9 thoughts on “”

1. hey I can’t tell, what religion is this in support of? I can tell there’s religious messaging here but it’s sort of too subtle to tell.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. No religious message. Torah faith spins around the central axis of judicial common law courtrooms. The NT writers referred to this “faith” as “Law”. Judicial common law courtrooms shares no common ground with theological creed belief systems and cults of personality; like as in JeZeus and Moo-Ham-Mad.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. ohh so you support the Greek pantheon, I understand now I think Zeus is cool too :3

         LikeLike

      2. Marco Rubio Sanctions ICC Judges After They Target U.S. and Israel in Explosive Rulings

         In a sweeping move, Senator Marco Rubio announced sanctions against four International Criminal Court justices.
         ________________________________________
         ________________________________________

         Marco Rubio’s sanctions on ICC judges—in response to politically driven rulings targeting the U.S. and Israel—represent the first serious American pushback against the expanding overreach of international legal institutions. But these sanctions merely scratch the surface. If Israel were to bomb the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the crime of judicial overreach, it would unleash a shockwave through the foundations of the post-WWII European imperial legal order.

         Such an act would shatter the illusion that the Rome Statute and its court represent binding global authority. In truth, the ICC is a political weapon wielded disproportionately against Western democracies and their allies, while shielding rogue regimes. Its authority rests on consensus, not enforcement. The Rome Treaty would be exposed as not worth the paper it’s written on.

         Europe forfeited its moral right to judge the Jewish people the moment it orchestrated the Shoah. Any European claim to universal justice—especially when applied selectively against the Jewish state—is hypocrisy cloaked in humanitarianism. The ICC’s rulings against Israel are not about war crimes; they are ritual acts of expiation for Europe’s own genocidal guilt. But that guilt is not Israel’s burden to carry. To bomb the ICC would be to formally reject Europe’s post-Nazi pretensions to legal supremacy and declare: “You have no right to judge us.”

         Bombing the ICC would have the same historical effect as the 1956 Suez Crisis: the end of European claims to independent geopolitical authority. Just as France and the UK’s failed bid to reclaim the Suez Canal revealed their imperial impotence, an Israeli destruction of the ICC would reveal the EU’s inability to project legal-moral power beyond its own borders.

         What the EU has is not law, but a narrative infrastructure—paper treaties, postmodern guilt, and international NGOs wielding legal language as a substitute for lost religious and imperial confidence.

         A targeted Israeli strike on the ICC would not trigger war. It would trigger disbelief, followed by narrative collapse, and finally a global reckoning with Western legal hypocrisy. The EU would be faced with the question: do we escalate to save face—or submit to an Israeli dictate which radically limits the EU authority in the balance of power in the Middle East and in Europe.

         If Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for the crime of judicial over-reach. This would set a precedent that the establishment of the ICC through the Rome Treaty – not worth the paper the Rome Treaty written upon. Widespread EU condemnations Big Deal. England and France have already broken off diplomatic relations with Israel.

         The Trump Government in Washington most likely would support Israel if Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for judicial over-reach. The Rome Treaty established Court would most likely dissolve. It would most definitely challenge the judicial jurisdiction of a European Court over Israel!

         Post Shoah Europe lost its rights to judge Jews. The destruction of the Pie in the Sky Rome Treaty would establish a major political precedent that European imperialism stops at the borders of the EU member states alone.

         The assertion that bombing the ICC in The Hague would lead to a collapse of the EU’s prestige is a strong viewpoint that reflects significant concerns about the authority and effectiveness of international institutions.

         If a member state or a country with significant geopolitical influence, like Israel, were to attack an international institution such as the ICC, it could be perceived as a direct challenge to the authority of not only the ICC but also the broader framework of international law that the EU supports.

         In short: bombing the Court of the Hague would radically change the balance of power in Europe. For the first time since the Muslim invasion of Western Europe a major disruption of European political autonomy would result.

