Religious leaders in Boston have demanded ‘white churches’ give millions of dollars in reparations to the city’s black community.
The activist clergy also called on them to back a push for the City of Boston to pay $15 billion in reparations for its historical role in the slave trade.
The event at Resurrection Lutheran Church was organized by the Boston People’s Reparations Commission, which made the $15 billion demand.
One of the speakers was Reverend Kevin Peterson, who wants to rename Faneuil Hall marketplace due to Peter Faneuil, the wealthy merchant who built it, being a prominent slave trafficker in the 1700s.
‘We call sincerely and with a heart filled with faith and Christian love for our white churches to join us and not be silent around this issue of racism and slavery and commit to reparations,’ he said.
Since the time of Moses, only nine red heifers have been sacrificed. Now, a “massive altar” for the tenth red heifer sacrifice has been built in Israel, and there is a tremendous amount of speculation that it could happen soon. In September 2022, five red heifers were flown from the state of Texas to the land of Israel. Since that time, one of them has been disqualified, but the other four continue to be candidates for a red heifer sacrifice. As I discussed last week, there was “a practice run of the purification ceremony” in 2023. But an official ceremony must be conducted before the heifers get too old to be used for such a sacrifice.
Some Jews and Christians believe sacrificing the heifers is key to rebuilding the Jewish temple that once stood in Jerusalem, and to beckoning the Messiah.
Last month, All Israel News reported that the Temple Institute wants to conduct a sacrifice “before Passover 2024”…
As of now, four of the heifers remain blemish-free and, according to Temple Institute rabbis, they hope to carry out the ceremony before Passover 2024.
This year, the Jewish people will celebrate Passover on April 22nd.
“The finest trick of the devil is to persuade you that he does not exist,” wrote Charles Baudelaire (Paris Spleen).He was wrong: the devil’s finest trick is to persuade you that he is God.
Do I believe in the existence of the devil? It depends on the definition. I believe that humans are under the influence of the ideas that they have collectively engendered over the ages, for ideas are spiritual forces. And from that standpoint, I regard Yahweh’s impersonation of the Divine Creator as the most devastating deception ever played on the human race, a crime against divinity.
Am I a Gnostic? Not in the strict sense. If we are to believe their detractors, the early Gnostics taught that the God of the Old Testament was the evil demiurge who created the world from which Christ came to free us. I do not take Yahweh that seriously. On the contrary, I lament that he has been taken seriously by billions of people, Jews, Christians and Muslims. Yahweh is a character of fiction, but one that has gained tremendous influence over a huge portion of mankind, either directly or indirectly.
What I wish to demonstrate here is that Yahweh has the character of the devil as most people imagine it. That goes a long way towards explaining the satanic quality of Jewish Power that is becoming more and more apparent every day—a quality that Alain Soral is exposing in his most recent videos (now avalaible with English subtitles on the new ERTV International YouTube channel). If I were a Christian, I would quote John 8:44. But I am not arguing from a Christian viewpoint, for although I accept the principle that the Gospel story was designed as a cure for the Jews’ mental enslavement by the Torah, I also consider that, unless it could vomit the Old Testament, Christianity will remain forever infected by the virus it was intended to combat.
The Founding Hoax of Catholicism, The Identity of Charlemagne and Attila the Hun, Orthodox Kow-Towing to the West, Did the Slavs Spontaneously Manifest? The Mud Flood/Comet/Volcano Theory and more!
I have not listened to this yet, but Guyénot is always interesting. ABN
…as skepticism about Jesus was gaining ground in the nineteenth century, new evidence emerged in support of the historical Jesus. In the 1880s, a Russian explorer, Nicolas Notovitch made an extensive journey through central Asia, and on his return to Europe went public with sensational claims that rocked the Christian world. Notovitch said he had visited a Buddhist monastery in northern Kashmir where he was shown ancient manuscripts about Jesus who was known as “Issa”. Incidentally, this just happens to be the name for Jesus in the Koran. Assuming Notovitch was telling the truth, this new evidence strongly supported the historical underpinnings of Christianity. But was he on the level?
Notovitch was born in Crimea in 1858, the son of Jewish parents. However, in his younger years he converted to the Eastern Orthodox Church after an extensive study of religion. On returning from Asia, he attempted to interest Vatican officials in a preliminary draft for a book he had written about his trip that included a translation of the alleged Buddhist manuscripts. However, in Rome, a cardinal whom Notovitch describes as “very close to the Holy Father” was less than enthusiastic, and replied: “What good would it do to print this? Nobody will attach to it any great importance and you will create a number of enemies.” The cardinal offered to reimburse him for his time and trouble; but Notovitch refused. In Paris, he also discussed a book project with Cardinal Rotelli who also tried to dissuade him.
