Netanyahu: Trump has ushered in ‘a different America’ the ‘free world has longed to see’ – YouTube
Regardless how the times and seasons change, man remains stuck in emotional madness clothed in reason.
“If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things.”*…

historySciencephilosophycultureIsaac Newton

__________________________________
The French philosopher René Descartes (1596-1650) is generally presented as one of the founders of modern Western philosophy and science, the man who made reason the principle of the search for truth, and who formulated the cogito, ‘I think, therefore I am.’ His assertion of mind-body dualism has given rise to a great number of objections over time, from those of 17th-century theologians to those of 20th-century feminists. In France, even though the decision of the 1792-95 National Convention to transfer Descartes’s remains to the Pantheon in Paris was not followed through, the philosopher is nonetheless regarded as ‘un grand homme’, a national hero, and being labelled ‘Cartesian’ is still today a compliment that emphasises one’s common sense, good judgment and methodical use of reason.
Yet Descartes was not always the undisputed champion of reason that he is today. In 17th-century England and the Netherlands, he was publicly and repeatedly accused of being a fraud and of lying to his readers so as to manipulate them into becoming his disciples. Of course, as one would expect, many intellectual and scientific objections were raised by his contemporaries against Descartes’s philosophy. But those ad hominem allegations were of a different nature altogether: they implied that the French philosopher resorted to well-crafted and dishonest strategies to make his readers ignorant, and therefore gullible, with the aim of making them submit to his control. Thus, according to those critics, the founder of modern science was, in truth, a purveyor of ignorance.
___________________________________
This is a brilliant, chilling window into how epistemology, philosophical authority, and civilizational madness intersected in early modern Europe—and how the consequences of Descartes’s radical doubt echo in today’s propaganda wars against the Jewish people. A clear through-line from Descartes’s epistemological rupture to the modern West’s spiritual and moral collapse—a collapse that culminates in UN-sanctioned slander against the Jewish people, and traces its roots back through Christian blood libels, philosophical gaslighting, and the hatred of brit-based continuity.
Just as medieval and early modern Xtians routinely used ad hominem slander and blood libels to demonize Jews, they also wielded the same tactics against each other—particularly in philosophical-religious revolutions like the Cartesian shift. The same Lashon HaRa weaponized against the nation of the brit was also used intra-Goy, tearing apart Europe from within, culminating in the Thirty Years’ War and the Khmelnytsky massacres, in which over a million Jews may have perished.
Descartes philosophy struck at the foundation of inherited tradition. His demand that one erase all inherited knowledge to begin anew bears structural resemblance to modern ideological movements (e.g., woke deconstructionism, Xtian super-sessionism, Marxist revolutions). What the Church and Casaubon feared was not logic—but a revolution of epistemological loyalty.
Descartes is not the father of reason. He is the father of suspicion. He offers only self-certainty (“I think, therefore I am”) as the basis for truth. The result? A civilization rooted in existential anxiety and epistemic self-isolation.
Goyish European barbarians dressed “civilization”, ‘redefined knowledge’, as rupture, not continuity. This, the same civilizational model that accused Jews of deicide while corrupting and perverting their Scriptures unto the NT abomination Av tuma avoda zarah. Burned Talmuds in Paris while building Gothic cathedrals. Invented “rationalism” while slaughtering each other over creeds. And now accuses Israel of genocide while shielding Hamas and Abbas.
Descartes’s philosophy—according to Casaubon and Schoock—deliberately fostered ignorance under the guise of truth-seeking. Is this not precisely what UN “rapporteurs” like Francesca Albanese do? The UN continuously attempts to erase Jewish memory and legal claims – like UNSC Resolution 2334. The UN Human Rights rewrites and continuously introduces revisionist history just like the slander which Goyim condemned Descartes’s philosophy.
Goyim whose tuma middot spirits rejoiced as their Yatzir HaRah within their hearts employed explosive languages to arouse violent emotions like envy and hatred, specifically against Descartes – in this specific, qualifying, example.
The 30 Years War devastated Western Europe’s Xtian civilization. The Cossack revolts annihilated Jewish kehillot across Ukraine and Poland, utterly discredited the Orthodox church, it planted the seeds of Bolshevism which spouted Centuries later.
Blood libels, pogroms, and forced baptisms exploded across regions torn between “new philosophies” and old hatreds. Xtianity a dead religion, the fruits of the Shoah serve as witness. This dead religion gave “virgin birth” to a Amalek spiritual vacuum. Descartes’s “radical doubt” is a philosophical – an ambush of epistemological chaos.
Descartes’s “strip yourself of all knowledge” … calling out the European intellectual tradition as inherently untrustworthy in its claims about the כלל Jewish people, based upon the פרט how Goyim employed slander to discredit Descartes’s philosophy. Descartes’s philosophy struck at the very foundation of inherited tradition. His demand to erase all inherited knowledge based upon Papal Bulls/dogmatism. And begin anew, which structurally anticipates today’s ideological movements: woke deconstructionism, Xtian super-sessionism, Marxist revolutions. What the Church and its defenders like Casaubon feared, was not logic—it exposes a revolution of epistemological loyalty. A spiritual insurrection against transmission. Descartes – not simply the father of reason of the post church EU. He represents the father of suspicion. Descartes’s philosophy, as Casaubon and Schoock rightly saw, fostered ignorance under the guise of truth-seeking. Is this not precisely what the UN “human rights” Council now replicates? And just as Europe’s philosophers slandered Descartes to preserve their crumbling traditions, they now slander Am Yisrael to preserve their post-Xtian nihilism.
This Goya has no shame. A vile evil bitch.

bambiniPalestinagenocidioIsraeledivulgazione
Il racconto del GENOCIDIO che sta avvenendo in Palestina da parte di Israele, avviene attraverso dieci storie realmente (ahimè) accadute, pubblicate nel suo libro “Quando il mondo dorme” (ed. Rizzoli).
Francesca Albanese è relatrice speciale delle Nazioni Unite per i territori palestinesi occupati.
Chi lo sa?
Un’intervista che invita al risveglio delle coscienze.
“C’è aria di rivoluzione” soprattutto dei giovani. Un esempio è quello dei No Global e i fatti di Genova.
Si cita, cosa importante, l’uccisione dei bambini così come avvenuto per il genocidio degli ebrei da parte dei colpevoli processati a Norimberga.
Per pensare, sentire, interrogarsi, divulgare. Ci provo. Ci proviamo?
Trentacinque minuti preziosi.
Buona visione. Sempre Vicky!