         The EU would either put up or shut up: either they would declare War against Israel or not. The Nato alliance, if the US backed Israel would unquestionably collapse. The EU’s credibility as a defender of international law would cease to exist – gone like a puff of smoke. Israel would have called the bluff of the EU, like as if bombing the ICC compares to a hand of stud poker! This could lead to a more fragmented international order, challenging the EU’s role as a global actor.

         An attack on the ICC could set a precedent that undermines the enforcement of international law, leading to a situation where states feel empowered to act unilaterally without regard for international institutions.

         The incident could complicate diplomatic relations not only between Israel and the EU but also between other countries and international organizations. It could lead to a reevaluation of how states engage with international legal frameworks.

         The UN itself would most likely collapse like as did the League of Nations. If nothing else, the historical relationship between Europe and Israel, particularly in the context of the Shoah and post-war UN attempt to compare Israel to the European Nazi crimes against humanity, adds layers of complexity to this European projectionism of its own Nazi guilt and the moral bankruptcy of both Western and Eastern Roman church moral authority over European civilizations.

         The implications of such an act would resonate deeply within the historical narrative of European-Jewish relations and radically shift the narrative reversing the role of Jews as dominant and the church as dhimmi slaves – utterly rejected and despised.

         The entire European security architecture is underwritten by the United States, both financially and militarily. Without U.S. backing, NATO becomes functionally hollow. France and the UK retain nuclear capability, but their conventional power is insufficient to act independently against a U.S.-aligned state like Israel.

         No EU state would risk confrontation with the U.S., their most vital ally, over a non-NATO event like an Israeli action against the ICC. EU states are deeply post-military in culture. Their battlefield is law, narrative, and diplomacy—not armed force.

         Even in the face of Russian invasion (Ukraine), EU states have limited direct engagement, preferring economic sanctions, legal resolutions, and humanitarian aid. Against Israel, the EU’s instinct would be: denounce, sanction, isolate—not mobilize or fight.

         Much of EU condemnation of Israel is a projection of its own unresolved guilt over colonialism and the Holocaust. This moral outrage stops at the threshold of real cost. That’s why you see relentless UN resolutions, ICC motions, and media warfare—but not realpolitik confrontation. Israel calling their bluff—if the U.S. holds firm—exposes their impotence. If Israel bombed the ICC in the Hague – No War. No boots. No tanks. NO Article 5 Nato involvement. The collapse of Nato as an alliance.

         Symbolic institutions (like the ICC) to claim moral authority—but has no spine when force or geopolitical will counters that narrative. If Israel, backed by a U.S. administration, were to shatter a legal myth like the ICC’s authority … No war, but rather most likely the total collapse of EU imperialist Post WWII illusion of legal hegemony on par with England and France failure to capture and seize the Suez canal in the 1956 War. It would clearly reset the terms of European involvement in global legal power.

         LikeLike

      3. Two Classic Examples of how Xtianity remains a dead religion on par with the Gods of Mt. Olympus.

         Jim Zwinglius Redivivus
         Jim·zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com

         Remembering Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker
         Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker died on Friday, July 23, 2021. You can read his obituary here. If you aren’t familiar with him, he was a scholar of the Reformation. And a very, very goo…
         _____________________________________
         _____________________________________

         Theological Complicity in State Violence

         Calvinism and Lutheranism Compared: Prof. Dr. Willem van ‘t Spijker (1926–2021), a leading Dutch Calvinist theologian, made substantial contributions to church history, ecclesiastical law, and the development of Reformed theology. Yet his work conspicuously failed to grapple with one of the most catastrophic consequences of the Protestant Reformation: The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648).

         At the heart of Reformed theology lies the doctrine of predestination—the belief that God has foreordained all events, including salvation and damnation. This framework fostered a militant providentialism: war was interpreted as a divine tool, victory as confirmation of righteousness, and suffering as sanctification; terror Islam sanctifies its martyrs this very day. Such logic fueled the religious zealotry of Protestant-Catholic conflicts in early modern Europe and sacralized political violence. Calvinist theologians, including van ‘t Spijker, largely failed to confront the theological and moral implications of their tradition’s role in igniting and escalating such brutal barbaric bloodshed.

