What is the definition of
permanent change? Hegel’s Dialectical Materialism? Thesis, antithesis,
thesis? Equal and opposite forces? Tidal ebb and flow? Yin and Yang?
What was the world that has gone – or certainly going – called?
Debt, stupid!
Debt first influenced society in Babylon six thousand years ago when
it was discovered that farmers worked harder when in debt. Nothing has
changed except the mortgage burden. The debt / slave paradigm is so
embedded in our language, “debt slaves, wage slaves, slaves to the
system” that we do not question it.
Let’s examine the world that has just ended or is in its last phases
of winding down, much to the recent and current chagrin of European
nations along with the rest of the west: A current example of the
changes going on is the fact that shell-abandons-alaska-as-industry-sheds-100-000-jobs
Two thousand years ago the Roman historian and journalist Tacitus
wrote a wonderful description of the eviction of money merchants (really
debt merchants) from Italy in A.D. 27 by the Roman Emperor Tiberius
Caesar (it was not Jesus, BTW; that story was I believe embedded in the
bible assembled at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 300 because the Word of
the Son of God would carry more weight against the Ancient Curse of
Usury than that of a rather obscure Roman Emperor.
By the time Tiberius took over, the Roman Empire was in an economic
shambles and the Romans had had enough of compound interest with its
massive rates, bankruptcies and multiple foreclosures forced by private
money merchants that robbed them of their properties, just like today.
At that time, according to Tacitus, “… a powerful host of accusers
fell with sudden fury on the class which systematically increased its
wealth by usury in defiance of a law passed by Caesar defining the terms
of lending money and of holding estates in Italy, a law long obsolete
because the public good is sacrificed to private interest” – The Annals
of Rome, A.D. 29.
”Hence followed a scarcity of money, a great shock being given to all
credit, the current coin too, in consequence of the conviction of so
many persons and the sale of their property being locked up in the
imperial treasury or the public exchequer. “To meet this, the Senate had
directed that every creditor should have two-thirds his capital secured
on estates in Italy. “Creditors however were suing for payment in full,
and it was not respectable for persons when sued to break faith. So, at
first, there were clamorous meetings and importunate entreaties; then
noisy applications to the praetor’s court, and the very device intended
as a remedy – the sale and purchase of estates – proved the contrary, as
the usurers had hoarded up all their gold for buying land.
[What do you think banks are doing with their borrowing facilities
now that the interest rate on the dollar has been left alone by Ms
Yellen?]
“The facilities for selling were followed by a fall of prices, and
the deeper a man was in debt, the more reluctantly did he part with his
property, and many were utterly ruined. “The destruction of private
wealth precipitated the fall of rank and reputation, till at last the
emperor interposed his aid by distributing throughout the banks [which
were not at that time in the hands of money merchants] a hundred million
sesterces, and allowing freedom to borrow without interest for three
years, provided the borrower gave security to the State in land to
double the amount.
“Credit was thus restored, and gradually private lenders were found.
The purchase too of estates was not carried out according to the letter
of the Senate’s decree, rigor at the outset, as usual with such matters,
becoming negligence in the end.” Roman money was a solid gold sesterce
that would be valued today at $16, half the $32 an ounce up until the
gold standard was abandoned, so the bailout then could be valued in
today’s money at around $1.6 billion in a country with less than million
adult people. Churchill’s terse account of Edward the First’s doing the
same thing to the United Kingdom’s money merchants thirteen hundred
years later for the same reasons as Tiberius does not lend much weight
to the argument against usury, but then Churchill was a warrior not an
economist and both classes seem to avoid Tiberius and Edward as well as
the Biblical angry Jesus throwing money merchants about.
During the next few paragraphs, a great “Anti-Semite” outcry will be
heard, the ubiquitous red herring thrown onto the usury trail, so far
successfully; let us then leave conspiracy theories behind and call it
fiction. But I still think it’s a good, plausible and verifiable story
confirmed at the very least by Wikipedia, if not History itself.
The record of the Jews in England goes back to the first written one
of Jewish settlement in 1070. The Jewish presence continued until King
Edward the First’s Edict of Expulsion in 1290 “over matters of usury.”
“After the expulsion, there was no Jewish community, apart from
individuals who practiced Judaism secretly, until the rule of Oliver
Cromwell. While Cromwell never officially readmitted Jews to Britain, a
small colony of Sephardic Jews living in London was identified in 1656
and allowed to remain. “The Jewish Naturalization Act of 1753, an
attempt to legalize the Jewish presence in England, remained in force
for only a few months. Historians commonly date Jewish Emancipation to
either 1829 or 1858 when Jews were finally allowed to sit in Parliament,
though Benjamin Disraeli, born Jewish, had been a Member of Parliament
long before this, and even Prime Minister. At the insistence of Irish
leader Daniel O’Connell, in 1846, the British law “De Judaismo”, which
prescribed a special dress for Jews, was repealed.
Due to the lack of anti-Jewish violence in Britain in the 19th
century, it acquired a reputation for religious tolerance and attracted
significant immigration from Eastern Europe. In the 1930s and 1940s,
some European Jews fled to England to escape the Nazis. “Jews faced
anti-Semitism and stereotyping in Britain and anti-Semitism ‘in most
cases went along with Germanophobia’ to the extent that Jews were
equated with Germans in the early 20th century.
This led many Jewish families to Anglicize their often
German-sounding names. “Jews in Britain now number 300,000, and England
contains the second largest Jewish population in Europe and the fifth
largest Jewish community worldwide.” – Wikipedia. Edward discovered that
the Babylonian / Roman Curse had been in effect in the United Kingdom
for almost two hundred years before his reign and threw the money
merchants out in 1270 for the same reasons as Tiberius: because of
disputes over “matters of Usury”, basically the theft of massive
sections of the nobility’s property through compounded interest rates
leading to bankruptcy and foreclosure.
We need to examine at this point a very possible and plausible
explanation of the economic forces behind the expansion of the usury
method of money extraction to gambling – The key lies in the Tulip Mania
phenomenon in Holland some 300 years after Edward’s usurers were thrown
out of the United Kingdom. My assumptions that carry this theory of
Tulip Mania may bring that enigma to where it can be considered as a
“Pivotal Point” in economic history, the true beginning of Capitalism
and the foundation upon which money merchants ended their 2000-year role
as persona non grata throughout the world and became part of the
innermost circles of political power and finally, rulers of the global
economy, today’s prime example being Timothy Geithner, moving from
Chairman of Goldman Sachs to U.S. Secretary of the Treasury.