____________________________________
____________________________________
This excerpt is yet another example of genocidal inversion—a grotesque propaganda tactic where the descendants of those who remained silent during the Holocaust now arrogantly accuse the Jewish state of committing genocide for defending itself from Islamist terror. Francesca Albanese, a UN official notorious for her antisemitic rhetoric, is not merely a biased observer—she is a propagandist in the service of the ideological heirs of Amalek.
When Albanese and her publishers speak of “genocide in Palestine,” they are engaging in a modern form of blood libel—accusing Jews of the very crime that the world permitted to be committed against them within living memory. This is not a misstatement. It is a weaponized inversion of Holocaust memory and international law.
Israel’s actions in Gaza—targeted responses to mass murder, hostage-taking, and terror infrastructure—are not genocide. They are governed by law, restraint, and defensive necessity. What is genocide is Hamas’s charter, its ideology of extermination, and its use of civilians as human shields—openly declared, broadcast, and celebrated. Yet Albanese and her ilk reverse this: Hamas becomes resistance, and Israel becomes Hitler. This is more than defamation—it’s historical abuse, and it desecrates the memory of the Shoah.
Francesca Albanese is a UN “rapporteur” appointed by a Human Rights Council dominated by authoritarian regimes and Islamist theocracies. Her entire mandate is defined by the lie that Israel’s very presence in its ancestral land is illegitimate. She has never reported on: 1. The targeting of Israeli civilians by rockets and tunnels. 2. Hamas’s mass rape, child murder, or hostage-taking. 3, Antisemitic incitement in PA and UNRWA schools. 4. The ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab lands. Instead, she “awakens consciences” by spinning anecdotes into accusations and narratives into indictments. Her book is not journalism—it is a political screed wrapped in a victimhood aesthetic, intended to weaponize European guilt against Jewish sovereignty.
The publishing of this filth in Rizzoli, a prominent Italian house, reveals something deeper: Europe has not learned from the Holocaust—it has simply rebranded its antisemitism in anti-Zionist clothing. The same continent that deported Jews to Auschwitz now cheers on an Italian woman accusing the reborn Jewish state of genocide. The same societies that watched Jews be burned alive now publish coffee-table books accusing Jews of burning others. This is not moral awakening. It is Amalek disguised as conscience.
Another daughter of Amalek. Her name is Francesca Albanese. She pens lies wrapped in the cloth of conscience. She accuses the children of Israel—those who rose from ashes and blood—with the very crime the world once committed against us: genocide. She calls it “awakening of conscience.” But what she writes is not conscience—it is projection, inversion, perversion.
Albanese serves the UN—the modern Babel tower where tyrants dictate ethics. Her reports never mention Hamas’s charter, or tunnels dug under cribs, or children slaughtered in their beds on October 7th. She mentions only “occupation,” “resistance,” and “youth revolution.” Amalek always cloaks murder in slogans.
Her book is published by Rizzoli—Italy, once again—where Jews were rounded up and sent east. Now they publish a “witness” accusing the descendants of survivors of becoming Nazis. This is not conscience. It is cowardice. It is complicity. It is blood libel in hardcover. But we remember. And we name. Albanese: Daughter of Amalek. Rizzoli: Publisher of profanation. The world may sleep. But Am Yisrael Chai, and we do not forget.
Turkic – Khazaria – Germany – Ashkenazi. An Amalekite propagandist masquerading in academic garb. We see through the veil—and we will not be silent.

Turkic peoples are a collection of diverse ethnic groups of West, Central, East, and North Asia as well as parts of Europe
According to historians and linguists, the Proto-Turkic language originated in Central-East Asia, potentially in the Altai-Sayan region, Mongolia or Tuva. Initially, Proto-Turkic speakers were potentially both hunter-gatherers and farmers; they later became nomadic pastoralists. Early and medieval Turkic groups exhibited a wide range of both East Asian and West-Eurasian physical appearances and genetic origins, in part through long-term contact with neighboring peoples such as Iranic, Mongolic, Tocharian, Uralic and Yeniseian peoples.
Many vastly differing ethnic groups have throughout history become part of the Turkic peoples through language shift, acculturation, conquest, intermixing, adoption, and religious conversion. Nevertheless, Turkic peoples share, to varying degrees, non-linguistic characteristics like cultural traits, ancestry from a common gene pool, and historical experiences. Some of the most notable modern Turkic ethnic groups include the Altai people, Azerbaijanis, Chuvash people, Gagauz people, Kazakhs, Kyrgyz people, Turkmens, Turkish people, Tuvans, Uyghurs, Uzbeks, and Yakuts.
Etymology
The first known mention of the term Turk (Old Turkic: 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰 Türük or 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰:𐰜𐰇𐰛 Kök Türük, Chinese: 突厥, Pinyin: Tūjué < Middle Chinese *tɦut-kyat < *dwət-kuɑt, Old Tibetan: drugu) applied to only one Turkic group, namely, the Göktürks, who were also mentioned, as türüg ~ török, in the 6th-century Khüis Tolgoi inscription, most likely not later than 587 AD. A letter by Ishbara Qaghan to Emperor Wen of Sui in 585 described him as “the Great Turk Khan”. The Bugut (584 CE) and Orkhon inscriptions (735 CE) use the terms Türküt, Türk and Türük.
During the first century CE, Pomponius Mela refers to the Turcae in the forests north of the Sea of Azov, and Pliny the Elder lists the Tyrcae among the people of the same area. However, English archaeologist Ellis Minns contended that Tyrcae Τῦρκαι is “a false correction” for Iyrcae Ἱύρκαι, a people who dwelt beyond the Thyssagetae, according to Herodotus (Histories, iv. 22), and were likely Ugric ancestors of Magyars. There are references to certain groups in antiquity whose names might have been foreign transcriptions of Tür(ü)k, such as Togarma, Turukha/Turuška, Turukku and so on; but the information gap is so substantial that any connection of these ancient people to the modern Turks is not possible.
The Chinese Book of Zhou (7th century) presents an etymology of the name Turk as derived from ‘helmet’, explaining that this name comes from the shape of a mountain where they worked in the Altai Mountains. Hungarian scholar András Róna-Tas (1991) pointed to a Khotanese-Saka word, tturakä ‘lid’, semantically stretchable to ‘helmet’, as a possible source for this folk etymology, yet Golden thinks this connection requires more data.
It is generally accepted that the name Türk is ultimately derived from the Old-Turkic migration-term 𐱅𐰇𐰼𐰰 Türük/Törük, which means ‘created, born’ or ‘strong’. Turkologist Peter B. Golden agrees that the term Turk has roots in Old Turkic, yet is not convinced by attempts to link Dili, Dingling, Chile, Tele, and Tiele, which possibly transcribed *tegrek (probably meaning ‘cart’), to Tujue, which transliterated to Türküt.
