…by Jonas E. Alexis
When I refer to “the Jews” here and in subsequent articles, I am in no way referring to every single ethnic Jew who ever lived. Most often I am speaking about a theological teaching and the political and ideological implications of that theological teaching on the Jewish people in general.
If scholars and people of all stripes want to understand the Jewish question and its ramifications on the Western world and the Middle East, they ought to go to the root of the problem and see how this plays out in the political and ideological realm.
One needn’t be a Christian to understand this issue. You may choose not to believe in the following principles, but at least try to understand them.
The oft-repeated term “the Jews” takes a somewhat different turn in the New Testament, most particularly in the gospel of John and the book of Acts; on many occasions, the phraseology changes into a theological conflict, and one of the theological meanings is that it is referred to as “the enemies of Jesus.”
One commentator declares that the gospel of John offers three definitions of “the Jews”: the inhabitants in the land, the Pharisees and Sadducees who were part of the Sanhedrin, and of course “the enemies of Jesus.”
The theological conflict does not rest on the first two definitions, since they are primarily of ethnicity. The definition most often used in the gospel of John and throughout the book of Acts and indeed the book of Revelation is the latter one.
The gospel of John constantly refers to those who metaphysically and categorically reject Christ as “the Jews,” meaning the Pharisees and religious leaders who had control over not only the Synagogue but over the lives of others.
For example, John tells us that after a number of events, “Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him” (John 7:1).
At other occasions, “Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews” (John 7:13). That pattern continues in subsequent chapters, particularly in chapter 9; 10:19-42; 12:37-43; and 19:20. For example, in John 10:31, it says that “the Jews took up stones again to stone him.”
Of course those Jews were not his disciples or the average person. Those Jews were the religious leaders who earlier cat people out of the temple because those people believe that Jesus was the Messiah.
It is very important to note that in the book of Acts, the phraseology “the Jews” was also used to denote a denial of the teachings of Christ and referred to those who persecuted Christians. We read:
“After that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him [Paul]” (Acts 9:23). Also, “But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming” (Acts 13:45, 50).
Scholars like David G. Peterson admit that Luke uses the term “the Jews” “quite narrowly” here, but indirectly stay away from its theological context, saying that “it seems unlikely that all the Jews who were enthusiastic about the new teaching turned against it so suddenly.”
Of course not all ethnic Jews turned against the teachings of Paul, but those who came to embrace Paul’s teachings were persecuted by those who did not.
In other words, according to this reasoning, once an ethnic Jew becomes a Christian, he is cut off from the Pharisaic or Talmudic Jew.
Many Jewish scholars affirm this belief. Even Alan Dershowitz implicitly admits that the issue here is primarily theological or ideological.
Dershowitz believes that the term Jew can no longer be applied to Jews who embrace Christianity. In his book The Vanishing American Jew, Dershowitz states,
“In America, and in other nations that separate church from state, one’s Jewishness is a matter of self-definition and anyone who wants to be considered a Jew or a half Jew, or a partial Jew or a person of Jewish heritage has a right to be so considered.”
Everyone can become Jew if he has a “Jewish blood,” but Christians, Dershowitz clarifies, are not entitled to this definition. He declares,
“I do not mean to include former Jews who practice Christianity under the deliberately misleading name of Jews for Jesus. A Jew for Jesus already has a name: a Christian.”
Noted Jewish scholar Jacob Neusner agrees, saying that “Jews who practice Christianity cease to be part of the ethnic Jewish community, while those who practice Buddhism remain within.”
This attitude stretches into history as well; Heinrich Graetz notes that
“An actual line of separation was drawn between Jews and Jewish Christians; the latter were placed below the sect of Samaritans, and in some respects below heathens.
“It was forbidden to partake of meat, bread, and wine with the Jewish Christians, as had been the case shortly before the destruction of the Temple with regard to the heathens, and to the same end—that of preventing closer intercourse with them. The Christian writings were condemned, and were put on par with books of magic.”