“Give me control of a nation’s money supply and I care not what laws
it makes.” Amschel Mayer Rothschild Control of the Capitalist boom /
bust money system began with the very first demonstration of a stock
market ‘pump and dump’ manipulation using tulip bulbs.
This was, I believe, a practical demonstration put on for the crowned
heads of Europe who I accuse then of finally accepting money merchants
into the mainstream of government so the rulers could share the wealth
derived from Boom-Bust (pump and dump) Capitalism: credit-driven boom
times followed by equity market busts which harvest all future boom time
debt-wealth signed over by borrowers and mortgagees in exchange for
their commitment to future work and pledges of existing collateral if
the work is not done or the debt not paid because the markets collapsed.
This system of Capitalist boom / bust manipulation between 1720 and
the Great Depression until now was reduced to economic and mathematical
detail in a book called ‘The Reckoning’ by journalist James Dale
Davidson and Lord Reese-Mogg, Sidgewick & Jackson, 1996, which I
believe was nothing less than a guide for the wealthy through the bust
brought about by the Japanese property market collapse in 1978. So Tulip
Mania was really a demonstration of the simple mechanics of boom-bust
Capitalism and definitely a Pivotal Event.
Just a theory?
There are no historical records kept by “money Lenders” (does the
Mafia have an internal written history? Ask any one of them…) Extant are
only descriptions by contemporary historians of what they did to
society, how it was done and what rid society of this parasitical
practice.
Where were these merchants of money between Tacitus and Edward,
between Edward and the Dutch stock markets; where did they go and what
did they do? Taken from the records available, from around 27 A.D. to
around 1070 (almost a thousand years) they went unrecorded.
Between Edward’s Eviction in 1270 to the creation of the first Stock
Exchange in Amsterdam less than three hundred years later, where were
these history-less people, what were they doing and were they the same
people Tacitus threw out and Edward evicted?
Assuming that they were, I also assume that they were by their third
attempt to gain economic control over the dominant empire of the time,
fed up with prejudice and hatred, removals and evictions every time they
insinuated themselves into society and eroded the tax base, and I think
those decisions were made to keep this from happening again: From these
decisions, the pious, prestigious, upmarket, socially acceptable
casinos called stock exchanges, or commodity markets were invented.
Tulip bulbs were then and still are a relatively worthless commodity.
For over a hundred years, stock markets – commodity exchanges –
appeared in the cities of Europe, innocence itself. And nothing like
gambling on a sure thing, even though underneath the insouciance lay the
knowledge that the house always wins: the market trader takes a
commission on a sell and another on a buy. Securitization and fraudulent
Default Swap Options came sometime later, but the basics were in.
And therein we had the stolid Dutch middle-class burgher investing
his money sensibly in the future prices of wheat, corn, sorghum, pork
belly, your basic trading stuff, commodities, much dependent on weather
and other variables, but still sensible. Except for the tulips. And so
here we are again today, but without a Tiberius and without a Henry: on
the one hand, most people and nations are under an unsustainable and
growing mountain of debt overhanging their economies, bankrupt economies
around the world with their GDP – traditionally used for services to
the people – diverted to pay interest on that debt aka ‘Economic
Globalization’.
On the other hand, a growing number of individuals and communities
around the world have formed an antithesis to this globalism by
localizing their economies, creating, harvesting and growing their own
local goods and services, a natural, creative, innovative and human
response to the globalization of economies, which has been nothing but
the massing of resources for the wealthy for centuries. The permanent
solution lies of course, in a Permaculture of community gardens: The
Beginning of the World as We Will Know It?
President Barack Obama on Friday nominated Eric K.
Fanning to be secretary of the Army, which could make him the first
openly gay secretary of a U.S. military branch.
The U.S. Senate must confirm Fanning before he can lead the Army.
“Eric brings many years of proven experience and exceptional
leadership to this new role,” the President said in a statement. “I am
grateful for his commitment to our men and women in uniform, and I am
confident he will help lead America’s Soldiers with distinction.” This historic move is one of many steps the Obama
administration has taken to advance the rights of the LGBT community in
the armed forces.
…
Fanning has served as acting under secretary of the Army since June,
and before that, served as chief of staff to Secretary of Defense Ash
Carter. Fanning also served as under secretary of the Air Force and
deputy undersecretary of the Navy.
In a statement, Carter called Fanning an “excellent choice” to lead the Army.
…
The American Military Partner Association, a support group for the
families of LGBT service members, also praised Obama’s decision.
“We are thrilled to see Eric Fanning nominated to lead the world’s
greatest Army,” AMPA President Ashley Broadway-Mack said in a statement.
“History continues to be written and equality marches forward
with the nomination of an openly gay man to serve in this significantly
important role. Fanning’s expertise and knowledge within the
defense community together with his sensitivity to issues faced by LGBT
service members and their families is why we urge the Senate to move
quickly to confirm his appointment.”
Race hatred is a Zionist, not a Christian, strategy.
The Zionist-Created
Scofield 'Bible' The Source Of The Problem In The Mideast - Part 2
Why Judeo-Christians Support War
By C. E. Carlson
12-11-4
The French author, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote Democracy
in America when he traveled here in the first third of the 19th Century.
In ringing tones he sang the praises of America's invulnerable strength
and spirit. He attributed its greatness to its citizens' sense of morality...
even with the abundant church attendances he observed in America. De Tocqueville
wrote in French and is credited with this familiar quote: AMERICA IS GREAT
BECAUSE SHE IS GOOD, AND IF AMERICA EVER CEASES TO BE GOOD, SHE WILL CEASE
TO BE GREAT.
De Tocqueville could see the power of America, but he
could not have known in 1830 that she was soon to be under an attack aimed
at its churches and the very sense of morality that he extolled.
First, there was a War Between the States, which scarred
the powerful young nation in its strapping youth. A worse attack on America
was to commence near the turn of the 20th century. This was the onset of
an attack on American Christianity that continues unabated against the
traditional, Christ-following church. This attack, which author Gordon
Ginn calls "The final Apostasy," began with a small very wealthy
and determined European political movement. It had a dream, and the American
churches stood in its way.
The World Zionist movement, as its Jewish founders called
themselves, had plans to acquire a homeland for all Jews worldwide, even
though most were far from homeless, and many did not want another home.
Not any land would do. World Zionists wanted a specific property that American
Christians called "the Holy Land." But if these Zionists read
"Democracy in America" or any of the journals of any of America's
churches, which no doubt they did, they could not help but know that Jerusalem
was not theirs to have. As self-proclaimed Jews, they were, according to
the Christian New Testament, the persecutors of Christ and most of his
early followers, and the engineers of his crucifixion. America's traditional
churches in the 19th Century would never stand for a Jewish occupation
of Jesus' homeland.