         This blind spot extended far beyond the Reformation. A similar theological detachment reemerged during the Nazi era, when much of Protestant Europe—especially the Lutheran Church in Germany—collapsed morally in the face of totalitarianism and genocide. The result was catastrophic: 75% of Western European Jewry and 63% of European and Russian Jews were annihilated. Churches failed to resist—and in many cases collaborated with—Nazism, cloaking their cowardice or complicity in theological rationalizations of “obedience” and “providence.”

         Van ‘t Spijker’s silence on these historical-theological intersections utterly emblematic of a much broader failure within Reformed scholarship: the inability to reckon with how doctrinal systems, when left unchallenged, enable state violence. Without such critical introspection, the Reformed tradition risks perpetuating a theology disconnected from its own ethical consequences.

         Both Calvinist and Lutheran systems share foundational errors that—when unchecked—open the door to theological barbarism. In Calvinist thought, God’s sovereign will is absolute; every event, from salvation to catastrophe, is predetermined. During the Thirty Years’ War, this led to a dangerous fusion of theology and politics: military victory was seen as a sign of divine favor, while political violence became a “righteous” necessity. Calvinist churches, despite their strong synodal structures, proved unable—or unwilling—to restrain theological alliances with princely power. This alignment justified widespread bloodshed, famine, and forced displacement as sacred duty.

         Martin Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” doctrine separated the spiritual and political realms, teaching that secular rulers are divinely appointed and must not be resisted. By the 20th century, this was transformed into an ideological bludgeon by the German Christian movement, which fused Lutheranism with Nazism. Clergy upheld obedience even as the state descended into genocide. Though the Barmen Declaration (1934), led by Karl Barth, attempted to resist this theological capitulation, the Confessing Church remained a marginalized minority. The institutional Lutheran Church stood largely silent—or worse, supportive—as the Nazis murdered millions, including the overwhelming majority of European Jewry.

         Calvinism, with its emphasis on God’s glory and man’s depravity, lacked a theology of inherent human dignity. Jews, Catholics, and heretics were viewed as reprobates—predestined for damnation, beyond grace, justice, or mercy. This theological posture helped normalize righteous violence against those outside the “elect.”

         Lutheran theology was even more explicit. Luther’s own antisemitic writings—On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)—called for synagogue burnings and expulsion. These ideas laid the groundwork for Christian racial antisemitism. The Nazi vision of the Jew drew directly from centuries of Lutheran contempt and theological supersessionism: the idea that Christianity had replaced Israel as God’s chosen; where Jesus as the son of God replace the oath brit sworn to Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people.

         Therefore, in both cases, the churches failed to resist tyranny not only because of fear—but because their theological systems lacked a mechanism to challenge it from within. In the end, the failure of both Reformed traditions was not merely a failure of courage—but a failure of theological architecture. Their systems lacked internal mechanisms—legal, moral, or interpretive—to challenge tyranny from within. When state violence aligned itself with religious rhetoric, these traditions were intellectually disarmed.

         Whereas Jewish tradition sustains a culture of legal argumentation, known as משנה תורה/Legislative Review; grounded in the courtroom common law which stands upon prior judical precedent courtroom rulings. European courts lack the power to overrule the State. A critical flaw that NT theology, in all its many forms or formats, has totally failed to address. Neither Christianity nor Islam has the cultural tradition of judicial “prophets”.

         Both “daughter religions” define prophesy as – foretelling the future. The Torah views this interpretation as Av tuma witchcraft. According to the Torah prophets command mussar. How does mussar define prophesy? Mussar applies equally across the board to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Only the chosen Cohen people received and accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev.

         Both Christian and Muslim theological creed belief systems emphatically embrace a theology of Monotheism. Alas monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the God of the chosen Cohen people a local tribal God and not a Universal God as Christian and Islamic theology dictates to its believers.