So, a Jew, according to these parameters, is theologically anti-Christian. Moreover, any culture that seems to be friendly to Christianity is ideologically viewed as a cancer in the eyes of Jewish revolutionaries. As Jewish revolutionary Willi Munzenberg put it:
“We must organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western Civilization stink! Only then, after they have corrupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Lasha Darkoomn has pointed out that this Jewish culture of death was quite vivid in the Weimar Republic, when Jewish revolutionaries were promoting pornography to morally scalp the Germans.
Even prior to that period, some German Jewish scholars and intellectuals began to espouse hatred for the German culture and heritage. In 1868, Heinrich Graetz himself wrote a letter to Moses Hess, Karl Marx’s collaborator, saying,
“I am looking forward with pleasure to flogging the Germans and their leaders—Schleirmacher, Fichte, and the whole wretched Romantic school.” Graetz also wrote to Hess, “We must above all work to shatter Christianity.”
As I will point out in a future article, this was one of the breaking points during the rise of Nazi Germany.
Jewish historian Sarah Gordon shows in her philo-Semitic work Hitler, Germans, and the “Jewish Question” that in 1931 Jews largely took control of the arts, both theater and film, in Germany.
Jews also became “very influential as editors and journalists for leading newspapers such as the Berliner Tageblatt, Vossiche Zeitung, and Frankfurter Zeitung.”
Instead of appreciating German culture or respecting its mores, once they gained power, “many of them tended to use their works as vehicles to oppose or criticize prevalent German values.
This offended a great number of non-Jews and Jews alike, and the anti-Semites attacked such works as being ‘un-German’ and ‘alien.’”
Adolf Hitler himself witnessed Jewish traffickers and prostitutes and how the German culture was quickly slipping into sexual decadence while in Vienna. He lamented shortly after World War I:
“In no other city of Western Europe could the relationship between Jewry and prostitution…be studied better than in Vienna…An icy shudder ran down my spine when seeing for the first time the Jew as an evil, shameless and calculating manager of this shocking vice, the outcome of the scum of the big city.”
Put simply, Munzenberg thought that Jewish subversive intellectuals and revolutionaries would play an influential role in bringing about the downfall of Western Civilization. This is not far-fetched.
Sigmund Freud for example was a Jew who, despite “atheistic” leanings and pretensions, created psychoanalysis deliberately to subvert Christianity. In fact, he often referred to himself as “a fanatical Jew,” declaring, “I have often felt as though I inherited all the obstinacy and all the passions of our ancestors when they defended their temple, as though I could throw away my life with joy for a great moment.”
Freud here is talking about the Jewish Temple that was destroyed by Titus in A.D. 70. (We will look at the history of this phenomenon at another occasion.)
Jewish author M. Hirsh Goldberg, in his book The Jewish Connection, implicitly agrees that Freud adopted atheism for ideological purposes. He writes:
“Although Freud openly questioned all religion, including Judaism, he always thought of himself as a Jew and raised his six children as Jews. In a letter to his fiancée written in 1882, Freud concluded that ‘something of the core, of the essence of this meaningful and life-affirming Judaism will not be absent from our home.’”
THEOLOGICAL CONFLICTS AND POLITICAL/IDEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS
In general, the Jewish question entails a theological meaning. When “the Gentiles heard” the good news of the gospel, “they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord,” but “the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts” (Acts 13:48, 50).
The seventeenth chapter of Acts also makes reference to this: “But the Jews which believed not, moved with envy, took unto them certain lewd fellows of the baser sort, and gathered a company, and set all the city on an uproar, and assaulted the house of Jason, and sought to bring them out to the people” (Acts 17:5).
The following chapter declares, “And when Gallio was the deputy of Achaia, the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul, and brought him to the judgment seat” (Acts 18:12).
We read again that when Paul stayed in Macedonia, “when the Jews laid in wait for him, as he was about the sail into Syria, he purposed to return through Macedonia” (Acts 20:3).
It was very clear that “the Jews at Jerusalem” intended to kill Paul; he was specifically warned not to go there (Acts 21:10-14). Moving on to the book of Thessalonians, Paul writes that Christians at the time
“have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men” (1 Thessalonians 2:14-15).