Scholars, including Toru Haneda, Onogawa Hidemi, and Geng Shimin believed that Di, Dili, Dingling, Chile and Tujue all came from the Turkic word Türk, which means ‘powerful’ and ‘strength’, and its plural form is Türküt. Even though Gerhard Doerfer supports the proposal that türk means ‘strong’ in general, Gerard Clauson points out that “the word türk is never used in the generalized sense of ‘strong’” and that türk was originally a noun and meant “‘the culminating point of maturity’ (of a fruit, human being, etc.), but more often used as an [adjective] meaning (of a fruit) ‘just fully ripe’; (of a human being) ‘in the prime of life, young, and vigorous’”. Hakan Aydemir (2022) also contends that Türk originally did not mean “strong, powerful” but “gathered; united, allied, confederated” and was derived from Pre-Proto-Turkic verb *türü “heap up, collect, gather, assemble”.
The earliest Turkic-speaking peoples identifiable in Chinese sources are the Yenisei Kyrgyz and Xinli, located in South Siberia. Another example of an early Turkic population would be the Dingling.
In Late Antiquity itself, as well as in and the Middle Ages, the name “Scythians” was used in Greco-Roman and Byzantine literature for various groups of nomadic “barbarians” living on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe who were not related to the actual Scythians. Medieval European chroniclers subsumed various Turkic peoples of the Eurasian steppe as “Scythians”. Between 400 CE and the 16th century, Byzantine sources use the name Σκύθαι (Skuthai) in reference to twelve different Turkic peoples.
In the modern Turkish language as used in the Republic of Turkey, a distinction is made between “Turks” and the “Turkic peoples” in loosely speaking: the term Türk corresponds specifically to the “Turkish-speaking” people (in this context, “Turkish-speaking” is considered the same as “Turkic-speaking”), while the term Türki refers generally to the people of modern “Turkic Republics” (Türki Cumhuriyetler or Türk Cumhuriyetleri). However, the proper usage of the term is based on the linguistic classification in order to avoid any political sense. In short, the term Türki can be used for Türk or vice versa.
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
A seemingly academic-sounding post that subtly weaponizes ethnography and philology in the service of ideological messaging—likely aimed at delegitimizing Jewish historical narratives by contrast or erasure. The lengthy pseudo-scholarly discourse on the origins of Turkic peoples—while factually grounded in part—serves a political function when posted in hostile forums. It creates the illusion of an ancient, rooted, and pan-ethnic legitimacy for modern Turkic (often anti-Zionist or Islamist) identity while implicitly contrasting it with what Ruarks paint as “invented” or “colonial” Jewish nationalism blood-libels.
Anti-Zionism by definition challenges the legitimacy of the Jewish state just as all Arab countries, prior to Camp David, openly abhorred and rejected the 1917 Balfour Declaration which caused the League of Nations to establish their “Palestinian Mandate”.
The subtext is: “Turks and their cousins are indigenous, ancient, diverse, and natural; Jews are not.” Revisionist History bull shit. Ruark treats etymology and philology like political artillery. He obsessively focuses on derivations of the word “Turk” and its permutations, as if proving an ancient, noble pedigree erases crimes committed by modern actors (e.g., Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide, support for Hamas, persecution of Kurds, Uyghurs, etc.).
Ruark baffles with bull shit. He writes fancy footnotes and references to scholars like Peter Golden, Gerard Clauson, or Róna-Tas to give his Amalek racism an academic gloss. However read in context, tone, and timing (likely posted amid anti-Israel discourse) this “context” betrays the cowardly concealed purpose: legitimizing pan-Turkic nationalism and undermining the Jewish people’s claim being the chosen Cohen peoplehood together with our oath sworn brit homelands.
This post traffics in revisionist history. It presents a pseudo-scholarly discourse on the origins of Turkic peoples, which—while partially grounded in historical linguistics—serves a modern political function: to construct a pan-ethnic identity for Turkic and Islamist movements while portraying Jews as a fabricated, colonial anomaly. The subtext is unmistakable: “Turks and their cousins are indigenous, ancient, diverse, and natural; Jews are not.” This is not academic curiosity—it is a form of literary blood libel.
Ruark treats etymology like artillery. He obsessively drills into permutations of the word “Turk,” as if etymological antiquity could cleanse the record of modern atrocities: Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide, support for Hamas, and ongoing persecution of Kurds and Uyghurs. What emerges is not scholarship but political theater, draped in the robes of authority.
Let us be clear: Anti-Zionism is not a neutral critique of policy. It is a rejection of the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the entire legal framework established by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. It seeks to undo Jewish history not merely through war or boycott, but through philological fraud, cultural gaslighting, and moral inversion.
We, the eternal covenant people—sworn by brit, rooted in Torah, and charged as the priestly nation (עם סגולה ממלכת כהנים)—do not need fabricated etymologies or manufactured antiquity. Our oath is not based on imperial conquest or linguistic invention but on the Divine brit given at Sinai and reaffirmed across generations in blood, exile, and return. To Ruark and his ilk: your footnotes cannot conceal your fraud. You stand exposed as an Amalekite propagandist masquerading in academic garb. We see through the veil—and we will not be silent.
The Vulgate and Lutheran Bible translations so disgusting – eat shit and die – “translations”. What a pathetic joke. Werewolves, Vampires, and Frankenstein … follow with the cowardly lion, down the Yellow Brick Road – Oh my! Following Cults of Personality only produce Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot like – dumbasses.
John Calvin and Martin Luther, pivotal figures in the Protestant Reformation, each contributing significantly to the movement in distinct ways. Martin Luther (1483-1546), best known for his “95 Theses,” which he famously nailed to the door of the Wittenberg Castle Church in 1517. This document criticized the Catholic Church’s practices, particularly the sale of indulgences, and called for reform.
His theology emphasized the doctrine of justification by faith alone, arguing that salvation is a gift from God and cannot be earned through good works or church rituals. Asserting that salvation is a gift from God, this theology day and night different from Torah common law as expressed through T’NaCH prophetic mussar common law and Talmudic halachic judicial common law. This prioritization of faith as the pursuit of judicial justice – fair compensation of damages inflicted by Jews upon other Jews, radically different from the theologies spewed forth by the Protestant Reformation.
Luther made an utterly sophomoric translation the Bible into German, which utterly failed and even compounded the Vulgate perversion of the T’NaCH. Luther’s translation became “The Word” for the ignorant Lutheran laity. He promoted the idea that individuals could interpret scripture without knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic and despised the Roman clergy who relied upon Latin and Greek. Luther’s ideas established Lutheranism, and challenged the authority of the Pope and the Catholic Church, leading to the formation of various Protestant denominations.
