mother of the aforementioned Jesus named Mary.
This is very remarkable.
Without doubt, Rome has been conquered.
So, Nietzsche, we're talking late 1800s.
Nietzsche understood what was going on.
There was a story constructed by Paul, and it proved victorious.
It got people to worship Jews and the Jewish God and Jewish figures in history, and it defeated Rome.
And Rome has indeed been conquered.
Okay.
Fourth section: Incoherence of Christian Zionism.
Why then is Christian Zionism incoherent?
In short, because the entire Christian project was a fable, a myth, actually a lie, intended to draw in the gullible Gentiles and get them to be pro-Israel.
All Christians buy into this lie, But Christian Zionists foolishly aid their own enemies, those who hold them in highest contempt.
So this is like outrageously self-defeating, self-destroying.
It's just ludicrous, right?
Christian Zionists who today aid the Jews in Israel are perhaps the most gullible religious people on earth.
They sell for the biggest lie in history, a lie that was intended all along to use and manipulate them for Jewish purposes.
So not only do they rebel against it, they buy into it, they suck up to it, and they go in all in.
They say, yes, please manipulate me, right?
It would be hard to conceive of a more defective, self-damaging, and frankly idiotic form of religious belief.
I don't want to overstate my position, but it's really almost impossible to believe that people think this way, but they actually do.
In the end, Christian Zionists are helping to destroy their own nation and their own people.
So it's like a suicidal belief system.
And we know this.
We have a lot of evidence that American obeisance to Jewish and Israeli interests has been hugely damaging to all Americans from the very beginning of the American enterprise.
So I just threw together a few little facts and opinions about the negative Jewish influence in American history from the beginning.
Just a few things to think about.
So for example, we know that Jews dominated the American slave trade.
That's been well documented.
Thomas Jefferson, here's a few quotations.
Jewish ethics are repulsive and antisocial.
John Quincy Adams, Jews' hatred of Christians is rancorous beyond conception.
Jews were notable as profiteers during the Civil War.
General William Sherman was quoted as saying, Tennessee swarms with dishonest Jews.
He really hated the profiteering that was going on.
Mark Twain in the late 1800s, the Jew has made an enemy of the whole human race.
Henry Adams.
We are in the hands of the Jews.
Anything they touch is in some strange way vulgarized.
Somehow that feels very relevant to me today.
That's 1899.
1914, sociologist Edward Ross wrote in one of his books that Jewish immigrants in the East Coast are moral cripples, haters of government, corruptors of police, and prosperous parasites.
Jews had a major role in pushing Wilson and the USA into World War I.
It's a separate story, but a very interesting one nonetheless.
H.L. Mencken, another American observer, said, the Jews could be put down as the most unpleasant race ever heard of.
That was in 1930, before Hitler came to power.
Henry Ford, even in the 1920s, Henry Ford famously made several critical comments in his Dearborn Independent newspaper.
I just pulled a few quotations out from those.
So here's Henry Ford's thinking.
The US is perhaps the most Jew-controlled country in the world.
This was 1920, more than 100 years ago.
Jews do not believe in free speech.
I don't think that's changed.
Whichever way you turn to trace the harmful streams of influence upon society, you come upon a group of Jews.
If you could put a tag marked Jewish on every part of your life that is Jew-controlled, you would be astonished.
Yeah, that's all in Henry Ford.
Again, it's well documented in the Second World War.
Major Jews had a major role in pushing FDR and the USA into the war.
Goebbels in his diaries said you can really call the USA a first-class Jew state.
That was in 1943.
Jumping up to the 1970s, Nixon said Jews control the entire information and propaganda machine, the large newspapers, the motion pictures, radio, and television.
That's quoting Nixon.
And again, nothing has changed today, as we know.
They have dominance over media, finance, big tech, academia, entertainment.
We could go through all the names of the CEOs and prominent investors and owners.
We don't need to do that here.
It's also known that Jews have leading roles in gambling, drugs, both legal and illegal, and in pornography.
So this is what I asked myself, right?
Who would support such people?
You have 200 years of problems and issues and complaints.
Who would support such people?
Well, that's what Christian Zionists do, incoherently and illogically.
I mean, it's pretty obvious, right?
If you don't like how things are going in the state of America today, state of affairs in America, you pretty much know who's responsible.
So to call Christian Zionism incoherent, I think it's a kind of, yeah, the understatement of the century, to put it mildly.
Yeah.
Let me get a few minutes left.
I'll just go back to my guy, Nietzsche.
I had a handful of quotes that I just wanted to stick here in the end just to show that there were perceptive critics that a lot of things I've been mentioning were really already there back in, at least in some circles, in the late 1800s.
So, let's go back to Nietzsche and just do a handful of quotes from him.
This is mostly from the Antichrist, which is one of his last books, was published in 1888.
But Nietzsche's great.
I mean, he really saw through the whole Christian facade.
He knew what was going on.
He had all the bits and pieces of the Jesus hoax together.