It was quite obvious that the Jews who followed the Pharisaic doctrine had a huge following. One of the recurring themes in the gospel of John is that certain things happen or did not happen because the people “fear the Jews,” or “for fear of the Jews.”
What, then, John mean by “fear of the Jews”? John was a Jew, and Jesus and His followers were Jews. Surely John is not talking about ethnicity here.
It is very clear that in the gospel of John as well as throughout the New Testament, Jesus had theological conflicts with the Pharisees and their doctrines, and it is for this purpose that John applies the term “the Jews.” In the book of Revelation, John applies the term “the synagogue of Satan” to those Jews who say they are Jews but in reality are liars.
So the real issue again is not about ethnicity but theology. The Jews proved this point themselves by casting those Jews who believed in Jesus out of the temple. If it was about ethnicity, they wouldn’t be ostracizing people because the outcasts and antagonists were all ethnic Jews.
We have already seen how this definition still applies today. In a nutshell, the Jews are, in Paul’s words, “contrary to all men” precisely because they reject reason and embrace subversive movements. Those subversive movements always create shockwaves whenever they are consistently followed.
But the primary target of those movements is a full frontal attack on Christianity which can happen either implicitly or explicitly. The Middle Ages were not exception.
Jewish scholar Daniel J. Lasker of Ben-Gurion University, Israel, writes in his highly technical study Jewish Philosophical Polemics Against Christianity in the Middle Ages that even in the second century, records of “Jewish denigration of the New Testament” can be found among Jewish writers who were aware of the sharp differences between Christianity and Judaism. Lasker writes,
“While there are various hints of such treatment in different sections of the Talmud, the classic example of Jewish defamation of the New Testament is a parody Toledot Yeshu.
“In this work, the miracles attributed to Jesus are said to have been performed by means of magic, and Jesus is regarded not as the son of God but as the illegitimate offspring of Mary and a Roman soldier.”
Moving on to the ninth and tenth centuries and beyond, anti-Christian polemics can be found in the works of Jewish philosophers and writers such as Dawul al-Muqammis, Rav Saadia Gaon, Yaqub al-Qirqisani, Yefet ben Eli, Yusuf al-Basir, Abraham bar Hiyya, Judah Halevi, Abraham ibn Ezra, Abraham ibn Daud, and Maimonides,
“all [of which] included anti-Christian remarks and arguments as intrinsic parts of their theological speculations, usually concerning the absolute unity of God.”
In Europe, early writers like Jacob ben Reuben and Joseph Kimhi, who “attacked Christianity as incompatible with reason,” were “loyal to Judaism and believed that Christianity is a false religion.”
With the culmination of all these, “By the late fourteenth century, Prague had turned into a major center of both philosophy and anti-Christian polemic.”
In the fifteenth century, those anti-Christian polemics began to bear fruit when priests took up the sword and allied themselves with Jewish subversive movements. By that time, Prague had truly become a Jewish revolutionary cell where apostate priests began to smear excrements on churches, an issue we shall examine in future articles.
Because of its anti-Judaic sentiment,
“the New Testament was rejected by the Jews…Arguments from New Testament verses would have had little effect on Jews, who did not impute validity on the text.
“The Jews, for their part, referred to the New Testament as aven gillayon (falsehood of blank paper) or avon gillayon (sinfulness of blank paper), making a play on the Greek evangelion.”
Even Norman Podhoretz notes that Jews “emerged from the Middle Ages knowing for a certainty that—individual exceptions duly noted—the worst enemy they had in the world was Christianity: the churches in which it was embodied—whether Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox or Protestant—and the people who prayed in and were shaped by them. It was a knowledge that Jewish experience in the ages to come would do very little, if anything at all, to help future generations to forget.”
JEWISH PERSECUTION OF THE EARLY CHURCH
It is well documented that
“Excommunication was such a serious matter in ancient Judaism that it can—and often does—involve persecution. [Ralph P.] Martin notes that ultimately ‘the demise of Jewish membership in the Christian Church was hastened by punishment and persecution of Christian Jews within the synagogue, eventually followed by expulsion from the synagogue.