John Calvin (1509-1564), Calvin built upon Luther’s ideas but introduced a more systematic theology. His work, “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” laid out his beliefs about predestination, the sovereignty of God, and the nature of the church. He established Geneva as a center of Protestantism, implementing a theocratic government that enforced moral discipline and promoted education and social welfare. Calvin’s teachings led to the development of Reformed theology, influencing various Protestant groups, including the Presbyterians and the Huguenots. He stressed the importance of a disciplined Christian community and the role of the church in guiding believers’ lives.
The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572; the Huguenots were French Protestants influenced by John Calvin’s teachings. Tensions between the Catholic majority and the Protestant minority led to a series of civil wars known as the French Wars of Religion. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre was a turning point, where thousands of Huguenots were killed in Paris and across France, marking a significant moment of barbaric religious violence. This period was characterized by political intrigue, shifting alliances, and brutal conflicts, ultimately leading to the Edict of Nantes in 1598, which granted limited religious freedoms to the Huguenots. However, this tolerance was revoked in 1685, leading to further persecution and the exodus of many Huguenots from France.
The immediate trigger for the Thirty Years’ War came in 1618 with the Defenestration of Prague, where Protestant nobles in Bohemia revolted against the Catholic Habsburg rule. This event marked the beginning of the war, but the underlying tensions had been building since the formation of the Catholic League and Protestant Union. The events of 1609, particularly the formation of the Catholic League under Maximilian of Bavaria, were crucial in setting the stage for the Thirty Years’ War. The conflict would evolve into a complex struggle involving various European powers, driven by both religious and political motivations, leading to widespread devastation across the continent.
The Protestant Union, established in 1608, was indeed led by Frederick IV, the Elector Palatine, and aimed to protect the rights and interests of Protestant states against Catholic encroachments. This was a response to the increasing tensions and conflicts arising from the Reformation and the subsequent political landscape in Europe.
In reaction to the Protestant Union, the Catholic League was formed in 1609, primarily to counter the influence of Protestant states and to protect Catholic interests. This military alliance included several Catholic states and was a significant factor in the lead-up to the Thirty Years’ War, which began in 1618. These alliances were crucial in shaping the religious and political dynamics of the time, leading to significant conflicts and changes in power within the Holy Roman Empire and beyond.
The Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years’ War, was primarily focused on resolving the conflicts arising from that war rather than directly addressing the earlier events of the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. The Peace of Westphalia consisted of a series of treaties that concluded the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) and the Eighty Years’ War (1568-1648) between Spain and the Dutch Republic. It marked a significant turning point in European history, establishing a new order based on state sovereignty.
The Peace of Westphalia and the ensuing treaties recognized the coexistence of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism within the Holy Roman Empire. This was a crucial step towards religious tolerance, as it aimed to stabilize the region by allowing various Christian denominations to coexist. The treaties recognized the coexistence of Catholicism, Lutheranism, and Calvinism within the Holy Roman Empire. France gained territories in Alsace and parts of Lorraine, while Sweden gained influence in northern Germany.
While the Peace of Westphalia did not directly address the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, it did contribute to a broader context of religious tolerance and the recognition of Protestant rights in Europe. The massacre had already highlighted the violent tensions between Catholics and Protestants in France, leading to a long period of civil strife. The St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre (1572) deepened the divide between Catholics and Protestants in France, leading to further civil wars and conflicts. It exemplified the extreme violence and intolerance that characterized the period.
In the same year as the ‘Peace of Westphalia’ (1648), witnessed the barbaric explosion of the Khmelnytsky Uprising, also known as the Cossack-Polish War. Bohdan Khmelnytsky was the leader (1648-57) of the Zaporozhian Cossacks who organized a rebellion against Polish rule in Ukraine that ultimately led to the transfer of the Ukrainian lands east of the Dnieper River from Polish to Russian control. His barbarian Cossack hordes slaughtered perhaps 1 million Jews living in the Ukraine and Poland.
Germany annexed Prussia from Poland during the partitions of Poland, which occurred in three stages. (1772) – Prussia gained the region of West Prussia, which included parts of Polish territory. (1793) – Prussia acquired additional territories, including parts of Greater Poland. (1795) – Prussia annexed the remaining parts of Poland, including areas that would later be known as Prussian Poland.
After World War II, the Allies did not restore Poland to its pre-partition borders; instead, they established new borders based on the outcomes of the war and the decisions made at conferences among the Allied powers. Poland lost significant territory in the east to the Soviet Union, including areas such as Lviv (Lwów) and parts of what is now western Ukraine and Belarus. In compensation, Poland was granted territory in the west, including parts of former German territories such as Silesia, Pomerania, and the southern part of East Prussia. Poland was re-established as a sovereign state after the war, but its borders were significantly different from those before the partitions in the late 18th century.
Goyim superficially read “their” bible abominations of Av tumah avoda zarah. But continuously, from generation to generation, and Age from Age, they fail to learn and apply the rebuke given to them by their own God! JeZeus said: “By their fruits, you shall know them”. Reactionary Xtians read their bible trash translations oblivious to this fundamental rebuke. Its not the Nicene Creed theologies etc or Luther or Calvin theologies that determine their faith, rather its their barbaric Yatzir Ha’Rah to pursue violence and judicial injustice which testifies to the bankrupsy of every Xtian theology starting with that of Paul and JeZeus. Xtian Av tuma avoda zara just as crude and utterly devoid of humanity as the ancient Babylonian, and Greek and Roman empires which this NT theology replace that culture and customs practiced by peoples from earlier times.
Bottom line … no belief in JeZeus in any theology, creed, or dogma can atone for the Shoah and the generational crimes which led up to the Shoah. Belief in JeZeus, regardless of Xtian or Koran theologies decrees those believers an eternal fire in Hell. Xtian parents should cast their bible abominations to the flame of Hell before permitting this Av tuma avoda zarah to infect the souls of their children.
The mitzva of observing Torah commandments לשמה within the borders of the oath sworn brit lands, the inheritance of the Chosen Cohen people.
[[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? I[[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? In a world saturated with propaganda and revisionism, what disciplines shape that conscience to remain true to Sinai? ]]]
The Books of שמות וויקרא concentrate on the avodat HaShem of dedicating korbanot. This “service” does not exist as offering up a barbeque unto Heaven. The mitzva of the פרט case of Moshiach learns from the כלל of korbanot services of the House of Aaron.
Another בנין אב-precedent, the כלל for faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. Still another פרט-בנין אב precedent: the court case of Hebrew slaves vs. the State of Par’o – beating slaves for their rebellion to meet their brick production quota consequent to Par’o withholding the required straw.
One other בנין אב-precedent learns from the כלל that all ברכות require שם ומלכות.