World Zionist leaders initiated a program to change America
and its religious orientation. One of the tools used to accomplish this
goal was an obscure and malleable Civil War veteran named Cyrus I. Schofield.
A much larger tool was a venerable, world respected European book publisher--The
Oxford University Press.
The scheme was to alter the Christian view of Zionism
by creating and promoting a pro-Zionist subculture within Christianity.
Scofield's role was to re-write the King James Version of the Bible by
inserting Zionist-friendly notes in the margins, between verses and chapters,
and on the bottoms of the pages. The Oxford University Press used Scofield,
a pastor by then, as the Editor, probably because it needed such as man
for a front. The revised bible was called the Scofield Reference Bible,
and with limitless advertising and promotion, it became a best-selling
"bible" in America and has remained so for 90 years.
The Scofield Reference Bible was not to be just another
translation, subverting minor passages a little at a time. No, Scofield
produced a revolutionary book that radically changed the context of the
King James Version. It was designed to create a subculture around a new
worship icon, the modern State of Israel, a state that did not yet exist,
but which was already on the drawing boards of the committed, well-funded
authors of World Zionism.
Scofield's support came from a movement that took root
around the turn of the century, supposedly motivated by disillusionment
over what it considered the stagnation of the mainline American churches.
Some of these "reformers" were later to serve on Scofield's Editorial
Committee.
Scofield imitated a chain of past heretics and rapturists,
most of whose credibility fizzled over their faulty end times prophesies.
His mentor was one John Nelson Darby from Scotland, who was associated
with the Plymouth Brethren and who made no less than six evangelical trips
to the US selling what is today called "Darbyism." It is from
Darby that Scofield is thought to have learned his Christian Zionist theology,
which he later planted in the footnotes of the Scofield Reference Bible.
It is possible that Scofield's interest in Darbyism was shared by Oxford
University Press, for Darby was known to Oxford University. A History of
The Plymouth Brethren By William Blair Neatby, M.A.
The Oxford University Press owned "The Scofield
Reference Bible" from the beginning, as indicated by its copyright,
and Scofield stated he received handsome royalties from Oxford. Oxford's
advertisers and promoters succeeded in making Scofield's bible, with its
Christian Zionist footnotes, a standard for interpreting scripture in Judeo-Christian
churches, seminaries, and Bible study groups. It has been published in
at least four editions since its introduction in 1908 and remains one of
the largest selling Bibles ever.
The Scofield Reference Bible and its several clones is
all but worshiped in the ranks of celebrity Christians, beginning with
the first media icon, evangelist Billy Graham. Of particular importance
to the Zionist penetration of American Christian churches has been the
fast growth of national bible study organizations, such as Bible Study
Fellowship and Precept Ministries. These draw millions of students from
not only evangelical fundamentalist churches, but also from Catholic and
mainline Protestant churches and non-church contacts. These invariably
teach forms of "dispensationalism," which draw their theory,
to various degrees, from the notes in the Oxford Bible.
Among more traditional churches that encourage, and in
some cases recommend, the use of the Scofield Reference Bible is the huge
Southern Baptist Convention of America, whose capture is World Zionism's
crowning achievement. Our report on Southern Baptist Zionism, entitled
"The Cause of the Conflict: Fixing Blame.
Scofield, whose work is largely believed to be the product
of Darby and others, wisely chose not to change the text of the King James
Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy-to-read footnotes at the bottom
of about half of the pages, and as the Old English grammar of the KJE becomes
increasingly difficult for progressive generations of readers, students
become increasingly dependent on the modern language footnotes.
Scofield's notes weave parts of the Old and New Testaments
together as though all were written at the same time by the same people.
This is a favorite device of modern dispensationalists who essentially
weigh all scripture against the unspoken and preposterous theory that the
older it is, the more authoritative. In many cases the Oxford references
prove to be puzzling rabbit trails leading nowhere, simply diversions.
Scofield's borrowed ideas were later popularized under the labels and definitions
that have evolved into common usage today--"pre-millennialism,"
"dispensationalism," "Judeo-Christianity," and most
recently the highly political movement openly called "Christian Zionism."
Thanks to the work of a few dedicated researchers, much
of the questionable personal history of Cyrus I. Scofield is available.
It reveals he was not a Bible scholar as one might expect, but a political
animal with the charm and talent for self-promotion of a Bill Clinton.
Scofield's background reveals a criminal history, a deserted wife, a wrecked
family, and a penchant for self-serving lies. He was exactly the sort of
man the World Zionists might hire to bend Christian thought--a controllable
man and one capable of carrying the secret to his grave. (See The Incredible
Scofield and His Book by Joseph M. Canfield).
Other researchers have examined Scofield's eschatology
and exposed his original work as apostate and heretic to traditional Christian
views. Among these is a massive work by Stephen Sizer entitled Christian
Zionism, Its History, Theology and Politics, Christ Church Vicarage, Virginia
Water, GU25 4LD, England
We Hold These Truths is grateful to these dedicated researchers.
Our own examination of the Oxford Bible has gone in another direction,
focusing not on what Scofield wrote, but on some of the many additions
and deletions The Oxford University Press has continued to make to Scofield
Reference Bible since his death in 1921. These alterations have further
radicalized the Scofield Bible into a manual for the Christian worship
of the State of Israel beyond what Schofield would have dreamed of. This
un-Christian anti-Arab theology has permitted the theft of Palestine and
54 years of death and destruction against the Palestinians, with hardly
a complaint from the Judeo-Christian mass media evangelists or most other
American church leaders. We thank God for the exceptions.
It is no exaggeration to say that the 1967 Oxford 4th
Edition deifies--makes a God of--the State of Israel, a state that did
not even exist when Scofield wrote the original footnotes in 1908. This
writer believes that, had it not been for misguided anti-Arab race hatred
promoted by Christian Zionist leaders in America, neither the Gulf War
nor the Israeli war against the Palestinians would have occurred, and a
million or more people who have perished would be alive today.
What proof does WHTT have to incriminate World Zionism
in a scheme to control Christianity? For proof we offer the words themselves
that were planted in the 1967 Edition, 20 years after the State of Israel
was created in 1947, and 46 years after Scofield's death. The words tell
us that those who control the Oxford Press recreated a bible to misguide
Christians and sell flaming Zionism in the churches of America.