“This ecclesiastical exclusion not only involves social ostracizing from family and friends, but outside the borders of Israel it legally endangers the individual in that ‘expulsion from the synagogue deprived Christians of the shelter of Judaism and left them vulnerable to the Romans’…
“Eusebius writes: ‘Now that the ascension of our Savior in addition to their crime against him the Jews at once contrived numberless plots against his disciples’ and ‘the other Apostles were driven from the land of Judaea by thousands of deadly plots.’ Tertullian calls the synagogues of the Jews ‘fountains of persecution’.
Roman historian Suetonius declared that “as the Jews were indulging in constant riots at the instigation of Chrestus [‘Christ’], [Emperor Claudius] banished them from Rome.”
Edward Gibbon, who was no friend of Christianity, saw that Nero’s source of hatred against the Christians largely came from the Jews who
“possessed very powerful advocates in the palace, and even in the heart of the tyrant: his wife and mistress, the beautiful Poppaea, and a favourite player of the race of Abraham.”
Historian W. H. C. Frend tells us the same thing, that “in the persons of Poppaea Sabina and the actor Tigellinus they had the ear of the Emperor, and they succeeded in so far as a great number of Christians were killed, including the leaders, Peter and Paul.”
Historian Adolf Harnack saw similar parallels, writing, “Unless the evidence is misleading, [the Jews] instigated the Neronic outburst against the Christians; and as a rule whenever bloody persecutions are afoot in later days, the Jews are either in the background or the foreground.”
Even before Nero’s era, Agrippa’s persecution of Christians did not come out of thin air.
“Agrippa was anxious to achieve popularity with his Jewish subjects and started a fresh persecution, in which James, the son of Zebedee, lost his life. St. Peter escape only by a miracle and the rest of the Twelve were scattered.”
Jewish historian Josephus agreed that Nero was trying to please the Jewish community and “showed favour to his wife Poppaea…who pleaded on behalf of the Jews.”
Historian Herbert B. Workman added in Persecution in the Early Church: A Chapter in the History of Renunciation:
“The Jews, working probably through Poppaea, the famous mistress and wife of Nero, whose superstitious nature led her to dally with Judaism, or through Alitururs, a favourite Jewish mime, took the opportunity of the great fire and the need for a scapegoat to save themselves and at the same time to wreak vengeance on the Christians.”
The persecution of the Jews did not arise because the Romans hated them. “Suetonius shows that the Jews were expelled from Rome under Claudius around A.D. 50 for causing riots in confrontations with Christians. The Jews were disliked by the Romans and frequently stirred up trouble in Rome causing them to be expelled from Rome on other occasions.”
Noted Protestant historian Philip Schaff blames “the fanatical Jews, enraged by the rapid progress of Christianity…[who] stirred up the people against the hated Galileans [Christians].”
PAUL AND “THE JEWS”
Virtually every century after the cross had its own “fanatical Jews” who always got involved in stirring up subversive movements. But this happened at the dawn of Christianity, when Paul witnessed this tension. This is clearly demonstrated in Acts 25.
Because of fear of the Jews, Felix the governor had already placed Paul in prison in Caesarea. Within three days when Festus came to Jerusalem, the priests had already asked that Paul be dispatched to Jerusalem (meaning to kill him along the way).
Two scholars in the nineteenth century noted that while they made their request to Festus, the text implies that “they were already occupied with malicious designs and preparations for lying in wait.”
Festus was easily persuaded because, as John MacArthur himself says, “the Jews had proven to be adept at manipulating their governors. Capitalizing on Pilate’s blunders, they had blackmailed him into executing Jesus. And although they had failed to pressure Felix into executing Paul, they had forced him to keep the innocent apostle imprisoned and out of circulation.”
However, Festus could not proceed with their radical approach, presumably because he was a Roman. Instead, he did the next best thing.
“Let them therefore,” he declared, “which among you are able, go down with me, and accuse this man, if there be any wickedness in him” (Acts 25:5).
Sure enough, they went down to accuse Paul of things which they could not prove.
“But Festus, willing to do the Jews a pleasure, answered Paul, and said, Will thou go up to Jerusalem, and there be judged of these things before me?” (Acts 25:9).