Although I was not surprised to learn about this resistance from the Roman Church, I was disappointed nonetheless. One might have hoped for a more open-minded attitude given that the four gospels have absolutely nothing to say about the so called “lost years,” the roughly 17-year period in the life of Jesus between the ages of thirteen and thirty when his public ministry began in Palestine. Over many centuries, the lost years have remained a historical void and a question mark. Surely the issue qualifies as a mystery, and one deserving of a serious investigation.
Details the story that Jesus survived his crucifixion and went to Kashmir where he lived out the rest of his long life. The linked article is panned by many readers in the comments, but I found it interesting and appreciate the author’s work. ABN
…If these ritualistic issues constituted the central features of traditional religious Judaism, we might regard it as a rather colorful and eccentric survival of ancient times. But unfortunately, there is also a far darker side, primarily involving the relationship between Jews and non-Jews, with the highly derogatory term goyim frequently used to describe the latter. To put it bluntly, Jews have divine souls and goyim do not, being merely beasts in the shape of men. Indeed, the primary reason for the existence of non-Jews is to serve as the slaves of Jews, with some very high-ranking rabbis occasionally stating this well-known fact. In 2010, Israel’s top Sephardic rabbi used his weekly sermon to declare that the only reason for the existence of non-Jews is to serve Jews and do work for them. The enslavement or extermination of all non-Jews seems an ultimate implied goal of the religion.
Jewish lives have infinite value, and non-Jewish ones none at all, which has obvious policy implications. For example, in a published article a prominent Israeli rabbi explained that if a Jew needed a liver, it would be perfectly fine and indeed obligatory to kill an innocent Gentile and take his. Perhaps we should not be too surprised that today Israel is widely regarded as one of the world centers of organ-trafficking.
As a further illustration of the seething hatred traditional Judaism radiates towards all those of a different background, saving the life of a non-Jew is generally considered improper or even prohibited, and taking any such action on the Sabbath would be an absolute violation of religious edict. Such dogmas are certainly ironic given the widespread presence of Jews in the medical profession during recent centuries, but they came to the fore in Israel when a religiously-minded military doctor took them to heart and his position was supported by the country’s highest religious authorities.
…Obviously the Talmud is hardly regular reading among ordinary Jews these days, and I would suspect that except for the strongly Orthodox and perhaps most rabbis, barely a sliver are aware of its highly controversial teachings. But it is important to keep in mind that until just a few generations ago, almost all European Jews were deeply Orthodox, and even today I would guess that the overwhelming majority of Jewish adults had Orthodox grand-parents. Highly distinctive cultural patterns and social attitudes can easily seep into a considerably wider population, especially one that remains ignorant of the origin of those sentiments, a condition enhancing their unrecognized influence. A religion based upon the principle of “Love Thy Neighbor” may or may not be workable in practice, but a religion based upon “Hate Thy Neighbor” might have long-term cultural ripple effects that extend far beyond the direct community of the deeply pious. If nearly all Jews for a thousand or two thousand years were taught to feel a seething hatred toward all non-Jews and also developed an enormous infrastructure of cultural dishonesty to mask that attitude, it is difficult to believe that such an unfortunate history has had absolutely no consequences for our present-day world, or that of the relatively recent past.
…For two thousand years, Jews have mostly existed as small minorities within much larger non-Jewish host societies, ensuring that these traditional Jewish doctrines could only manifest themselves in the most secretive or attenuated fashion. But the situation is quite different in Gaza, so the horrors we are seeing there probably provide a much more accurate indication of the attitude of traditional Judaism toward the lives and well-being of non-Jews.
…In a modern liberal democracy, you don’t need public support for any policy. A democracy government is always just a puppet of private interest groups, and the population has no ability to influence state decisions. The only threat is domestic upheaval, which is generally extremely unlikely in a democracy, given that people will usually simply say “well, I’ll vote for the other guy next time” instead of going into the streets and creating chaos. However, if Biden is reinstalled as president in November, and the wars continue, the economy turns down, and the crime and immigrant situation keeps getting more extreme, you could end up in a situation where no matter how hard the media lies, his real level of support is below 15%. At that point, you are moving into a very precarious situation, where you could start seeing real political violence that threatens the country’s basic stability. There is a switch that can be flipped in the collective psyche of a human population where they, almost simultaneously, become violently enraged, and start acting on that. Right now, Biden’s Israel policy and his immigration invasion both threaten to trigger this collective psychological mechanism.
There is still a chance that Biden is switched out for some other Democrat candidate, which would most likely be Gavin Newsom (although others have claimed Michelle Obama is the more likely option). If this happens, then there is a possibility or probability that the Democrats will continue in power. However, if this doesn’t happen, I’m going to go on a crypto betting website and put a lot of money on Donald Trump winning the 2024 election.
