Lee in the Mountains

Doing the Lord's Work by Saving the White Race

Zukunft für Europa – Identitäre Bewegung – Whites Push Back


For A Child Is Born!

Merry Christmas!


Where I grew up.

Downtown Fairfax VA, Ca. mid-late 50’s. Partly rural and small town feel. It was a community. It was overwhelmingly white and predominately Christian. It was safe and civic minded. You knew your neighbors and had a certain camaraderie. Not anymore.


Polish Football Fans Unfurl 50-Foot ‘Stand And Defend Christianity’ Banner At Premier League Match

That all white Westerners will follow their lead!

Polish football (soccer) fans unveiled an enormous anti mass migration banner at Sunday’s Silesian Wrocław match against Poznań. Images from the match last night show a giant crusader defending Europe from invading jihadists in boats labelled USS Hussein, USS Bin Laden and USS ISIS.

Just a week after Poland voted to kick out every left-wing member of it’s national parliament, ordinary Poles have again shown the spirit which led them to elect the nationalist conservative Law and Justice party, with football fans unveiling an over-sized anti-migration banner at Sunday’s match.

The hand-painted sheet, which is estimated to have been at least 50 feet tall and 75 feet wide depicts boatloads of migrants preparing to land on the southern shore of Europe. Many of the boat’s crews make the one fingered ‘ISIS salute’.
polish Football 2

Defending Europe while clutching a sword and a shield showing the crest of the Silesian Wrocław football club, a St. George’s cross-wearing crusader stands ready to fight the migrants, below writing which reads “While Europe Is Flooded With An Islamic Plague”.

Underneath, another 100 foot wide banner hangs from the stalls behind the goal and reads, in a traditional Polish script: “Let Us Stand In Defence Of Christianity”.
polish Football 3

Wrocław football club has one of the largest supporter bases in Poland, and the most politically active. Banners with strong anti-Communist messages are commonly seen at their games – and the fans like to get involved.

As well as football scarves which split space between the crests of the team, Poland, and anti-Islam symbols, banners seen at past matches have also condoned violence towards supporters of left-wing political views.
polish Football 4

Wrocław maintains a strong friendship with Legia Warsaw, another politically active football team.
polish Football 6

Legida ‘Jihad’ banner displayed during the 2012 football season

Legia has been fined on a number of occasions by football governing body UEFA over supposed racism at matches, and has displayed banners mocking Islamic jihad

Jesus in the Talmud


MANY Americans are of the opinion that Orthodox Judaism, the official belief system of the state of Israel, is the religion of the Old Testament, the faith of the patriarchs and prophets. We often hear it said that both Christians and believers in Judaism are “People of the Book,” the book being the Bible. Certainly the patriarchs and the prophets are the sacred originators of the religion of the ancient Israelites but it is the rabbinic discourses known as the Talmud, not the Bible, that have been, since the close of the fifth century, the foundational texts of Orthodox Judaism, which has its offshoots in Reform and Conservative Judaism. The Talmud, as one rabbi put it, is the “starting point and the ending point, the alpha and omega of truth.”* The Talmud teaches Orthodox Judaics how to think about Torah, or the Mosaic law.

The Talmud, meaning “instruction” or “learning” in Hebrew, consists of more than 6,000 pages of rabbinic commentaries on biblical texts. These commentaries were written after the crucifixion of Christ and the destruction of the Temple and constitute a religious, political and social code regulating the life of the Orthodox Judaic. Oral, not revealed, traditions called Mischna, Gemara, Halaka and Hagada make up these discourses. The first and lesser part of these commentaries originated in Palestine and the second part, much more important and influential, in Babylon.

Since the 13th century when the Jewish apostate Nicholas Donin came forward and revealed the contents of the Talmud to Pope Gregory IX, the descriptions of Jesus, his family and followers included in these rabbinic commentaries have alarmed Christians.

They have alarmed Christians for good reason. The Talmud contains, in intermittent descriptions, an ugly portrait of Jesus Christ, who is not the long-awaited Messiah but the sexually promiscuous son of a whore. He is the idolator, poor student and magician who fully deserves what he has coming to him. It is for this reason that the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages ordered the Talmud burned, an order that was not enforced in much of Europe, and also censored its descriptions of Christ.