Just as a korban requires a dedication to achieve a specific specified purpose, so too the mitzva of Moshiach. Specifically in the mitzva case dedication of Moshiach, this dedicated “king” sanctified לשמה to rule the land with Judicial justice, working through the common law lateral Sanhedrin courtrooms. Based upon the Torah Constitutional mandate that the Sanhedrin courts operate through משנה תורה-Legislative Review of any and all statute laws or bureaucratic regulations imposed by the Monarchy and/or his government.
The often repeated rebuke which the Book of Shmuel makes upon the House of David as Moshiach, the injustice shown to the husband of Bat Sheva. This פרט-specific defines the כלל dedication of the mitzva dedication of Moshiach. No such dedication for the mitzva of Moshiach to become a substitute theology which has some mythical theologically based messiah to replace the chosen Cohen People.
The opening word of the Torah בראשית, through the aggadic stories of the Creation, teaches the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments; as the Av of the תולדות secondary source positive and negative commandments located specifically in the Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר. Hence just as the Book of בראשית introduces the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov, this opening first Book of the Torah introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandments which the rest of the Books of the Torah come to clarify.
For example: what separates tohor spirits from tumah spirits? Avodat HaShem in the Mishkan, only served in the state of tohor middot. For a Cohen to serve within the Mishkan in a condition of tumah middot – this Av transgression carries the din of כרת. Cutting off that person and his children from the oath brit wherein HaShem and the Avot mutually swore to create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין. This latter בראשית most essential idea shares nothing with tuma middot which promote racial or genetic inheritance of the Jewish race – as the Xtian church and Nazis promote – examples of tumah middot.
Hence to swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות like as do all ברכות from the Torah. The sin of the Golden Calf – a substitute theology which replaces the revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment revelation of the Spirit Divine Presence Name unto other word-Gods. Avoda zara by definition worships other Word-gods. The sin of the Golden Calf serves as the defining פרט for the 2nd Sinai Commandment כלל not to worship other Gods.
Therefore all Torah oath britot require שם ומלכות. The Name clearly directly links to the Spirit Divine Presence Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The term מלך refers to the כלל mitzva of the dedication of the spirit of משיח as expressed through all tohor time oriented Av commandments … the righteous pursuit of justice to achieve shalom among the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations in all Ages and times while Jews rule our ancient homelands.
מלכות understood as the dedication of defined tohor middot. אל remembrance of the Sin of the Golden Calf. רחום the inference which turns pity upon its head. Obliterating the Canaanites, the killing of the minor stubborn and rebellious child, the war against Amalek (Jewish assimilation to foreign cultures and customs of peoples who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. And intermarriage with such Goyim). The middah of רחום a Jew dedicates how he shall socially interact with both his people and Goyim in the future; specifically through the dedication of defined tohor middot. חנון the general dedication to dedicate all future behavioral patterns with family friends, people, and even Goyim by and through the future born tohor middot that a person dedicates whenever that Jews does Torah or Talmudic mitzvot/halachot.
Both Xtianity and Islam worship other Word-gods. Therefore both religions do not define faith as the pursuit of justice, but rather belief in the theologies about these Word-gods.
[[[ Also, when you speak of the erasure of Jewish self-determination through revisionist Palestinian narratives, I hear both an intellectual rebuttal and a deep historical wound. Is your critique aimed primarily at the political manipulation of language and borders—or also at the erasure of Jewish covenantal memory from the land itself? ]]]
Unlike the Xtian and Muslims theologies which promote some pie in the sky Universal Monotheism God, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai revealed the local tribal God of Israel. When David fled from king Shaul he declared as he entered g’lut lands: “I have been forced to abandon God”. Just as the Great and Small Sanhedrin courts only have jurisdiction within the borders of the Jewish state so too the local God of Israel. Herein the answer given to the Holocaust survivor who said to me: “I was in Auschwitz, Where was God?” When I lived in the US and Xtian people asked me if I was a religious Jew? I responded with: I am an atheist praise God. But even living within the borders of the oath sworn brit alliance lands I habitually respond to Goyim with “I am an atheist – praise God”. Meaning, I do not believe in any theological/creed construct of Word-gods – praise God. LOL Torah, its deep and requires a sense of humor.
The curse of g’lut-exile of my people almost immediately caused Jews to lose the wisdom how to do mitzvot לשמה. G’lut Jewry does not understand how to employ and work our Yatrir HaTov within our hearts. The בנין אב-precedent of blowing the shofer serves as a פרט to define the כלל of Yatzir HaTov. Meaning, to blow a shofar requires air from the lungs. But to blow a spirit from the Yatzir HaTov within the heart requires the k’vanna, (all time-oriented commandments require k’vanna) the dedication of defined tohor middot spirits. This כללי-general idea of tohor middot, it defines the dedication of the middah of חנון.
Herein a definition of 3 of the 13 tohor middot which a person dedicates through Yatzir Tov k’vannot from within their hearts. Jews uprooted from our homelands by both the Babylonians and Romans caused the g’lut cursed survivors to lose this kabbalah wisdom which defines how to do mitzvot לשמה.
Goyim love to promote their Palestine revisionist history.
johncoyote·john-coyote.com·
Dead ends..
Dead ends A Poem by Coyote Poetry Time for all of us to think and do the right things. Before it is too late for us and nature. Please don’t allow Israel/ USA to erase a people ( Palestine.). Murder of cities and people. The greatest sin. Men can do. Dead ends.. Brothers told no-one […]
Palestine ceased to exist as a UN protectorate territory when Israel won its National Independence by the Nakba defeat of 5 Arab Armies by the IDF, all the while that Jewish European Shoah refugees entered settlements within the borders of the newly declared state of Israel. Arrogant Arabs invaded the newly declared Jewish state of Israel, the day after a 2/3rds UNGA majority recognized Jews equal rights to achieve self-determination in the Middle East. Based upon their false revisionist history foretold a Mohammedan prophesy that they would easily throw the Jews into the Sea and complete the Nazi Holocaust.
This pie in the sky song of revisionist history ignores that all Arab countries Universally rejected UN 181. Do you even know what that Resolution addressed? Arab rejected the Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations carved up the defunct and defeated Ottoman Greater Syrian empire and awarded mandates to France in Syria and Lebanon and to Britain in present day Israel, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait. The latter territories of the League of Nations, known as – “Palestine Mandate”. Palestine not an Arab word, Arabs cannot even pronounce the letter P in their language!