In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether an alleged violation of this chapter is antisemitic, the Division of Human Rights must consider the definition of antisemitism. For the purposes of this chapter, the term “antisemitism” has the same meaning as the working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on May 26, 2016, including the contemporary examples of antisemitism identified therein.
The working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance on May 26, 2016:
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
Noem proves she is pathetic, a lackey ‘protecting’ her masters who need no protection but rather will use it for continued aggression. Is she signaling obeisance to gain the VP slot or just looking for money? One thing about Gaza is the moral ripple effect into America and Europe is horrifying. Noem is but one example of many. ABN
This has always been the Houthi position: “stop the slaughter and we’ll open the Red Sea.”
Of course, due to media reporting, most Americans think they’re bombing these ships randomly because they’re “Islamic terrorists.”
I’ve been over this repeatedly, but we’ll do it again: “Islamic terrorist” is a very specific thing, and the overwhelming majority of these groups that get this label do not fit the definition. Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRGC, and the Houthis, among others (including some Sunni groups like the Taliban), are military groups that happen to be Islamic. They don’t commit acts of violence because of their religious beliefs, they commit acts of violence in self-defense against the Anal Empire. They would be doing the same things if they had a different religion.
There are very few actual “Islamic terrorist groups” that commit violence specifically because of their religion. The most obvious and well-known would be ISIS. Of course, ISIS just happened to be funded by and allied with the US and Israel, so you can figure that out.
Calling the Shia resistance groups “Islamic terrorists” would be like calling the Russian military “Christian crusaders.” Of course, in some sense, you could call the Russians that, but the actual reality is that their motives are not related to Christianity, but to the national interests of the state of Russia. Of course, the Russian military uses Christian flags, icons of Christ, and so on, and you see images of priests blessing their weapons, but that is simply because Russia is a Christian nation, so they are going to use that regalia, in the same way that Islamic groups, acting in their national interests, use Islamic regalia.
Your paper illustrates the principle that in order to properly understand Christianity one must understand what Jesus actually taught. This requires that we focus on the earliest period of Christianity.
Your paper presents no conclusions about the Arian controversy and implies that the issue remains muddled even today. In my opinion, this is incorrect.
FYI, I am going to briefly summarize the Arian controversy as I understand it. I believe the controversy arose out of the church’s “need” to declare its institutional authority over Christians.
In the first centuries, there were many varieties of Christians, everything from Jewish Christian sects that continued to stress the importance of Jewish Law to gnostic Christians who in my opinion preserved the esoteric core of what Jesus actually taught. Soon after the Council of Nicaea, many of the various iterations (including the gnostics) came under fierce attack by the Roman church.
The roots of the Arian controversy date to the second century when certain theologians deviated from Jesus’ teaching about the immortality of the soul, i.e., immanence. Tatian was one of these, and he was followed by Gregory of Nysa, St Jerome, and Augustine. Each of whom added another brick to the new artificial construct. All of them taught that the soul is created from lowly dust along with the body at conception or birth.
The controversy ignited when a Libyan priest named Arius pointed out the flaw in the church’s new teaching. At issue was the human versus divine nature of Jesus. Arius merely pointed out that by this reasoning the soul of the God-realized avatar Jesus must likewise have been made of lowly dust. This was a problem because it meant that at some point in time the soul of Jesus did not exist. It followed that Jesus, while exalted, could not be on an equal footing with God the father.
Athanasius led the orthodox contingent at Nicaea. He insisted on the absolute equivalence of Father and Son. Even though a vast majority of Christians supported Arius, the anti-Arian bishops held a majority in Council and ruled in favor of Athanasius. No surprise that Arius was condemned as a heretic.
Athanasius gets credit for the new doctrine of the Trinity that emerged from Nicaea. The Trinity idea was not based on Scripture, however, nor divine revelation, but solely on logic. Given the equivalence of Father and Son, the Holy Spirit could not be left out, so its inclusion became a logical necessity. From its inception, the Trinity doctrine was and remains a purely artificial construct.
Despite the ruling, Arianism continued to be very popular because by affirming the humanity of Jesus Arius held out hope for ordinary people. Implicit in Arianism is the gnostic belief that ordinary Christians can follow in the footsteps of the savior. The views of Arius were perfectly compatible with the teaching of immanence, the indwelling of God in all of creation.
The real issue at the heart of the controversy, as the writer Elizabeth Claire Prophet has pointed out, was not the denial of the divinity of Jesus (as the church contended at Niceae and as the Catholic Church still contends) but instead the question: “How is man to be saved? By emulating Jesus? Or by worshipping him?” Today, the Catholic Church emphasizes worship (and obedience) when it should be inspiring Christians (as Jesus did) to pursue sainthood.