There is little reason to believe that Scofield knew
or cared much about the Zionist movement, but at some point, he became
involved in a close and secret relationship with Samuel Untermeyer, a New
York lawyer whose firm still exists today and one of the wealthiest and
most powerful World Zionists in America. Untermeyer controlled the unbreakable
thread that connected him with Scofield. They shared a password and a common
watering hole--and it appears that Untermeyer may have been the one who
provided the money that Scofield himself lacked. Scofield's success as
an international bible editor without portfolio and his lavish living in
Europe could only have been accomplished with financial aid and international
influence.
This connection might have remained hidden, were it not
for the work of Joseph M. Canfield, the author and researcher who discovered
clues to the thread in Scofield family papers. But even had the threads
connecting Scofield to Untermeyer and Zionism never been exposed, it would
still be obvious that that connection was there. It is significant that
Oxford, not Scofield, owned the book, and that after Scofield's death,
Oxford accelerated changes to it. Since the death of its original author
and namesake, The Scofield Reference Bible has gone through several editions.
Massive pro-Zionist notes were added to the 1967 edition, and some of Scofield's
most significant notes from the original editions were removed where they
apparently failed to further Zionist aims fast enough. Yet this edition
retains the title, "The New Scofield Reference Bible, Holy Bible,
Editor C.I. Scofield." It's anti-Arab, Christian subculture theology
has made an enormous contribution to war, turning Christians into participants
in genocide against Arabs in the latter half of the 20th century.
The most convincing evidence of the unseen Zionist hand
that wrote the Scofield notes to the venerable King James Bible is the
content of the notes themselves, for only Zionists could have written them.
These notes are the subject of this paper.
Oxford edited the former 1945 Edition of SRB in 1967,
at the time of the Six Day War when Israel occupied Palestine. The new
footnotes to the King James Bible presumptuously granted the rights to
the Palestinians' land to the State of Israel and specifically denied the
Arab Palestinians any such rights at all. One of the most brazen and outrageous
of these NEWLY INSERTED footnotes states:
"FOR A NATION TO COMMIT THE SIN OF ANTI-SEMITISM
BRINGS INEVITABLE JUDGMENT." (page 19-20, footnote (3) to Genesis
12:3.) (our emphasis added)
This statement sounds like something from Ariel Sharon,
or the Chief Rabbi in Tel Aviv, or Theodore Herzl, the founder of Modern
Zionism. But these exact words are found between the covers of the 1967
Edition of the Oxford Bible that is followed by millions of American churchgoers
and students and is used by their leaders as a source for their preaching
and teaching.
There is no word for "anti-Semitism" in the
New Testament, nor is it found among the Ten Commandments. "Sin,"
this writer was taught, is a personal concept. It is something done by
individuals in conflict with God's words, not by "nations." Even
Sodom did not sin--its people did. The word "judgment" in the
Bible always refers to God's action. In the Christian New Testament, Jesus
promises both judgment and salvation for believing individuals, not for
"nations."
There was also no "State of Israel" when Scofield
wrote his original notes in his concocted Scofield Reference Bible in 1908.
All references to Israel as a state were added AFTER 1947, when Israel
was granted statehood by edict of the United Nations. The Oxford University
Press simply rewrote its version of the Christian Bible in 1967 to make
antipathy toward the "State of Israel" a "sin." Israel
is made a god to be worshiped, not merely a "state." David Ben-Gurion
could not have written it better. Perhaps he did write it!
The Oxford 1967 Edition continues on page 19:
"(2) GOD MADE AN UNCONDITIONAL PROMISE OF BLESSINGS
THROUGH ABRAM'S SEED (a) TO THE NATION OF ISRAEL TO INHERIT A SPECIFIC
TERRITORY FOREVER"
"(3) THERE IS A PROMISE OF BLESSING UPON THOSE INDIVIDUALS
AND NATIONS WHO BLESS ABRAM'S DESCENDANTS, AND A CURSE LAID UPON THOSE
WHO PERSECUTE THE JEWS." (Page 19, 1967 Edition Genesis 12:1-3)
This bequeath is joined to an Oxford prophesy that never
occurs in the Bible itself:
"IT HAS INVARIABLY FARED ILL WITH THE PEOPLE WHO
HAVE PERSECUTED THE JEW, WELL WITH THOSE WHO HAVE PROTECTED HIM."
and "THE FUTURE WILL STILL MORE REMARKABLY PROVE THIS PRINCIPLE"(footnote
(3) bottom of page19-20Genesis 12:3)
None of these notes appeared in the original Scofield
Reference Bible or in the 1917 or 1945 editions. The state of Israel DID
NOT EXIST in 1945, and according to the best dictionaries of the time,
the word "Israel" only referred to a particular man and an ancient
tribe, which is consistent with the Bible text. See "Israel,"
Webster's New International Dictionary 2nd (1950) Edition.
All of this language, including the prophecy about the
future being really bad for those who "persecute the Jews," reflects
and furthers the goals of the Anti-Defamation League, which has a stated
goal of creating an environment where opposing the State of Israel is considered
"anti-Semitism," and "anti-Semitism" is a "hate
crime" punishable by law. This dream has become a reality in the Christian
Zionist churches of America. Only someone with these goals could have written
this footnote.
The State of Israel's legal claims to Arab lands are
based on the United Nations Partitioning Agreement of 1947, which gave
the Jews only a fraction of the land they have since occupied by force.
But when this author went to Israel and asked various Israelis where they
got the right to occupy Palestine, each invariably said words to the effect
that "God gave it to us." This interpretation of Hebrew scripture
stems from the book of Genesis and is called the "Abrahamic Covenant".
It is repeated several times and begins with God's promise to a man called
Abraham who was eventually to become the grandfather of a man called "Israel:"
"[2] AND I WILL MAKE OF THEE A GREAT NATION, AND
I WILL BLESS THEE, AND MAKE THY NAME GREAT; AND THOU SHALL BE A BLESSING:"
"[3] AND I WILL BLESS THEM THAT BLESS THEE, AND
CURSE HIM THAT CURSETH THEE: AND IN THEE SHALL ALL FAMILIES OF THE EARTH
BE BLESSED." Genesis 12:3, King James Edition.
It is upon this promise to a single person that modern
Israeli Zionists base their claims to what amounts to the entire Mid-East.
Its logic is roughly the equivalent of someone claiming to be the heir
to the John Paul Getty estate because the great man had once sent a letter
to someone's cousin seven times removed containing the salutation "wishing
you my very best." In "Sherry's War," We Hold These Truths
provides a common sense discussion of the Abrahamic Covenant and how millions
of Christians are taught to misunderstand it.
It is tempting to engage in academic arguments to show
readers the lack of logic in Scofield's theology, which has led followers
of Christ so far astray. It seems all too easy to refute the various Bible
references given in support of Scofield's strange writings. But we will
resist the temptation to do this, because others have already done it quite
well, and more importantly because it leads us off our course.