         In the end, the failure of both Reformed and Lutheran traditions was not merely a lack of courage, but a failure of theological design. These systems lacked the internal instruments—legal, prophetic, interpretive—needed to resist tyranny when it arose cloaked in religious language.

         LikeLike

      4. An interesting discussion on this topic with Frank Hubeny. His opinion I would like to share with you. Frank Hubeny writes:

         Frank Hubeny

         2m agoPoetry, Short Prose and Walking

         I agree with much of the criticism of Calvinism in your comment associated with Jim Zwinglius Redivivus. Indeed, one can look at this from a higher perspective. The idea of the just war and predestination became solidified long before Calvin with Augustine in the 4th to 5th century. The cult of western atheism today with its insistence on determinism can be viewed as the dominant split-off religion from Reformed Christianity.

         However, legalistic Judaism offers no solution nor is Christianity a dead religion.

         As I mentioned to you earlier, Akiva in the 1st to 2nd century did severe damage to both Judaism, and indirectly Christianity, by permitting, if not planning, the reduction in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies. This reduced Judaism to rabbinic legalism which puffed up the rabbis. It discredited the Bible (Tanach) as history.

         Recover your history. Take it seriously. Stop proclaiming your dead legalism as something of value. It is little more than another sub-cult of western atheism.

         And I responded with:

         mosckerr
         July 24, 2025 at 3:01 pm Edit
         Legalistic Judaism King David undermined, according to the opinions raised within the Yerushalmi Talmud which argue that after David conquered Damascus – that he failed to establish a City of Refuge ie small Sanhedrin courtroom therein. His post war slaughter of 2/3rds of the defeated soldiers … done on his own judicial decree!

         Then came his son Shlomo – what a disaster. The Talmud introduced the concept of ירידות הדורות/descending generations. This abstract term has two major branches of interpretation.

         Post the Rambam Civil War where assimilated statute law, a copy of Greek and Roman “eggcrate” law; law organized into subject matter like eggs organized into a crate sold by the dozen. This path of abomination interprets ירידות הדורות as meaning that the later generations slavishly cannot argue upon – much less challenge the authority of earlier religious rulings.

         Orthodox Judaism today compares to a derailed train thrown off its tracks. Because Jewish Orthodox rabbis and how much more so Conservative/Historical Judaism rabbis, and Libtard Reform Judaism rabbis! Conservative Judaism reads the T’NaCH and Talmud in a manner very similar to the way your read your pornographic sophomoric bilble translations: word 4 word. You “believe” the God created the world in 6 days and rested on Sunday. LOL Conservative rabbis suffer from this delusion as well. Many of them, very nice people like yourself. Perhaps the comparison of Democrap ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’, viewed from this perspective makes sense. Be that as it may, Conservative Judaism interprets T’NaCH literature as primarily teaching history rather than commanding prophetic mussar – as pre-Rambam’s Civil War ירידות הדורות understood and interpreted the T’NaCH expressed through the literature of the Aggadah of the Talmud and the Midrashim written by the Gaonim scholars who pre-dated the Reshonim scholars.

         Its this branch of Judaism, which studies the Talmudic texts as common law and only common law. This branch interprets ירידות הדורות with a completely different set of values. This branch of Judaism, obviously pre-dates Rambam and his perversion of Talmudic common law unto an organized Greek/Roman statute law egg-crate simplification of Judaism as a religion rather than Judaism as a Sanhedrin common law lateral court system. Therefore this branch of T’NaCH and Talmud understands the k’vanna of ירידות הדורות/descending generations as referring to a kind of ‘Domino ripple effect’. Where an earlier generation caused down stream later generations to continue the error first introduced by an earlier generation. Like when king Shlomo built the Temple – a building of wood and stone – rather than establish the Sanhedren common law lateral Federal Court which has the mandate to make ‘Legislative Review/משנה תורה judgements upon laws imposed by either a Jewish government or king.

         Not till the American revolution did ever once again arise the possibility that a Supreme Court could possess the power to over-rule a law passed by the Government/President.