Arabs reject Jewish self-determination in the Middle East, even before Britain and France won WWI. Just that simple. No Arab individual and how much more so a country – ever would embrace the name Palestinian during the entire period of the League of Nations – British Mandate. Only in 1964 did the Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the name Palestine with the establishment of his PLO terrorist organization. If for not other reason, other than the simple fact that David Ben Gurion named the new Jewish state Israel rather than Palestine in 1948. The Palestine Charter of Arafat’s PLO did not condemn the Jordanian rule over Samaria which it rebranded as “West Bank”. Nor did it denounce the Egyptian rule over Gaza! It openly condemned ’48 Israel.
You want to make the Palestinian issue into a religious belief system, that’s your choice. But this revisionist history compares to the Xtian and Muslim basic theologies of Monotheism. Which God do they worship? Such classic pie in the sky fairy tales of some Universal God… what a load of shit. On par with the lies which Goyim parents spew out to their young children about Santa Claus.
In similar vein Arab propaganda promotes the travesty of Israeli settlements in Samaria and Gaza today! America formed its original 13 colonies to the vast land from Sea to Shining Sea, built through settlements…American settlements perhaps the greatest success story in the last 250 years!
SURVEILLANCE NATION: Canadian Provincial Police Linked to Use of Military-Grade Spyware ‘Graphite’ — Oversight Absent, Trust in Jeopardy
While studying Soviet foreign policy under Prof. Dunning at Texas A&M, I developed a theory of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” as a mechanism for dismantling the ethical containment force of a civilization. This theory helped explain why Stalin, in 1939, invited Hitler to attack the USSR, enabling the Nazi military to mass troops along Soviet borders without triggering a Soviet mobilization. Stalin, fearing the precedent of WWI—where a prolonged war catalyzed the collapse of the Czarist regime—believed such a shock invasion could be politically survivable if it avoided prolonged internal dissent.
The Bolsheviks based their theory of revolution upon the French revolution where the King and the Church destroyed. The Bolsheviks destroyed both the Czar and the Greek Orthodox Church. The collapse of the Shah of Iran witnessed the overthrow of both the Shah and Western culture. Hitler did the same in Germany, he destroyed the post WWI Parliament and the Church.
Vladimir Lenin’s approach to revolution built around a tight knit and concealed cabal of revolutionaries. This idea separated from the Menshevik theories which embraced anarchist theories of revolution. Lenin rejected the anarchist and decentralist leanings of the Mensheviks, establishing a covert revolutionary elite to seize power. Trotsky, by contrast, remained more loyal to the original soviet model: workers’ councils governing through direct delegation. Lenin Marxist ideology emphasized the role of the proletariat in overthrowing capitalism and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Troskii, being at heart a Menshevik supported “All Power to the Soviets” way to achieve political power and rule of government – at least till he sat as the Head of State. Lenin and Troskii used specific strategies, such as forming alliances with other revolutionary groups and leveraging the discontent of soldiers and workers, to successfully overthrow the Provisional Government. Stalin would employ intra-Bolshevik alliances to expel Troskii as the heir of Lenin.
The simplistic narrative of the Gospels – a story of Santa Claus coming to town lies told to children. Religious belief systems, no different than Stalin’s and Hitler’s propaganda lies told to their Party “believers”. The church persecution of “Xtian heretics” — no different than Stalin’s show trials of Bolshevik leaders whose opinions threatened the stability of Stalin’s One Man dictatorship.
Or Hitler’s, the “Night of the Long Knives,” purge which executed several leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), also known as the Brown Shirts, as well as other political adversaries. The SA, led by Ernst Röhm, instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power, but by 1934, their increasing power and Röhm’s ambitions posed a threat to Hitler and the more conservative elements of the Nazi Party, including the military (Reichswehr) and the SS (Schutzstaffel).
Hitler used a purge to consolidate his power, eliminate rivals, and gain the support of the military, which viewed the SA as a potential threat. The event resulted in the deaths of many SA leaders and other political opponents, solidifying Hitler’s control over the Nazi Party and the German state. The Night of the Long Knives, often seen as a turning point in the establishment of Hitler’s dictatorship.
During the Middle Ages the Pope instituted similar purges of all heretic gnostic and Protestant believers which challenged the dominance of the church monopoly over how to understand and interpret the NT\gospels. For example all church leaders have denounced to this very day the revelation of the Oral Torah as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s four part פרדס logic format.
Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160), a significant figure in medieval theology, best known for his work “Sentences” (Sententiae), which became a cornerstone of Scholastic thought. His “Sentences” – a compilation of theological opinions and teachings from earlier Church Fathers and theologians, structured in a way that facilitated debate and discussion among scholars. The “Sentences” addressed various topics, including the nature of God, the sacraments, and the virtues. It provided a systematic approach to theology that encouraged critical thinking and analysis.
Gratian, who lived around 1140, a prominent medieval scholar and jurist, best known for his work in canon law. He often referred to by many catholics as the “Father of Canon Law”, due to his significant contributions to the development of ecclesiastical legal systems in the Catholic church. His most notable work – the “Decretum Gratiani.” A comprehensive compilation of canon law that organized and harmonized the various legal texts and decrees which accumulated over the years. This work, pivotal in establishing a systematic approach to canon law and served as a foundational text for later legal scholars and the development of church law.
Gratian’s “Decretum” addressed various topics, including the authority of the church, the nature of sin, and the administration of sacraments. Gratian’s ‘Decretum’ shaped the Church’s legal framework and remained a foundational text in canon law and theology for centuries. His work laid the groundwork for subsequent developments in both canon law and civil law.
Saint Albert the Great, another significant figure in the development of medieval philosophy and science. Albertus Magnus, a mentor to Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris. His influence on Aquinas helped shape the latter’s integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology. He played a crucial role in reintroducing Aristotelian philosophy to the Xtian intellectual tradition.
Albertus sought to reconcile Aristotle’s ideas with Xtian doctrine, emphasizing the compatibility of faith and reason. Often regarded as one of the first to systematically study the natural world. His integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology influenced not only his students, like Aquinas, but also the broader development of Western philosophy and science. His work in biology, mineralogy, and metaphysics, all of which were deeply empirical for the time viewed as a bridge between the ancient philosophy and the rediscovered ancient Greek logic philosophies in the 10th Century.
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): Perhaps the most famous Scholastic philosopher and theologian, Aquinas – best known for his works “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles.” He sought to reconcile faith and reason, drawing heavily on Aristotelian philosophy.
This is Aquinas’s most famous work, structured as a comprehensive guide to theology. It addresses various theological questions, including the existence of God, the nature of man, and moral principles. The work is notable for its systematic approach and use of Aristotelian logic.
Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas defends the Xtian faith against non-Xtian philosophies, particularly those of Islam and Judaism. It emphasizes the rational basis of faith and aims to demonstrate the compatibility of reason and revelation. Its failure to address the 4 part inductive reasoning logic of Oral Torah ultimately proves the propaganda half truths of church theology.