He didn't put it all together.
I don't think he didn't have the archaeological data that we have today that would have really helped make his case, but he really understood what was going on.
The Christian and the anarchist, both decadents, both incapable of having any effect other than disintegrating, poisoning, withering, blood-sucking, but with the instinct of moral hatred against everything that stands, that stands in greatness, that has duration, that promises life a future.
Christianity was the vampire of the Imperium Romanum, the Roman Empire.
It was a blood-sucking vampire that drained the Roman Empire in Christianity.
All of Judaism, a several century-old Jewish preparatory training and technique of the most serious kind, attains its ultimate mastery as the art of lying in a holy manner.
So the Christian is the ultimate ratio of the lie.
He is the Jew once more, even three times a Jew.
The Christian is a triple Jew.
The Christian worships Jews.
Even Jews don't worship Jews, but Christians do, right?
The Christian is a triple Jew, according to Nietzsche.
But it's based on this whole concept of sickness and need and redemption and pity.
Christianity needs sickness just as Greek culture needs a superabundance of health to make sick as the true secret purpose of the whole system of redemptive procedures constructed by the church.
Christianity stands opposed to every spirit that has turned out well.
It can use only sick reason as Christian reason.
It sides with everything idiotic.
It utters a curse against the spirit, against the superbia of the healthy spirit.
Sickness is of the essence of Christianity.
But look what they have done, he said, right?
Wherefore Greeks?
Wherefore Romans?
All the presuppositions for a scholarly culture, all scientific methods were already there.
Everything essential had been found so the work could be begun.
All in vain, overnight, nothing but a memory.
Ruined by cunning, cunning, stealthy, invisible, anemic vampires, not vanquished, merely drained.
Hidden vengefulness, petty envy become master, everything miserable that suffers from itself, that is afflicted with bad feelings, the whole ghetto world of the soul on top all at once.
The cross was the mark of recognition for the most subterranean conspiracy that ever existed against health, beauty, whatever has turned out well, courage, spirit, graciousness of the soul against life itself.
Nietzsche was the first that declared that Christianity was a conspiracy.
So let that be known for the record.
I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great innermost corruption, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means is too poisonous, too stealthy, too subterranean, too petty.
I call it the one immortal blot on mankind.
And that's what I have for today.
Thank you.
Well, let me just say how much I appreciate your presentation, David.
And if I can get my camera to function, I'd like to add about the final comment there from Nietzsche about morality, because I've done independent research on evaluating moral theories from an objective, roughly scientific perspective.
And there are eight distinct moral theories that I've evaluated specifically, which include three popular theories, simple subjectivism, an action is right if I like it.
Family values, you know, it's an action is right if it benefits the family.
Religious-based ethics, if it's condoned by the religion, then it's right.
Then we have cultural relativism.
All these can be shown to be defective on the basis of objective criteria that include not reducing to the source of the problem, namely the idea that might makes right.
Yeah, if you drop your PowerPoint, David, that would be good.
And then I look for philosophical theories, ethical egoism, which is really a formalization of the idea that if the consequences are good for you personally, then you don't need to regard the consequences for anyone else.
Limited utilitarianism, which is for a group.
If the consequences benefit the group, then they can be catastrophic for the rest of the world.
That is the Israeli approach.
It exemplifies limited utilitarianism versus classic utilitarianism, where you've got to take into account the consequences for others.
And if they're deleterious, they have to figure into the equation.
This is when they talk about, you know, for the good of the whole and all that as a classy utilitarian.
They all fall afoul of multiple problems with the exception of deontological moral theory initiated by Immanuel Kant, namely treating other persons with respect, never treating other persons merely as means, merely is crucial there.
Murder, robbery, kidnapping, rape, those involve using other persons merely as means.
You can have means-means relationships, doctor, patient, teacher, student, employer, employee, as long as they're conducted with mutual respect.
Say to take the latter, where the employer is paying, you know, reasonable wages, not subjecting employees to unsafe work conditions or excessive hours, where the employees reciprocating by doing the work they're paid to do, not stealing from the employer, not putting in false time cards and the like.
You can find this evaluation in two places easily.
One is at UNSReview, UNZ.com, under the heading The Nature of Immorality.
And then on my blog at jameshfetzer.org, evaluating moral theories.
So I want to say there is, it seemed to me, a very powerful critique of Judaism for its social strategy of collaborating to benefit the Jews at the expense of the rest of the world.
They don't care.
And I think that is a compliment to all that you've been exposing here, David.
You are like a fresh breath of air.
I know of no one else who deals as openly, as forthrightly, as directly with these issues as do you, David.
So I am so happy to have you here.
And let me just mention, by the way, I'm going to feature David on my show on Revolution Radio tomorrow morning.
And I expect to have a lot of interaction with him in the future.
I'm just extremely pleased.
And the change in the program, I think, was perfect to have you succeed the discussion about, you know, genocide, Zionism, the whole bit, David.