         Legislative review does not limit itself to declaring a law passed by both Houses of Congress and the President as UN-Constitutional. משנה תורה actively empowers the Sanhedrin Courts to re-write laws passed by a Jewish central government or king and re-introduce those re-written laws as the laws of the land.

         Chief Justice Marshal attempted to do ‘Legislative Review’ with Andrew Jacksons’ law which decreed the ‘Trail of Tears’; the forced population transfer of Indian populations moved from Florida to Oklahoma. Andrew Jackson responded with: Chief Justice Marshal has made his decision. Now let me see him enforce it!

         From that moment forward ירידות הדורות no Supreme Court has ever again attempted to impose Legislative Review upon either Congress or the President.

         Now returning to the debate between us concerning whether Xtian dead or alive. You say this stinking rotting corpse breaths. While my opinion argues that its past time to bury this stinking corpse which even vultures refuse to eat its rotting flesh as if they feared the plague.

         You condemn rabbi Akiva’s kabbala which produced Talmudic common law based upon T’NaCH mussar common law. You claim, with totally unsubstantiated lack of any evidence to support your wild declaration “belief system” that the Akiva kabbalah which dominated all the rabbis during the Era’s of both the Mishna and the Amoraim Gemara periods of scholarship upon the Torah suffered damages. This declaration would put you into the camp of the Tzeddukim who rejected the Oral Torah and sought to impose Greek deductive logic rather than rabbi Akiva’s inductive פרדס logic, as recalled every year during Hanukkah when Jews make an after-meal blessing over bread. There, in that specific after-meal blessing, contained the remembrance that the Tzeddukim, referred to as רשעים sought to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah.

         Now you as a Goy declare that rabbi Akiva’s פרדס kabbalah of inductive logic damaged Judaism and Xtianity. Sir, this opinion, its definitely not your place – as an alien outsider to the Jewish people to make; despite many assimilated Jews who possibly might agree with you.

         Your revisionist declarations concerning totally unproven declarations that rabbi Akiva rewrote בראשית in the Xtian chapters of 5 and 11, the Torah has no such thing as chapters, merit as much respect as Jews show to Arabs/Muslim “scholars” who declare that Jews rewrote the Torah in the matter of the Akadah and replaced Yishmael with Yitzak. Utter bunk and total narishkeit bull shit.

         A list of genealogies as taught in the Torah masoret, serves as the continuation of the Central Theme within the entire Torah of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov fathering the chosen Cohen people. Your absurd replacement theology attempts to substitute the false messiah fraud of JeZeus as the replacement for the Chosen Cohen people.

         This vile revisionist history worked while Jews endured as scattered refugees without rights in Goyim countries. Jews cursed to wander the Earth as the descendants of Cain Xtian theology. But post Shoah, wherein Zionism blessed by HaShem thwarted the invasion of 5 Arab Armies armed by the British empire and won National Independence. Sir, thereafter the shoe of exile now all Xtian societies forced to wear. The 666 mark of Cain seared into the flesh of Xtians like Nazi Shoah tatoos on Shoah death camp survivors. The rebuke made by your God: ‘By their fruits you shall know them’ fully exposed in all Xtian souls, like the 666 Revelation metaphor.

         My generation, we strive to restore the Torah as the Written Constitution of our Republic of 12 Tribes/States. We strive equally to lean upon the Talmud as the working model to restore lateral Sanhedrin common law courtrooms mandated with the power of Legislative Review over all Central Governments in Jerusalem and all Tribal/State governments across the Republic.