It is also inviting to dig into Scofield's sordid past
as Canfield has done, revealing him to be a convicted felon and probable
pathological liar, but we leave that to others, because our interest is
not in Scofield's life, but in saving the lives of millions of innocent
people who are threatened by the continuing Zionist push for perpetual
war.
Instead, we will examine the words on their face. The
words in these 1967 footnotes are Zionist propaganda that has been tacked
onto the text of a Christian Bible. Most of them make no sense, except
to support the Zionist State of Israel in its war against the Palestinians
and any other wars it may enter into. In this purpose, Zionism has completely
succeeded. American Judeo-Christians, more recently labeled "Christian
Zionists," have remained mute during wars upon Israel's enemies in
Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia and elsewhere. It is past time to
stop the spilling of more blood, some of it Christian blood.
Now, for evidence of the intent of the Zionist deception
of Christians, let us examine some Scofield's notes THAT HAVE BEEN ALTERED
OR REMOVED by Oxford after his death. In 1908 Scofield wrote in 1908:
"THE CONTRAST, 'I KNOW THAT YE ARE ABRAHAM'S SEED'
- 'IF YE WERE ABRAHAM'S CHILDREN' IS THAT BETWEEN THE NATURAL AND THE SPIRITUAL
POSTERITY OF ABRAHAM. THE ISRAELITISH PEOPLE AND ISHMAELITISH PEOPLE ARE
THE FORMER; ALL WHO ARE 'OF THE PRECIOUS FAITH WITH ABRAHAM,' WHETHER JEWS
OR GENTILES, ARE THE LATTER (ROM 9, 6-8; GAL, 4-14. SEE 'ABRAHAMIC COVENANT'
GEN 15, 18, NOTE)." ( Scofield's 1945 page 1127, note to John 8:39)
Compare that with the Oxford note substituted in the
1967 Edition:
"8:37 ALL JEWS ARE NATURAL DESCENDANTS OF ABRAHAM,
BUT ARE NOT NECESSARILY HIS SPIRITUAL POSTERITY, CP Rom 9-6-8, Gal 3: 6-14"
(Note (1) P1136, Oxford 1967 Edition, note to Jn 8:37.)
How, pray tell, can "all Jews" be "natural
descendants of Abraham," a Chaldean who lived some 3000 years ago?
Persons of all races are Jews and new Jews are being converted every day
from every race. One might as well say all Lutherans are the natural descendants
of Martin Luther; or that all Baptists come from the loins of John the
Baptist. This note could only have been written by an Israeli patriot,
for no one else would have a vested interest in promoting this genetic
nonsense. Shame on those who accept this racism; it is apostate Christianity.
The original Scofield note was far out of line with traditional
Christianity in 1908 and should have been treated as heresy then. Yet Scofield
had failed to go far enough for the Zionists. Scofield clearly recognized
what the book of Genesis states, that the sons of Ishmael are co-heirs
to Abraham's ancient promise. Did not Scofield say "the Israelitish
people and Ishmaelitish people are...the natural posterity of Abraham"?
The Oxford Press simply waited for Scofield to die and changed it as they
wished.
And what is it that Scofield said that did not satisfy
the Zionists who rewrote the Oxford 1967 Edition?
The answer is an easy one. Most Arab and Islamic scholars
consider Arabs in general and the Prophet Mohamed in particular to be direct
descendants of Ishmael, Abraham's first son and older half-brother of Isaac,
whose son Jacob was later to become known as "Israel." Many Arabs
believe that through Ishmael they are co-heirs of to Abraham's promise,
and they correctly believe that present-day Israelis have no Biblical right
to steal their land. Jewish Talmudic folklore also speaks of Ishmael, so
the Zionists apparently felt they had to alter how Christians viewed the
two half brothers in order to prevent Christians from siding with the Arabs
over the land theft.
The Zionists solved this dilemma by inserting a senseless
footnote in the 1967 (Oxford) Scofield Reference Bible which, in effect,
substitutes the word "Jews" for the words "The Israelitish
people and Ishmaelitish people," as Scofield originally wrote it.
The Israelitish and Ishmaelitish people lived 3000 years ago, but the Zionists
want to claim the Arabs' part of the presumed birthright right now! Read
it again; "all Jews are natural descendants of Abraham, but are not
necessarily his spiritual posterity."
And there is more of such boondogglery in the Oxford
bible. On the same page 1137 we find yet another brand new Zionist-friendly
note referring to the New Testament book of John 8:37.
"(2) 8:44 THAT THIS SATANIC FATHERHOOD CANNOT BE
LIMITED TO THE PHARISEES IS MADE CLEAR IN 1Jn3:8-10" (note SRB 1967
Edition, P1137 to John 8:44)
Let us look at the verse Oxford is trying to soften,
wherein Jesus is speaking directly to the Pharisees, who were the Jewish
leaders of his day, and to no one else:
"YE ARE OF YOUR FATHER THE DEVIL, AND THE LUST OF
YOUR FATHER YE WILL DO. HE WAS A MURDERER FROM THE BEGINNING, AND ABODE
NOT IN THE TRUTH, BECAUSE THERE IS NO TRUTH IN HIM. WHEN HE SPEAKEST A
LIE, HE SPEAKEST OF HIS OWN; FOR HE IS A LIAR, AND THE FATHER OF IT."
John 8:44 King James Ed.)
Those are plain words. No wonder the Zionists wanted
to dilute what Jesus said. Not only did Oxford add a new footnote in 1967,
but they inserted no less than four reference cues into the King James
sacred text, directing readers to their specious, apostate footnotes. It
seems the Zionists cannot deny what Jesus said about Pharisees, but they
do not want to bear the burden of being "sons of Satan" all by
themselves. Now here's the text of the verse to which Oxford refers in
order to try to solve this problem:
"HE THAT COMMITETH SIN IS OF THE DEVIL; FOR THE
DEVIL SINNETH FROM THE BEGINNING. FOR THIS PURPOSE THE SON OF GOD WAS MANIFESTED,
THAT HE MIGHT DESTROY THE WORK OF THE DEVIL." (1Jn3:8.King James Edition)
Fine, but this verse, spoken by Jesus to His followers
in a speech about avoiding sin, in no way supports Oxford's argument that
Jesus was not talking directly to and about the Pharisee leaders when he
called them "Sons of Satan" in John 8:44. It is a different book
written at a different time to a different audience. This is typical Christian
Zionist diversion.