Again, the state of knowledge of the talmudic view of Jesus and of gentiles is generally poor among Christians today though critiques of the Talmud from a Christian perspective and also from a blisteringly anti-Jewish perspective can be readily found on the Internet. Most Jewish people in America are also unaware of much of what the Talmud contains.

Peter Schäfer is currently the director of the Jewish Museum in Berlin and the former Perelman Professor of Jewish Studies and Professsor of Religion at Princeton University. His 2009 book Jesus in the Talmud, published by Princeton University Press, is an excellent place for the contemporary reader to acquaint himself with the Talmud’s perspective on Jesus Christ. An expert guide to the dense talmudic books, in which Jesus is referred to by different names and in unclear language, is essential.

Schäfer covers all the basics, offering interpretations of the snippets and tales that are interspersed throughout the rabbinic tractates. He refers to the composite material on Jesus as a “counter-narrative” to the New Testament. This is a charitable formulation of the ridicule and insults the Talmud contains. The Jesus anecdotes “are not told as an independent and coherent narrative but are scattered all over the large corpus of literature left to us by the rabbis.” Some of these stories and discussions are disguised in code and decoy texts, possibly to throw off critics.

I include here not so much a review of Schäfer’s book as highlights and some lengthy quotations, with the hope of inspiring the reader’s further interest in this important subject.

The “most prominent characteristic that dominates quite a number of the rabbinic stories,” Schäfer writes, “is sex, more precisely sexual promiscuity. Sexual promiscuity is … presented as the foundation story of the Christian sect.” Indeed, the Babylonian Talmud describes Jesus’s mother, Miriam (Mary), as a hairdresser and an adulterer. Jesus is the illegitimate son of her adulterous liaison with a Roman soldier, Pandera (also sometimes referred to as Panthera). No story of a Virgin birth here. Jesus is a bastard:

The most pungent counterargument against the evangelists’ narrative is, of course, the assertion of Jesus’ illegitimate birth from an adulterous mother and some insignificant lover. It parries the claim of Jesus’ noble Davidic lineage to which the New Testament attaches such great value: Matthew starts with his genealogy (Mt. 1) which leads back directly to David and calls him, as well as his “father” Joseph, “son of David” (Mt. 1: 1, 20; Lk. 1: 27, 2: 4); he is born in Bethlehem, the city of David (Mt. 2: 5f.; Lk. 2: 4), and hence is the Davidic Messiah (Mt. 2: 4; Lk. 2: 11). No, the Jewish counternarrative argues, this is all nonsense; he is anything but of noble origins. His father was by no means a descendant of David but the otherwise unknown Panthera/ Pandera ( just a Roman soldier, according to Celsus, in other words a non-Jew and a member of the hated Roman Empire that so visibly and horribly oppressed the Jews). Much worse, in turning Jesus into a bastard, the counternarrative takes up the contradictions within the New Testament story about Jesus’ origins and ridicules the claim that he was born from a virgin (parthenogenesis).


The bizarre idea of having the Holy Spirit intervene to make him the father of Mary’s child is nothing but a cover-up of the truth, it maintains, namely that Mary, Joseph’s legal wife, had a secret lover and that her child was just a bastard like any other bastard. Joseph’s suspicion, whether he was Mary’s husband or her betrothed, was absolutely warranted: Mary had indeed been unfaithful to him. He should have dismissed her immediately as was customary according to Jewish law.

Schäfer continues:

This powerful counternarrative shakes the foundations of the Christian message. It is not just a malicious distortion of the birth story (any such moralizing categories are completely out of place here); rather, it posits that the whole idea of Jesus’ Davidic descent, his claim to be the Messiah, and ultimately his claim to be the son of God, are based on fraud. His mother, his alleged father (insofar as he helped covering up the truth), his real father, and not least Jesus himself (the would-be magician) are all impostors that deceived the Jewish people and deserve to be unmasked, exposed to ridicule, and thereby neutralized.