         LikeLike

      5. The false messiah Obozo–Santa Claus — is going to stand trial. Its Obozo and Clinton’s turn to take a police mug shot and sit inside a courtroom accused of treason. The question: did Obozo, Clinton, Pelosi, Schiff and other democraps attempt to make a coup following the 2016 elections

         Perhaps the greatest political scandal in all American history …

         It’s CHECKMATE: Trump’s Brilliant Move Just ENDED the Deep State’s Game! – YouTube
         Tulsi Gabbard Exposes the Russia Hoax | Victor Davis Hanson
         Tulsi Gabbard Speaks On Russia Hoax From The White House – YouTube

         LikeLike

   2. Marco Rubio Sanctions ICC Judges After They Target U.S. and Israel in Explosive Rulings

      In a sweeping move, Senator Marco Rubio announced sanctions against four International Criminal Court justices.
      ________________________________________
      ________________________________________

      Marco Rubio’s sanctions on ICC judges—in response to politically driven rulings targeting the U.S. and Israel—represent the first serious American pushback against the expanding overreach of international legal institutions. But these sanctions merely scratch the surface. If Israel were to bomb the International Criminal Court in The Hague for the crime of judicial overreach, it would unleash a shockwave through the foundations of the post-WWII European imperial legal order.

      Such an act would shatter the illusion that the Rome Statute and its court represent binding global authority. In truth, the ICC is a political weapon wielded disproportionately against Western democracies and their allies, while shielding rogue regimes. Its authority rests on consensus, not enforcement. The Rome Treaty would be exposed as not worth the paper it’s written on.

      Europe forfeited its moral right to judge the Jewish people the moment it orchestrated the Shoah. Any European claim to universal justice—especially when applied selectively against the Jewish state—is hypocrisy cloaked in humanitarianism. The ICC’s rulings against Israel are not about war crimes; they are ritual acts of expiation for Europe’s own genocidal guilt. But that guilt is not Israel’s burden to carry. To bomb the ICC would be to formally reject Europe’s post-Nazi pretensions to legal supremacy and declare: “You have no right to judge us.”

      Bombing the ICC would have the same historical effect as the 1956 Suez Crisis: the end of European claims to independent geopolitical authority. Just as France and the UK’s failed bid to reclaim the Suez Canal revealed their imperial impotence, an Israeli destruction of the ICC would reveal the EU’s inability to project legal-moral power beyond its own borders.

      What the EU has is not law, but a narrative infrastructure—paper treaties, postmodern guilt, and international NGOs wielding legal language as a substitute for lost religious and imperial confidence.

      A targeted Israeli strike on the ICC would not trigger war. It would trigger disbelief, followed by narrative collapse, and finally a global reckoning with Western legal hypocrisy. The EU would be faced with the question: do we escalate to save face—or submit to an Israeli dictate which radically limits the EU authority in the balance of power in the Middle East and in Europe.

      If Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for the crime of judicial over-reach. This would set a precedent that the establishment of the ICC through the Rome Treaty – not worth the paper the Rome Treaty written upon. Widespread EU condemnations Big Deal. England and France have already broken off diplomatic relations with Israel.

      The Trump Government in Washington most likely would support Israel if Israel bombed the Court of the Hague for judicial over-reach. The Rome Treaty established Court would most likely dissolve. It would most definitely challenge the judicial jurisdiction of a European Court over Israel!

      Post Shoah Europe lost its rights to judge Jews. The destruction of the Pie in the Sky Rome Treaty would establish a major political precedent that European imperialism stops at the borders of the EU member states alone.

      The assertion that bombing the ICC in The Hague would lead to a collapse of the EU’s prestige is a strong viewpoint that reflects significant concerns about the authority and effectiveness of international institutions.

      If a member state or a country with significant geopolitical influence, like Israel, were to attack an international institution such as the ICC, it could be perceived as a direct challenge to the authority of not only the ICC but also the broader framework of international law that the EU supports.

      In short: bombing the Court of the Hague would radically change the balance of power in Europe. For the first time since the Muslim invasion of Western Europe a major disruption of European political autonomy would result.

      The EU would either put up or shut up: either they would declare War against Israel or not. The Nato alliance, if the US backed Israel would unquestionably collapse. The EU’s credibility as a defender of international law would cease to exist – gone like a puff of smoke. Israel would have called the bluff of the EU, like as if bombing the ICC compares to a hand of stud poker! This could lead to a more fragmented international order, challenging the EU’s role as a global actor.