To find out to whom Jesus is speaking you must read the
rest of John 8, not something from another book. Furthermore, John 8:44
is only one of some 77 verses where Jesus confronted the Pharisees by name
and in many cases addressed them as "satanic" and as "vipers."
Oxford simply ignores most of these denunciations by Jesus, adding no notes
at all, and the Christian Zionists go along without question.
These are a few examples of Zionist perversions of scripture
that have shaped the doctrine of America's most politically powerful religious
subculture, the "Christian Zionists" as Ariel Sharon calls them,
or the dispensationalists, as intellectual followers call themselves, or
the Judeo-Christians as our politically-correct politicians describe themselves.
Today's Mid-East wars are not caused by the predisposition of the peoples,
who are no more warlike than any human tribes. Without the pandering to
Jewish and Zionist interests that is carried out by this subculture--the
most vocal being the celebrity Christian evangelists--there would be no
such wars, for there is not enough support for war outside of organized
Zionist Christianity.
Reverend Stephen Sizer of Christ Church,Christ Church
Vicarage, Virginia Water, GU25 4LD, England is perhaps the most dedicated
new scholar writing about the Scofield Bible craze, popularly known as
Christian Zionism. He has quipped, "Judging Christianity by looking
at the American Evangelists is kind of like judging the British by watching
Benny Hill."
Reverend Sizer's remark brings to mind another Benny;
his name is Benny Hinn, not a British comic, but an American evangelist
spouting inflammatory hate-filled words aimed at Muslims everywhere. Hinn
was speaking to the applause of an aroused crowd of thousands in the American
Airline Center in Dallas when he shocked two Ft. Worth Star Telegram religious
reporters covering the July 3d event by announcing, "We are on God's
side," speaking of Palestine. He shouted, "This is not a war
between Jews and Arabs.. It is a war between God and the Devil." Lest
there be any doubt about it, Hinn was talking about a blood war in which
the Israelis are "God" and the Palestinians are "the Devil."
Benny Hinn is one of hundreds of acknowledged Christian
Zionists who have no problem spouting outright race hatred and who join
in unconditional support for Israel without regard for which or how many
of Israel's enemies are killed or crippled. His boldness stems from his
knowledge that the vast majority of professing Christians from whom he
seeks his lavish support-the Judeo-Christians, or Christian Zionists--do
not shrink at his words, because they have been conditioned to accept them,
just as Roman citizens learned to accept Christian persecution, even burning
alive, under Nero. Several evangelists in attendance affirmed their agreement
with Hinn - "the line between Christians and Muslims is the difference
between good and evil."
An amazing number of professing Christians are in agreement
with the fanatical likes of Hinn, including Gary Bauer, Ralph Reed, James
Dobson and hundreds more. Yet Hinn's profit-seeking fanaticism is not as
shocking as that of men like Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention
who occupy the highest positions in the area of conservative religious
thought. Land may have stopped short of branding all Muslims as devils,
but he attacked their leader and Prophet and stated that, according to
Baptist Bible interpretation, the Palestinian people have no legal rights
to property in Palestine. See our discussion of Southern Baptists entitled
"The Cause of the Conflict: Fixing Blame."
The more politically conservative and libertarian the
speaker expressing hatred for Islam, the more shocking the statement sounds.
One example is Samuel Blumenfeld, a veteran textbook author and advocate
of home education. His attack on Islam in a story entitled "Religion
and Satanism" in the April 2002 conservative, Calvinist Chalcedon
Report leaves little room for civil liberties and freedom of thought. He
writes, "Islam is a religion ruled by Satan," and asks, "Can
anyone under the influence of Satan be trusted?" Blumenfeld shows
poor judgment and a lack of morality when he allows phrases such as "willing
agents of Satan," "another manifestation of Satanism" and
"the willingness of Muslims to believe blatant lies," to spill
from his pen.
How can anyone interpret these words by Land, Hinn, Blumenfeld,
and yes, our own President, as anything less than race hatred? Who would
make such generalized and transparently false statements against any other
minority except Muslims?
About 100 million American Christians need to recover
their true faith in Christ Jesus, who never denounced any individual on
account of his group. Jesus even tried to save the Pharisees, and only
denounced them when they showed themselves to be deceivers. There is not
a word in the New Testament that urges any follower of Jesus to murder
one child in Iraq or condemn Palestine to death. Race hatred is a Zionist,
not a Christian, strategy.
Christian Zionism may be the most bloodthirsty apostasy
in the entire history of Christianity or any other religion. Shame on its
leaders: they have already brought the blood of untold numbers innocent
people down upon the spires and prayer benches of America's churches.
Lifeboat Ethics: Why We Must Stop the Refugee Invasion
Gerry T. Neal Council of European Canadians
September 15, 2015 What Western countries need is a break from immigration, but
instead our politicians are inundating us with waves of “refugees”. We
are doomed if we continue to base our response to the migrant crisis on
sentiment and emotion rather than facts and reason. African boat people on their way to send Europe down to the bottom
Imagine that you are on an ocean liner crossing the Atlantic. Your
pilot is a historical re-enactment fanatic who, in a moment of drunken
insanity, decides that the time is ripe for re-creating the sinking of
the Titanic and rams the ship into an iceberg. Like everyone else on
board you head to the lifeboats. You wait in line, they put you on board
a lifeboat, and when it is full lower it onto the sea.
From the safety of your lifeboat you watch the ship go down and
realize, to your horror, that something has gone wrong with the
evacuation process. A panic has broken out and in the irrational frenzy
of that panic several of the remaining lifeboats have been damaged and
rendered useless. There are no longer sufficient lifeboats to carry
everyone on the ship and people are jumping into the ocean and
desperately swimming towards the ones already afloat, including yours.
You are now faced with a dilemma. You know that your lifeboat has a
limited carrying capacity. If you let more people onto the lifeboat you
risk running out of the lifeboat’s resources before being rescued or,
worse, capsizing the lifeboat. If that happens, you will have not only
have failed to save the people you pulled from the ocean, but will have
needlessly killed yourselves in the process.
American biologist and ecologist Garrett Hardin first posed this dilemma in an article for the September 1974 edition of Psychology Today entitled “Lifeboat Ethics: The Case Against Helping the Poor”,
the awful subtitle of which, added by the editor without the author’s
approval, misses the point completely. Wealthy countries, Hardin argued,
like lifeboats have limited carrying capacities and therefore taking in
masses of immigrants from poorer countries will not solve the problems
of poor countries but will only sink our lifeboats, metaphorically
speaking.