Paul wouldn’t make it to Jerusalem, for Festus knew that death would follow Paul on his way there. Previously, “certain of the Jews banded together, and bound themselves under a curse, saying that they would neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul” (Acts 23:12).
F. F. Bruce commented, “The zealous forty who had been frustrated in an earlier plot against Paul, or others who emulated their zeal, might find a better opportunity to do away with him on the road from Caesarea to Jerusalem.” Paul responded to Festus, “I stand at Caesar’s judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest” (Acts 29:10).
Festus could not deny Paul this right, for he knew that Paul was a Roman citizen and had the right to appeal to Caesar if he chose. In Roman law, such an appeal could be made by word of mouth or in written form.
Moreover, it was the providence of God that Paul be kept alive and be rescued from the hands of the Jews, for Paul was outnumbered.
“And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome” (Acts 23:11).
Had the Lord not protected Paul, he would have been murdered by the Jews.
Despite all that, Paul never once pronounced hatred toward the Jews. He eventually overcame the Jews not by the powers of flesh and blood, but, as some scholars have pointed out, “through meekness and patience.”
This is a key issue, since we are going to examine the fabric and implications of Rabbinic Judaism. Not only that, we should recognize that the enemy is powerful and, as Paul puts it, is contrary to all mankind.
IDEOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES
As we have already seen, the Zionist machine will create terrorist activities if those activities are congruent with the goals and purposes of the Zionist plan. This is why the recent terrorist attack at a mall in Kenya has raised many questions.
For example, what was an American security team doing at the mall during the incident? How were they able to rescue Bendita Malakia, an American, that quick? More importantly, the Kenya’s National Intelligence Agency knew of the attack long before it happened.
The British newspaper The Independent reports:
“A pregnant policewoman avoided Westgate after her brother, who works for Kenyan intelligence, warned her of a terror attack.”
As Jerome Corsi himself declares, the Obama administration is certainly an accomplice in all of this.
When things like that happen, rest assure that it will lend credence to the neo-Bolshevik/neoconservative ideology. Jewish neocon Daniel Benjamin responded to the attack by saying,
“You never know when a terrorist attack in a faraway place could be a harbinger of something that could strike at the United States.”
In the same vein, Katherine Zimmerman of the American Enterprise Institute declared, “One of the misconceptions is that we can let al Qaeda or other terrorist groups stay abroad and not fight them there, and that we would be safe at home.”
As soon as the story hit the news, the New York Times was mobilized and declared that “U.S. Sees Direct Threat in Attack at Kenya Mall,” to which Stephen M. Walt of Harvard declared,
“When was the last time something bad happened somewhere and the U.S. government didn’t see it as a threat?”
The Times continued to say, “The American government has learned the hard way what happens if it does not contain groups responsible for faraway attacks.” Walt responded,
“Got it? For Americans to be 100 percent safe on American soil, the U.S. government has to get more deeply involved in the local politics and national security problems of this troubled East African region — using the FBI, CIA, special operations forces, drones, whatever — in order to root out bad guys wherever they might be.”
In a nutshell, since “the Jews” are involved in creating disorder in much of the World, and since they reject reason in its metaphysical manifestations, they will do their best to blind the West so that the West cannot fully understand what exactly is happening.
Part of that political blindness is to get some goyim such as Obama or McCain to do their dirty work. When actor James Woods found out that Obama has betrayed the American trust, he twitted:
“Report: Data on Americans shared with Israel … Obama: the gift from hell that keeps on giving.”
The Washington Times declared, “In July, the actor ranted over Mr. Obama’s insertion of his personal opinion into the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin trial, characterizing it as fueling racial tensions and wondering why the president would speak his mind about the death of the 17-year-old Trayvon but not worry so much about American’s soldiers and wounded warriors.”
Woods is not too far from the political truth. The Zionist regime will do whatever is necessary to subvert the West and the Middle East.
If dozens of nuns and orphans “are trapped inside a convent in the Syrian Christian town of Maalula” where the rebels/terrorists have killed Christians in the past, that does not mean anything to the machine, since nuns and orphans do not produce Zionist results.