The personal triumph of Athanasius at the council was a hollow victory. By scapegoating Arius, the church only magnified its original error of embracing a doctrine of the soul that repudiates the divine presence in all matter.
By asserting the equivalence of Father and Son the church was in effect declaring that the soul of Jesus was different in kind from the souls of ordinary people. This was fateful because it undermined the mystical element in Jesus’ own teachings, and opened up a vast gulf between God and humans.
The new Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states the extent of this chasm: “Between Creator and creature there is the most profound distinction possible. God is not part of this world. He is not just the peak of reality. Between God and the world there is an abyss…”
The abyss was wholly artificial, the creation of the church, yet it was also a self-serving artifice, a means for institutional Christianity to vastly increase its earthly power. Today, Catholic doctrine holds that the church is the sole bridge over the otherwise unbridgeable chasm between God and men.
I would go another step and also argue that the outcome of Niceae was a serious devolution, a step back toward Judaism and the absolute patriarchal rule of the angry jealous god Yaweh. It appears that Christianity was undermined from within by church fathers bent on maintaining control over Christians. To me this smacks of psychopathy at work, namely, the Jewish revolutionary spirit.
This material is drawn from my 2004 book Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes. Hope it helps!
The definition or redefinition of words and concepts shows the profound importance of the human psycholinguistic complex or constellation. Changing just a few words or definitions can impact many centuries of human history. We can see many changes in our psycholinguistics today, almost all of which are imposed on our communities without our consent or understanding. Diversity is Our Greatest Strength is but one of many examples. It may seem as if nothing is happening when words and concepts change meaning or are weirdly asserted, but when those changes are imposed top-down and asserted by Big Media, you can be sure they portend a foul change is afoot and we will pay dearly for it within a short time. ABN
Last week I published an article noting that although technology industrialist Elon Musk probably ranks as the most powerful and influential individual in the Western world, he recently humbled himself, deeply apologizing for some of his casual criticism of Jewish activities and pledging to mend his ways.
Traveling to Israel, he met with that country’s president and posed for photo-ops with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, promising to combat “antisemitism” on his Twitter platform. A few weeks later he undertook a pilgrimage to Auschwitz, making even stronger commitments to Jewish leaders, denying that he harbored any antisemitism in his own heart, and publicly declaring that he regarded himself as “aspirationally Jewish.”
These remarkable events reminded me of that famous incident of the Middle Ages in which Emperor Henry IV of the Holy Roman Empire had “gone to Canossa” and prostrated himself before Pope Gregory VII, seeking forgiveness for his challenge to the supreme authority of the Catholic Church:
Musk was only the latest and most extreme example of the many wealthy and powerful Gentiles who have publicly bent their knees in submission to Jewish power. Even if totally spurious, accusations of “antisemitism” have often proven fatal to the careers of even the highest-ranking individuals, and shortly before Musk’s submission, two presidents of Ivy League universities were politically brow-beaten and then forced to resign over their unwillingness to prohibit pro-Palestinian protests on their campuses, a sudden purge that was absolutely unprecedented in the history of American academia.
[i] Here, the monk, detached from sense-desires, detached from unwholesome states, enters and remains in the first jhana (level of concentration, Sanskrit: dhyāna), in which there is applied and sustained thinking, together with joy and pleasure born of detachment; [ii] And through the subsiding of applied and sustained thinking, with the gaining of inner stillness and oneness of mind, he enters and remains in the second jhana, which is without applied and sustained thinking, and in which there are joy and pleasure born of concentration; [iii] And through the fading of joy, he remains equanimous, mindful and aware, and he experiences in his body the pleasure of which the Noble Ones say: “equanimous, mindful and dwelling in pleasure”, and thus he enters and remains in the third jhana; [iv] And through the giving up of pleasure and pain, and through the previous disappearance of happiness and sadness, he enters and remains in the fourth jhana, which is without pleasure and pain, and in which there is pure equanimity and mindfulness.
This is a description of the first four states of Buddhist meditation or ‘concentration’, as it is often translated. The right Buddhist term is Right Samadhi. What is meant in this description is very clear. It is pure religious practice, the essence of prayer and contemplation. It is that which leads to the ‘presence of God’ in Christian mysticism. It is communion with the Divine, the transcendent Big Consciousness that underlies and oversees our small consciousnesses. The Buddha taught a path of ethical purity of mind and non-attachment to anything that detracts from purity of mind, from a clear mind, an unencumbered mind. In this sense, Buddhism is a pristine spiritual elixir with no added vocabularies, stories, beliefs or ornamentation. The ‘going out’ or ‘cessation’ of all hindrances to achieving jhana and samadhi states is nirvana. In this sense, Buddhism is a universal religion that focuses directly on the goal of all ethical religious practice—direct knowledge and communion with ______; use your own word(s) for that. ABN
American Buddhist Net 