Hardin’s article is timelier today than when it was first published
forty-one years ago. For weeks now the most important international news
item has been the horde of migrants evacuating Syria and flooding into
Europe claiming to be refugees from the war that has ravaged that
country and from the terrorism and tyranny of ISIS. The better informed
among us know that this is only part of a much larger wave of migration
from Africa and the Middle East into Europe that has been accelerating
over the last year or so. The television and newspaper media have
manipulated this story in such a way as to make us feel that Western
countries are morally obliged to take in these refugees and they have
been aided and abetted in this by irresponsible clergymen like the
present Pope and by most of our politicians who seem to be competing
with each other as to who will sink their country’s lifeboat the
fastest. It is as if they were all acting out roles in a script written
for them by Jean Raspail forty-two years ago. The Camp of the Saints (1973)
In Raspail’s apocalyptic novel, The Camp of the Saints,
an armada of one hundred ships carrying a cargo of a million of India’s
poorest and most wretched, sets sail from Calcutta en route to the
French Riviera. While many in France, including her president, can see
the handwriting on the wall and know that if their country and
civilization are to survive they must turn these invaders, armed only
with their own plight, away, they lack the moral courage to do it, being
paralysed by guilt
induced by decades of liberalism. With the exception of a small handful
of heroes in which the spirit of the old West lingers on, France
succumbs to an invasion that is cheered on by her own media,
politicians, and church.1
When Hardin first used the lifeboat metaphor his concern was a
country’s limited supply of material resources. What Raspail’s novel
illustrates is that there are more important things at stake in keeping
our lifeboats afloat. Our customs, way of life, beliefs, laws,
traditions, history, and our very identity are all more important than
physical resources. Indeed, it is these things which make possible the
conditions that are attracting all of these migrants from other parts of
the world.
Laws which protect and secure our persons and property, a respect for
personal liberty that allows us to thrive and prosper balanced with a
sense of fairness and justice that demands that we collectively look
after the weaker and less successful among us, with recognized,
established, and, for the most part respected, civil rights do not just
come about on their own. Whether these things draw immigrants for their
own sake or for the sake of the abundance of material goods that these
make widely available in our countries, we tend to think of them as
being based upon universal, abstract, principles available through
reason to anyone, anywhere, at any time. This liberal assumption,
however, does not bear the scrutiny of history in which these things
developed slowly within the context of national cultures that claimed
the heritage of classical Greco-Roman antiquity and of Christendom as
their own. Should those cultures go down with our lifeboats, there is
not the slightest shred of evidence that these things would survive, and
there is plenty of evidence that they will not do so in the failed
states that were once thriving colonies of European empires.
Make no mistake — the sinking of our national lifeboats, and our
entire civilization along with them, is the doom that we choose for
ourselves if we continue to base our response to the refugee crisis on
sentiment and emotion rather than facts and reason. It is not as if the
refugees were pouring into a healthy Europe of countries confident in
their traditions and identities. They are pouring into a Europe which
has experienced decades of low fertility in which governments have
relied upon large scale immigration to keep their population levels up, a
pattern encouraged by the European Union that has developed over the
same period of time. While a healthy country can take in and absorb a
certain number of immigrants without harm to itself, for a country to rely upon large numbers of immigrants to make up for low fertility
as a long-term policy is to adopt a policy of population replacement
over reproduction which is to embrace its own death as a nation.
After several decades of this, what Western countries need is a break
from immigration, but what our politicians are offering us instead is
to inundate us yet further with thousands of migrants who claim to be
refugees but are clearly behaving more like a mob of invaders. The
British government has offered to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees by
2020, with the opposition party and its supporters complaining that this
is not enough. The governments of Germany and Austria have opened their
borders wide to any and all claiming asylum. Even here in Canada, an
ocean and half a world removed from the Middle East, each of the two
largest opposition parties are vying to outdo the other in accusing the
present government of culpability in the death of the three year old boy
whom the media have been dishonestly presenting as a victim of Western
heartlessness and in the tens of thousands of refugees they are
promising to resettle should they win the upcoming election. Pushing
the right buttons with the West’s pathological altruists:
Border-breaching migrant shoving his child against Macedonian police
cordon
There are those, of course, who will insist that to think about
preserving our national identities, cultures, and ways of life while
other people are fleeing persecution and war is to show a lack of
perspective and wrong priorities. They might further insist that the
idea that we should not think only of ourselves but of others as well is
the highest ethical principle of the faith at the heart of our
traditional cultures and that to abandon that principle is also, in a
sense, to lose who we are. While these objections should not be lightly
dismissed, we must distinguish between moral principles themselves and
the sentimental way in which some would apply them.
The Golden Rule tells us to “do unto others as you would have them do
unto you” but as none of us in our right mind would want another
country to take us in if it did so in such numbers that it lost
everything that made us want to move there in the first place, this
clearly does not contradict the logic of lifeboat ethics, whatever the
current pretender to St. Peter’s throne has to say about it.
Christianity calls upon us to follow the example of Christ, and that
example is one of self-sacrifice for the sake of others, but a cross is
something that can only be taken up individually, not collectively. It
is one thing to throw yourself in front of a bullet to save another
person. It is quite another thing to put your child in the way of the
bullet and then later try to claim the laurels of a hero. To insist that
out of humanitarianism and compassion we resettle this growing flood of
migrants in Western countries is to be like the latter person, not the
former.
Worse, as is the whole point of the lifeboat metaphor, it is to be
like the man who credits himself for heroism for sacrificing his child
but failing to stop the bullet. [1] English translation of The Camp of the Saints (PDF), free to download
UN Confirms 72% of Nonwhite Invaders are Men; ISIS Boasted 500,000-Strong Invasion Force
The New Observer
September 15, 2015
Official figures from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
have shown that at the end of August, 72% of the nonwhite invasion force
registered by that office were men—an eerie echo of the claim ISIS made
in February that they would infiltrate “500,000” soldiers into Europe
to wage war on the continent. According to the UN figures—which
they openly admit are an underestimate—women make up 15% of the
invasion, and children of both sexes 13%. Nonetheless, the controlled
media insists on showing mainly women and children as “refugees” instead
of the overwhelming mass of young males, in an effort to disguise the
true nature of the invasion and to engender sympathy from misguided
Europeans.
The admission that the vast majority of the invasion force are men—the first official concession in this regard—was predicted back in February 2015,
when ISIS spokesmen were quoted in the media as claiming that jihadists
were going to use the European Union’s acceptance of refugees as a
“gateway.”
It was reported that jihadists hoped to flood Libya “with militiamen
from Syria and Iraq, who will then sail across the Mediterranean posing
as migrants on people trafficking vessels.”