You are a respected Yemeni anti-drone activist visiting the U.K.? Well, you will be detained under the “anti-terrorism” law. In other words, the Zionist machine seeks to establish heaven on earth for themselves and hell on earth for everyone else. If you think this is an exaggeration, consider this. The Zionist machine shuts down the federal government, which in turns is currently
“withholding a $100,000 payment normally wired to relatives of fallen soldiers — including the families of five killed in Afghanistan over the weekend. The payment, known as the death gratuity, is typically sent to families of the fallen within three days to help them cover funeral costs or travel to meet the flag-draped coffins of their loved ones.”
What do you think members of Congress were doing that time, while the families of our precious soldiers are suffering? The Huffington Post declared that those Congressmen were out “boozing.”
An obvious moral blindness that has dominated the media was the passing of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef. The New York Times and nearly all the media venerated him as a hero and a freedom fighter for the Jews. In Israel, “By police estimates, 700,000 people — almost one-tenth of the population of Israel — swept into the streets and onto rooftops along the route of the funeral procession, many of them chanting prayers and tearing their clothes in a show of grief that brought much of the city to a standstill.”
Benjamin Netanyahu, of course, declared,“The Jewish people have lost one of the wisest men of this generation.” In a similar vein, Shimon Peres opined,
“When I pressed his hand, I felt I was touching history, and when I kissed his head, it was as though I kissed the very greatness of Israel.”
But the New York Times, Benjamin Netanyahu, Shimon Peres, and all the Zionist media never bothered to tell us what “one of the wisest men of this generation” said about both Gentiles and Arabs. Here are some great philosophical gems from Yosef:
“May the Holy Name visit retribution on the Arab heads, and cause their seed to be lost, and annihilate them. It is forbidden to have pity on them. We must give them missiles with relish, annihilate them. Evil ones, damnable ones.
“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel…With gentiles, it will be like any person – they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why?
“Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money. This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew. Why are gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat. That is why gentiles were create.”
ENLIGHTENMENT PRINCIPLES AND MILEY CYRUS
In short, the Zionist regime will do everything in its power to destroy peaceful enterprise, peaceful talks among nations, peaceful dissents, and will continue to blind the West.
How many Americans and people in the Western world actually know that since January of this year, 6,000 civilian deaths have occurred in Iraq alone? How many Americans and people in the Western world know that “The Palestinian GDP in the West Bank could increase by at least 35%, $3.4 billion annually, if Israel lifted its restrictions on Palestinian access and movement in Area C”?
Get a microphone and start interviewing people. Ask them those two questions. The answer may surprise you. But if you switch things around and ask them about Miley Cyrus, they will tell you all the tiny details.
It even got interested last month when New York Magazine declared that “Americans were 12 times more interested in Miley Cyrus than Syria.”
In the Miley Cyrus debacle, one person in the music industry who seems to have some insight to say that the music industry is using Miley Cyrus as a puppet is Sinead O’Connor herself.
O’Connor says that Miley Cyrus has allowed herself “to be exploited” and in the process has become a prostitute pimping the system, something that the music industry has always looked for. O’Connor told Cyrus:
“The music business doesn’t give a shit about you, or any of us. They will prostitute you for all you are worth, and cleverly make you think it’s what YOU wanted … and when you end up in rehab as a result of being prostituted, ‘they’ will be sunning themselves on their yachts in Antigua, which they bought by selling your body and you will find yourself very alone.
“You are worth more than your body or your sexual appeal. The world of showbiz doesn’t see things that way, they like things to be seen the other way, whether they are magazines who want you on their cover, or whatever … Don’t be under any illusions …
“ALL of them want you because they’re making money off your youth and your beauty … which they could not do except for the fact your youth makes you blind to the evils of show business.
“I repeat, you have enough talent that you don’t need to let the music business make a prostitute of you. You shouldn’t let them make a fool of you either. Don’t think for a moment that any of them give a flying fu$k about you. They’re there for the money… we’re there for the music. It has always been that way and it will always be that way. The sooner a young lady gets to know that, the sooner she can be REALLY in control.