      An attack on the ICC could set a precedent that undermines the enforcement of international law, leading to a situation where states feel empowered to act unilaterally without regard for international institutions.

      The incident could complicate diplomatic relations not only between Israel and the EU but also between other countries and international organizations. It could lead to a reevaluation of how states engage with international legal frameworks.

      The UN itself would most likely collapse like as did the League of Nations. If nothing else, the historical relationship between Europe and Israel, particularly in the context of the Shoah and post-war UN attempt to compare Israel to the European Nazi crimes against humanity, adds layers of complexity to this European projectionism of its own Nazi guilt and the moral bankruptcy of both Western and Eastern Roman church moral authority over European civilizations.

      The implications of such an act would resonate deeply within the historical narrative of European-Jewish relations and radically shift the narrative reversing the role of Jews as dominant and the church as dhimmi slaves – utterly rejected and despised.

      The entire European security architecture is underwritten by the United States, both financially and militarily. Without U.S. backing, NATO becomes functionally hollow. France and the UK retain nuclear capability, but their conventional power is insufficient to act independently against a U.S.-aligned state like Israel.

      No EU state would risk confrontation with the U.S., their most vital ally, over a non-NATO event like an Israeli action against the ICC. EU states are deeply post-military in culture. Their battlefield is law, narrative, and diplomacy—not armed force.

      Even in the face of Russian invasion (Ukraine), EU states have limited direct engagement, preferring economic sanctions, legal resolutions, and humanitarian aid. Against Israel, the EU’s instinct would be: denounce, sanction, isolate—not mobilize or fight.

      Much of EU condemnation of Israel is a projection of its own unresolved guilt over colonialism and the Holocaust. This moral outrage stops at the threshold of real cost. That’s why you see relentless UN resolutions, ICC motions, and media warfare—but not realpolitik confrontation. Israel calling their bluff—if the U.S. holds firm—exposes their impotence. If Israel bombed the ICC in the Hague – No War. No boots. No tanks. NO Article 5 Nato involvement. The collapse of Nato as an alliance.

      Symbolic institutions (like the ICC) to claim moral authority—but has no spine when force or geopolitical will counters that narrative. If Israel, backed by a U.S. administration, were to shatter a legal myth like the ICC’s authority … No war, but rather most likely the total collapse of EU imperialist Post WWII illusion of legal hegemony on par with England and France failure to capture and seize the Suez canal in the 1956 War. It would clearly reset the terms of European involvement in global legal power.

      LikeLike

      Reply

   3. Two Classic Examples of how Xtianity remains a dead religion on par with the Gods of Mt. Olympus.

      Jim Zwinglius Redivivus
      Jim·zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com

      Remembering Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker
      Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker died on Friday, July 23, 2021. You can read his obituary here. If you aren’t familiar with him, he was a scholar of the Reformation. And a very, very goo…
      _____________________________________
      _____________________________________

      Theological Complicity in State Violence

      Calvinism and Lutheranism Compared: Prof. Dr. Willem van ‘t Spijker (1926–2021), a leading Dutch Calvinist theologian, made substantial contributions to church history, ecclesiastical law, and the development of Reformed theology. Yet his work conspicuously failed to grapple with one of the most catastrophic consequences of the Protestant Reformation: The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648).

      At the heart of Reformed theology lies the doctrine of predestination—the belief that God has foreordained all events, including salvation and damnation. This framework fostered a militant providentialism: war was interpreted as a divine tool, victory as confirmation of righteousness, and suffering as sanctification; terror Islam sanctifies its martyrs this very day. Such logic fueled the religious zealotry of Protestant-Catholic conflicts in early modern Europe and sacralized political violence. Calvinist theologians, including van ‘t Spijker, largely failed to confront the theological and moral implications of their tradition’s role in igniting and escalating such brutal barbaric bloodshed.