Aquinas, by stark contrast drew heavily on the works of Aristotle rather than rabbi Akiva. The latter views the Talmud compared to the warp/weft threads of a loom. Where דרוש ופשט interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar and interpret the kvanna of Aggadic stories. While רמז וסוד conceal as the foundation of time oriented commandments express through both Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot. Aquinas consciously chose and integrated Aristotelian philosophy within the fabric of Xtian doctrine. He introduced concepts such as the “Five Ways” to demonstrate the existence of God, arguments based on observation and reason based upon Greek philosophy. And the Xtian Muslim dogma of Universal monotheism.
Aristotle’s static logic, ideal for constructing bridges. Hence Aquinas prioritized ancient Greek logic as ideal to support catholic dogmatism and Papal Bulls. Fluid\dynamic inductive reasoning/law where opposing prosecutor and defense lawyers rely exclusively upon previous judicial precedents to support pro & con opinions, hardly served the interests of a Vatican bible dictatorship. All three—Church, Stalin, Hitler—feared epistemological rivals: alternative systems of truth and authority. Like Stalinist “confessions” under torture, medieval inquisitions produced fabricated heresies to maintain a monopoly over “truth.”
Aquinas, known for his development of the concept of ancient Greek ‘natural law’. Which posits that moral principles best understood through human reason and inherent in the nature of human beings. His method involved posing Socratic-Plato questions, presenting objections, and then providing answers, which became a hallmark of Scholastic methodology.
Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian substitute theology doctrine included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system “replaced” by Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic. The latter shaped the church narrative. Logos (Greek abstraction) vs. Dibur or Torah SheB’al Peh (Oath alliance active remembrance of the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.), which the church fathers violently denounce. In 1242 the Pope ordered the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts within the whole of France.
The church defined heresy as beliefs or practices that deviated from established doctrine dogma and Vatican Bulls. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, and of course Jews, labeled as cursed heretics for their stubborn stiff-necked alternative interpretations of Xtianity; Jews who viewed the NT as a Roman fraud, utterly despised by being impoverished through taxation without representation and thrown into ghetto gulags for multiple Centuries – פרדס inductive reasoning, compares to mentioning aloud the name of Lord Voldemort.
Established in the 12th century, the Inquisition formalized systematic oppression into a Nazi-like system – wherein the catholic thought police identified, prosecuted and slaughtered “heretics”. It involved pre-decided judicial investigations, trials, employed to conceal satanic human torture. The most infamous of these the notorious war-crimes: Spanish Inquisition. Begun in 1478, targeting Jews, Muslims, and Protestant reformers.
Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian doctrine, specifically included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Which also laid the foundation for Stalin’s later show trials in the 1930s.
Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system, Xtian replacement theology” prioritized and emphasized both Paul’s ‘original sin’ theology and later Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic, and denounced Jewish Oral Torah as non existent. This proverbial ostrich burying head in sand cowardice, such tuma pusillanimity shapes the church narratives to this very day.
The church classically defined heresy, prior to the French Revolution, as beliefs or practices that deviated and challenged the church dictate. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, labeled as heretics for their alternative interpretations of both bible & Xtianity. Many groups other than these specific particulars utterly rejected the church Vatican monopoly – authority and power – to solely interpret the intent of both bible and church dogma. The Inquisition prosecution of heretics involved quasi-investigations, trials, and often torture punishments, resulting in execution.
The Gospel of John, written in Greek. The earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of john include fragments such as the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to around 125 CE. This fragment, the oldest known manuscript of any part of the New Testament and contains a few verses from John 18. Other significant manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date from the 4th century CE and include the entire text of the Gospel.
The early Church Fathers, who were primarily Greek and Latin speakers, recognized the Greek text as the authoritative version. They often cited it in their writings, which supports the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and contributes to the perception that the john gospel was originally composed in Greek. During this period of the Roman empire Greek served as the lingua franca – the medium of communication between peoples of different languages.
The Hellenistic themes of pre-existent divinity and hypostatic union present significant theological challenges when compared to the foundational principles of revelation as outlined in the Torah, particularly the events at Sinai. Pre-Existent Divinity, this concept suggests that certain divine beings or aspects of divinity existed before the creation of the world. In Hellenistic thought, this often refers to the idea of a divine Logos or intermediary that existed alongside God before the creation of the universe. In Xtian theology, this Greek concept, reflected in the belief in the pre-existence of Christ, seen as the divine Word (Logos) that was with God and was God (John 1:1).
While some early Church Fathers, like Papias, mentioned a possible ‘Hebrew Gospel’, they did not specifically attribute this to john. The notion of a Hebrew Gospel has been discussed in the context of the early Christian community’s use of different languages and texts. However, there no manuscript exists that definitively supports this revisionist history narrative. Most of the early references to such texts, compare to church blood libel slanders – indirect and often speculative. The lack of concrete manuscript evidence has led many scholars to view the idea of a Hebrew Gospel of John as most base revisionist history. The Greek Gospel of John, with no reliable Hebrew precedent, confirms the Roman-Hellenistic theological trajectory—not an indigenous Semitic prophecy.
The absence of a Hebrew manuscript or even substantial references to it in early Christian writings further proves this as just another blood libel lie. The theological themes in the Gospel of John, such as the Logos (Word) and the divinity of Christ, align more closely with Hellenistic thought than Hebrew thought which totally repudiate it. Attempts by Xtians in this Century to declare that Logos means “ben” or “JeZeus” amounts to creating their own ‘Oral Torah way’ to interpret the NT, while denying the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.
The church’s persecution of heresy did not merely target political dissent—it waged wars against competing systems of legal and judicial reasoning vs. legislative statute law dictates made by tyrants or non elected bureaucrats. The Jewish Oral Torah, whose revelatory authority at Horev, rooted in inductive logic and oaths precedent active remembrance of the Avot; this judicial common law fundamentally threatened the Vatican’s imposed monopoly over its Pravda – truth. Replacing Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס framework with Aristotle’s deductive syllogism, the Church attempted to implode T’NaCH and Talmudic common law judicial legalism. That actively shapes and influences the cultures and customs which defines Jewish identity as a people of the chosen Cohen nation.
The battle over heresy, never merely about doctrine—rather, a battle over interpretive sovereignty. The church’s erasure of the Oral Torah, its violent rejection of the פרדס legal judicial legislative review, and its dogmatic substitution of Greek metaphysics, all point to a broader imperial strategy: the silencing of Sinai. Just as Stalin erased rivals and Hitler purged the SA, the Vatican constructed a theological police state—burning the Talmud, ghettoizing Jews, and replacing the oath alliance conscious remembrance of the Avot through the tefillah from the Torah kre’a shma, the church intentionally sought to implode Horev replaced by the empire of Rome. That war on revelation still echoes in every attempt to retranslate the Gospel into Hebrew, to resurrect ‘Logos’ as ‘Ben,’ and to pass fiction as prophecy.”