“I’ve been in the business long enough to know that men are making more money than you are from you getting naked. It’s really not at all cool. And it’s sending dangerous signals to other young women. Please in future say no when you are asked to prostitute yourself. Your body is for you and your boyfriend. It isn’t for every spunk-spewing dirtbag on the net, or every greedy record company executive to buy his mistresses diamonds with”
If only O’Connor knew that the music industry was and still is largely Jewish. O’Connor also could not see that she and others like herself were both product of the Enlightenment and the Zionist machine.
Annie Lennox for example has come out and declared that both Miley Cyrus and Rihanna are wrong in producing pornographic videos. She says,
“I’m all for freedom of expression, but this is clearly one step beyond, and it’s clearly into the realm of porn. I have to say that I’m disturbed and dismayed by the recent spate of overtly sexualised performances and videos. You know the ones I’m talking about. It seems obvious that certain record companies are peddling highly styled pornography with musical accompaniment …
“It’s depressing to see how these performers are so eager to push this new level of low. Their assumption seems to be that misogyny – utilised and displayed through oneself – is totally fine, as long as you are the one creating it. As if it’s all justified by how many millions of dollars and YouTube hits you get from behaving like pimp and prostitute at the same time. It’s a glorified and monetised form of self harm.”
I agree with her assessment here. But there is a vital contradiction that Lennox and even O’Connor do not seem to see. Lennox and O’Connor are unable to see that according to Enlightenment principles, which the intellectual and revolutionary culture has produced since the French Revolution, freedom basically has no limits. Freedom means to pursue your lustful passion—be it sexual, economic, political, whatever—to the zenith.
If that lustful passion leads to death, so be it. If it leads to hurting other people, including precious children and adults, so be it. This was one of Marquis de Sade’s moral principles, which he articulated in works such as 120 Days of Sodom and Philosophy in the Bedroom and which led him to involve in all forms of sexual acts.
“A pretty girl,” Sade articulated, “ought simply to concern herself with fu$king, and never with engendering.” Sade continued, “The philosopher sates his appetites without inquiring to know what his enjoyment may cost others, and without remorse.” It gets even better:
“No passion has a greater need of the widest horizon of liberty than sexual license.”
Lennox also seems to have a short term memory. She seems to forget that all the way through the 1980s she was an advocate of Enlightenment principles through her music and concerts.
It was Lennox herself who said, “I feel I cannot be put into a box of just one concept. I think that everyone is a whole mixture of personalities, and I think that’s particularly true of myself.” In the song “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” O’Connor herself sings, “I will live by my own policies…”
Well, using Lennox’s own Enlightenment principles, Miley Cyrus could say the same thing about her sexual innuendos. Why would Lennox want to put her into a box?
O’Connor seems to be a little bit surprised when Miley Cyrus declared that O’Connor is or was one of her role models.
In that sense, Cyrus was telling the truth. Cyrus took O’Connor and Lennox’s principles and moved them into a new sexual/pornographic territory, which ended up offending both O’Connor and Lennox. Now both individuals are rejecting Cyrus because she followed their principles to their logical conclusions.
The only person who has been somewhat consistent in defending Cyrus is Gloria Steinem, the Jewish feminist who was a covert CIA agent for years. After she defended Cyrus, Steinem put a Jewish spin on the debacle when she said, “I think that we need to change the culture, not blame the people that are playing the only game that exists.”
As it turns out, both Enlightenment/Masonic and Zionist principles always bring pain and suffering in the end. People always ended up getting hurt. From Mary Wollstonecraft and all the way to our modern age, whenever Enlightenment/Masonic principles have consistently been followed, tragedy followed suit.
O’Connor, now almost 47 years old, is telling Cyrus, who is almost 21, to reject those Masonic principles. In that sense, O’Connor resembles Agave in Euripides’ The Bacchae, who, after ripping off his own son’s head (Pentheus) under the influence of Dionysus, utters these words: “I see horror. I see suffering. I see grief.” Let us all hope that Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, and many others heed those warnings.