      This blind spot extended far beyond the Reformation. A similar theological detachment reemerged during the Nazi era, when much of Protestant Europe—especially the Lutheran Church in Germany—collapsed morally in the face of totalitarianism and genocide. The result was catastrophic: 75% of Western European Jewry and 63% of European and Russian Jews were annihilated. Churches failed to resist—and in many cases collaborated with—Nazism, cloaking their cowardice or complicity in theological rationalizations of “obedience” and “providence.”

      Van ‘t Spijker’s silence on these historical-theological intersections utterly emblematic of a much broader failure within Reformed scholarship: the inability to reckon with how doctrinal systems, when left unchallenged, enable state violence. Without such critical introspection, the Reformed tradition risks perpetuating a theology disconnected from its own ethical consequences.

      Both Calvinist and Lutheran systems share foundational errors that—when unchecked—open the door to theological barbarism. In Calvinist thought, God’s sovereign will is absolute; every event, from salvation to catastrophe, is predetermined. During the Thirty Years’ War, this led to a dangerous fusion of theology and politics: military victory was seen as a sign of divine favor, while political violence became a “righteous” necessity. Calvinist churches, despite their strong synodal structures, proved unable—or unwilling—to restrain theological alliances with princely power. This alignment justified widespread bloodshed, famine, and forced displacement as sacred duty.

      Martin Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” doctrine separated the spiritual and political realms, teaching that secular rulers are divinely appointed and must not be resisted. By the 20th century, this was transformed into an ideological bludgeon by the German Christian movement, which fused Lutheranism with Nazism. Clergy upheld obedience even as the state descended into genocide. Though the Barmen Declaration (1934), led by Karl Barth, attempted to resist this theological capitulation, the Confessing Church remained a marginalized minority. The institutional Lutheran Church stood largely silent—or worse, supportive—as the Nazis murdered millions, including the overwhelming majority of European Jewry.

      Calvinism, with its emphasis on God’s glory and man’s depravity, lacked a theology of inherent human dignity. Jews, Catholics, and heretics were viewed as reprobates—predestined for damnation, beyond grace, justice, or mercy. This theological posture helped normalize righteous violence against those outside the “elect.”

      Lutheran theology was even more explicit. Luther’s own antisemitic writings—On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)—called for synagogue burnings and expulsion. These ideas laid the groundwork for Christian racial antisemitism. The Nazi vision of the Jew drew directly from centuries of Lutheran contempt and theological supersessionism: the idea that Christianity had replaced Israel as God’s chosen; where Jesus as the son of God replace the oath brit sworn to Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people.

      Therefore, in both cases, the churches failed to resist tyranny not only because of fear—but because their theological systems lacked a mechanism to challenge it from within. In the end, the failure of both Reformed traditions was not merely a failure of courage—but a failure of theological architecture. Their systems lacked internal mechanisms—legal, moral, or interpretive—to challenge tyranny from within. When state violence aligned itself with religious rhetoric, these traditions were intellectually disarmed.

      Whereas Jewish tradition sustains a culture of legal argumentation, known as משנה תורה/Legislative Review; grounded in the courtroom common law which stands upon prior judical precedent courtroom rulings. European courts lack the power to overrule the State. A critical flaw that NT theology, in all its many forms or formats, has totally failed to address. Neither Christianity nor Islam has the cultural tradition of judicial “prophets”.

      Both “daughter religions” define prophesy as – foretelling the future. The Torah views this interpretation as Av tuma witchcraft. According to the Torah prophets command mussar. How does mussar define prophesy? Mussar applies equally across the board to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Only the chosen Cohen people received and accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev.

      Both Christian and Muslim theological creed belief systems emphatically embrace a theology of Monotheism. Alas monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the God of the chosen Cohen people a local tribal God and not a Universal God as Christian and Islamic theology dictates to its believers.

      In the end, the failure of both Reformed and Lutheran traditions was not merely a lack of courage, but a failure of theological design. These systems lacked the internal instruments—legal, prophetic, interpretive—needed to resist tyranny when it arose cloaked in religious language.

      LikeLike

      Reply