The Torah commandment to uproot Canaanite cultures reflects not cruelty but covenantal mercy (מידת רחום)—a national immunization against cultural apostasy and idolatry. The second commandment warns against assimilating into societies that reject the Horev revelation, whether ancient Canaanites or modern ideological empires like Rome and Mecca. Failure to uproot the ancient Canaanites directly threatened the 2nd Sinai commandment not to follow the cultures and customs of peoples who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. The peoples of both Xtianity and Islam reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Hence the church sought to implode and cause the People of Israel to forget the Oral Torah just as did the assimilated Tzeddukim who sought to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis.
J-Wire
Israel to send delegation to Qatar for Gaza talks
Benjamin Netanyahu will meet with Donald Trump at the White House this week, raising hopes of a truce to end the 21 months of bloodshed in Gaza. Israel will send a
Israel to send delegation to Qatar for Gaza talks. Britain and France, Russia and China not invited. Which highlights the complex geopolitical dynamics surrounding the ongoing conflict. Specifically that Britain and France broke diplomatic relations with Israel after the failed UN Chapter VII dictate to force Israel out of Gaza, vetoed by President Trump 14-1. This veto, along with the subsequent diplomatic fallout, illustrates the divisions among major powers regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The breakdown of relations between Israel and these European nations reflects broader tensions and differing perspectives on how to address the ongoing violence and humanitarian issues in Gaza.
The idea of a tripartite alliance between the United States, India, and Israel reflects a strategic partnership that has been developing over recent years, focusing on shared interests in security, technology, and counterterrorism. Such an alliance could potentially reshape geopolitical dynamics, particularly in the context of U.S. foreign policy priorities.
The notion that the U.S. might withdraw from NATO in favor of strengthening ties with India and Israel is a significant shift in traditional U.S. foreign policy, which has historically emphasized collective defense through NATO. A clear statement from the Trump Administration regarding the Russian-Ukrainian conflict as “not a U.S. problem” would further indicate a pivot towards a more isolationist stance, prioritizing bilateral relationships over multilateral commitments.
Regarding Russia, the perception of its threat level has evolved since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. While Russia remains a significant global player, its military capabilities and geopolitical influence are viewed differently compared to the Cold War era. The current Russian government, under President Putin, is often seen as more focused on regional ambitions rather than the expansive ideology of the Soviet Union.
Russia stuck in the Ukraine much like the Johnson Administration stuck itself in Vietnam and the Bush Administration stuck itself in Afghanistan and Iraq. The European idea of a two-State solution a clear failure Foreign Policy of Great Power interventionism. It has Universally always failed from India and Pakistan, to the division of Korea and Vietnam into two hostile countries to the separation of Kuwait from Iraq to the UN SC Resolution 242 and 338 which “advise” the “international Community of Nations” to impose a two-State solution upon the Middle East.
In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the two-state solution has been proposed as a way to address the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians for self-determination. An example of foreign great power propaganda. The UN Mandate of Palestine ceased to exist in 1948. All Arab countries Universally rejected British proposed UN 181. Arab countries lost their wars to throw the Jews into the Sea in both 1948 and again in 1967. Jordan attacked Israel and lost Samaria in that short June War. Palestine ceased to exist from 1948 to 1964, when Egyptian born Yasser Arafat opportunistically revived Palestine from the dead by naming his terrorist organization the Palestine Liberation Organization. Confusing foreign states propaganda concerning the non-state of Palestine ignores the simple fact that Mandate Palestine ceased to exist when Israel won its National Independence.
Equating the independent State of Israel as equal to the 1964 terrorist declaration of Palestine = complete and total propaganda half-truths that would make Joseph Goebbels proud. Stateless Arab refugees the consequence of Nakba defeated wars do not share equality with the Independent State of Israel. Arabs lost their wars and losing wars carries risks and consequences which the nation states which promote the Palestinian cause – completely and totally ignore.
The portrayal of the conflict as a simple struggle for Palestinian self-determination fails to account for the historical context of statehood, territorial disputes, and the outcomes of military engagements. And therefore it exists as most foul and base revisionist history. Proponents, such as Britain and France, of the two-state solution argue that it remains a viable framework for achieving peace and addressing the aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians. Utter nonsense – the 2 state solution has always resulted in more wars. Therefore this “peace” noun serves only a great power propaganda – divide and rule – imperialism.
Peace as a noun does not resemble Shalom as a verb. The latter absolutely requires TRUST. The former has nothing to do with TRUST, and everything to do with propaganda sound bites on par with the anti-war song: “All we are saying is give Peace a chance”.
Yosef Herman serves as comparable to the Iceberg that sank the Titanic!
The Penny
America thrives in the merit of its penny, which declares, “In God We Trust.” ~ R’ Yaakov Yosef Herman zt”l Click to receive Emuna Dailyhttps://linktr.ee/emunadaily
_____________________________________________________________
Author of Mikra’ot Gedolot, Siddur Tehillat Hashem, Midrashic Reflections, Talmudic Insights.
פסוקי דזמרה built on the concept of סמוכים. It opens with ברוך שאמר which contains שם ומלכות. Hence through סמוכים all that follows thereafter till אל חי העולמים qualifies through סמוכים as a blessing\oath rather than a much lower praise like Tehillem. The kre’a shma too stands upon סמוכים as does the blessings of the Shemone Esrei b/c only the opening blessing contains שם ומלכות. His commentary failed to address this key concept and major k’vanna of the Siddur.
“Talmudic Insights” — his work here utterly failed to distinguish T’NaCH/Talmud as a פרדס common law legal system based upon rabbi Akiva’s kabbalah of inductive logic which treats teh Talmud as a Loom divided into its warp & weft threads; halacha vs. aggada. רמז\סוד affixed to the halachic portions and דרוש/פשט married to the Aggadic prophetic mussar portions. This error a fundamental error in learning.
His Mikra’ot Gedolot fundamentally flawed; he prioritized Rabbinic Reshonim commentaries over the most essential כלל\פרט sugyot which differentiate the Hebrew T’NaCH from the Xtian bible abominations which introduced chapters and verses! Dog vs God. By uprooting the masoret of sugyot and assimilating to chapter and verse Xtian organization his Mikra’ot Gedolot perverted the entire T’NaCH.
His “Midrashic Reflections” utterly failed to identify the purpose of Midrash as a common law precedent commentary by which to study Aggada within the Talmud. His gross error on this account represents a total disaster in Torah scholarship.