The quoted document was written by an Islamic State of Iraq and the
Levant (Isil) propagandist Abu Arhim al-Libim who works as an online
recruiter for the ISIS groups in Libya, where security has collapsed in
the wake of the EU’s destruction of the Gaddafi regime in 2011.
The Isil document pointed out that Libya was “awash with weapons from
the Libyan civil war,” as the EU-caused collapse of Gadaffi turned over
the state’s weapons’ caches to the “rebels”—who all turned out to be
Islamist fanatics, just like the US-backed “rebels” in Syria.
Libim added that Libya is less than 300 miles from parts of the
nearest European mainland, saying that “It has a long coast and looks
upon the southern Crusader states, which can be reached with ease by
even a rudimentary boat.
“The number of trips known as ‘illegal immigration’ from this coast,
which are huge in number … if this was even partially exploited and
developed strategically, pandemonium could be wrought in the southern
European states and it is even possible that there could be a closure of
shipping lines and targeting of Crusader ships and tankers.”
The nonwhite invasion of Europe across the Mediterranean has not
slacked off during the renewed land assault through southern Europe from
Turkey. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM),
115,000 have arrived this year so far in Italy, another 2,100 in Spain,
and 230,000 in Greece. The IOM points out that their figures do not
include those who got in undetected.
The IOM has confirmed the UN’s figures of the invasion force being overwhelmingly adult males. In one country alone, Macedonia, the IOM reported
that the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’s Ministry of Interior,
between June 19 and September 7, 2015, a total of 64,522 invaders were
registered, out of which 43,671 or 68% were men; and only 8,857 women;
10,386 were children accompanied by a family member, and 1,608
unaccompanied minors.
The IOM added that the “current average arrival rate at the southern
border [of Macedonia] is estimated at more than 3,000 per day.”
* The UNHCR report also revealed that only half of the “war refugees”
are coming from actual war zones. According to the UN figures, 50% of
registered “Mediterranean sea arrivals” come from Syria, 13% from
Afghanistan, 8% from Eritrea, 4% from Nigeria, 3% from Somalia, 3% from
Pakistan, 3% from Iraq, 2% from Sudan, 1% from Gambia, and 1% from
Bangladesh.
It is clear therefore, even according to UNHCR figures, that the vast
majority of this nonwhite invasion force do not qualify in any way as
“refugees” or asylum seekers—as defined by the UN’s own rules.
The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.
“ […] He who controls the past
controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” –
George Orwell, 1984
The powers that be are interested in control, not in freedom. That much is understood.
James Kirkpatrick VDARE
September 3, 2015 It’s like the Middle Passage all over again
Poor Tay-Tay. She just can’t win.
Taylor Swift has been trying her best to appeal to more “vibrant” consumers as of late, but it never seems to do her any good. She’s learning the hard way that any kind of engagement with black culture or Africa is automatically racist.
After a blowup a few months ago with
escaped laboratory experiment Nicki Minaj, Swift went on to win “Best
Video of the Year” at the 2015 Video Music Awards last weekend. Alas,
even in triumph, she made a fatal misstep when she premiered her new
video, Wildest Love.
This was a crucial mistake because cisgendered White people need to
understand that they can’t talk about Africa without being racist. If
you portray Africa as a Third World hellhole, you are a racist. But if
you portray it in a positive way, as Swift does here, you are also being
racist.
The racial rent seekers were quick to pounce.
NPR’s Viviane Rutabingwa, who has an African heritage [editor’s note – and is evidently basing a career on it] said:
‘We are shocked to think that in 2015, Taylor Swift, her record label
and her video production group would think it was OK to film a video
that presents a glamorous version of the white colonial fantasy of
Africa.’
She added: ‘Swift’s music is entertaining
for many. She should absolutely be able to use any location as a
backdrop. But she packages our continent as the backdrop for her
romantic songs devoid of any African person or storyline, and she sets
the video in a time when the people depicted by Swift and her co-stars
killed, dehumanized and traumatized millions of Africans.
‘That is beyond problematic.’
The Daily Dot’s Nico Lang
wrote: ‘An homage to a love triangle about white colonialists is going
to present some, uh, challenges to an artist who just wants to make a
three-minute music video to put on her VEVO page – and Taylor Swift
found that out the hard way.
‘Even the most casual observer would have
noticed that – for a clip that’s set in Africa – it’s about as white as a
Sunday morning farmer’s market.
‘The video wants to have its old-school Hollywood romance but ends up eating some old-school Hollywood racism, too.’
Isn’t that comment about “white as a Sunday morning farmer’s market” kind of racist? Sort of like saying “black as a Section 8 housing lottery.” That’s a terrible generalization to make.
Notice also how simply stating the current year (“we are shocked to think that in 2015…) is used as an argument in itself.
But Swift is in trouble for channeling a
“romantic” image of European colonialism. It is indeed startling to
remember that there was a time when vast swathes of African territory
were well governed, orderly, and prosperous. The dystopian hellhole now
known as Zimbabwe was once Rhodesia, the breadbasket of Africa, before
being handed over to Communist thugs at the West’s insistence. It’s not
surprising that the best thing to do is just not bring up these kinds of
“problematic” comparisons between past and present.
The fact is, you can’t use Africa as any
kind of a backdrop without getting in trouble. During the World Cup in
South Africa, Shakira made a video entitled “Waka Waka (This Time for Africa)”
which was so sentimental and syrupy sweet, I thought it was a parody.
(One was reminded of the character of Patrick Bateman in American Psycho trying to make up a plausible Broadway musical,
and coming up with “Oh Africa, Brave Africa,” which he describes as a
“laugh riot.”) And yet Shakira was also accused of various forms of
cultural exploitation and appropriation. [Undermining African Intellectual and Aristic Rights: Shakira, Zangalewa & the World Cup Anthem, by Dibussi Tande, Scribbles from the Den, May 23, 2010].
So why bother thinking about Africa at all? If you start thinking about it, you might start noticing things, and if you start noticing things, your career is likely to come to an abrupt halt.
But if you really want to watch a video on Youtube about Africa and colonialism, I’ve got a suggestion. It’s called Africa Addio, and you can watch it on Youtube.
Lost in all the controversy is the fact that Swift’s video was
supposed to help animals in Africa, which was something we were all
supposed to care about (remember Cecil the Lion?)
But as you’ll see above, that kind of care for the environment is
another one of those things that you only get under Western rule.
As for Taylor, she’s got enough money and fans that she’ll be okay.
But go the full Trump, Taylor! Have your next video be a love story
set at the Voortrekker Monument. Now that would be a Twitter blowup on social media worth seeing.
Constititution
of the United States: 1stAmendment, Bill of Rights
: "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances."