The Babylonian discourses include another tale on the same subject of the phony Virgin birth:

There was this mule which gave birth, and [round its neck] was hanging a document upon which was written, “there is a claim against my father’s house of one hundred thousand Zuz. Zuz.” They [the Athenian Sages] asked him: “Can a mule give birth”? He [R. Yehoshua] answered them: “This is one of these fiction stories”.

[Again, the Athenian Sages asked:] “When salt becomes unsavory, wherewith is it salted”? He replied: “With the afterbirth of a mule.”—“ And is there an afterbirth of a mule”?—“ And can salt become unsavory”?

This is a play on both the Sermon on the Mount’s reference to Christians as the “salt of the earth” and the Virgin birth.

On this background, the miraculous offspring of the mule in the first story (and the afterbirth in the second one) gets an even more significant meaning. It can well be understood as a parody of Jesus’ miraculous birth from a virgin: an offspring from a virgin is as likely as an offspring from a mule. 47 The Christians’ claim of Jesus’ birth from a virgin and without a father belongs to the category of fiction stories, fairy tales just for fun. Moreover, this is the punch line of the second story: Jesus’ followers, who claim to be the new salt of the earth, are nothing but the afterbirth of that imagined offspring of the mule, a fiction of a fiction. Read this way, our two little Bavli [Babylonian Talmud] stories become indeed much more than an amusing exchange between the rabbis and the Greek Sages; rather, they offer another biting ridicule of one of the cornerstones of Christian theology.

Under Jewish law, Miriam was a woman worthy of stoning:

His adulterous mother deserves— according to biblical and rabbinical law— the death penalty of stoning or strangulation, as the Bible decrees for our case, the adultery between a married woman and her lover: “If a man is found lying with another man’s wife, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman as well as the woman; so you shall purge the evil from Israel” (Deut. 22: 22). 5 Hence, under strict application of biblical law, Jesus’ mother should have been stoned. The Talmud does not seem to be interested in her subsequent fate, but her son does fall under the other provision of the Mishna (idolatry) and will indeed be stoned. So in a highly ironical sense, Jesus’ birth from an adulterous mother points to his own violent death. As we have seen, this story of the adulterous mother and her bastard son is the perfect counternarrative to the New Testament’s claim that Jesus was born from a virgin betrothed to a descendant of the house of David.

There is nothing comparable in the Bible to the Talmud’s preoccupation in these passages with sexual matters and perversion. Christianity, in the Talmud, is an orgiastic cult.

The sexual misconduct brought up here is not that of an individual (Jesus) but, much worse, that of his followers who indulge in sexual mass orgies: the adherents of Jesus’ sect follow his advice to such an extreme that sexual orgies have become, so to speak, the “trademark” of the believers in Jesus.

Tertullian, the Christian apologist, refers in the second century, before much of the Talmud was written, of Jewish slanders along these lines:

In his Apology, written 197 C.E., he writes: We are said to be the most criminal of men (sceleratissimi), on the score of our sacramental baby-killing and the baby-eating that goes with it (sacramento infanticidii et pabulo inde) and the incest that follows the banquet, where the dogs are our pimps in the dark, forsooth, and make a sort of decency for guilty lusts by overturning the lamps. That, at all events, is what you always say about us; and yet you take no pains to bring into the daylight what you have been saying about us all this long time. Then, I say, either bring it out, if you believe all this, or refuse to believe it after leaving it uninvestigated. 20

Jesus is described by the rabbis as having inherited his mother’s inclinations:

The talmudic story about the wicked son/ disciple is preserved in two different contexts. The first, in Bavli Sanhedrin 103a, presents itself as an exegesis of Psalm 91: 10:

Rav Hisda said in the name of R. Yirmeya bar Abba: What is meant by the verse: No evil (ra`ah) will befall you, no plague (nega`) will approach your tent (Ps. 91: 10)?


No evil will befall you (ibid.): that bad dreams and bad thoughts will not frighten you. No plague will approach your tent (ibid.): that you will not have a son or a disciple who publicly spoils his food/ dish tavshilo) like Jesus the Nazarene 4

The “spoiled dish” is the promiscuous son. Shäfer explains:

It is hardly by coincidence that this interpretation comes from the same Rav Hisda who told us that Jesus’ mother had a husband as well as a lover and that Jesus was the son of her lover. Now we learn: this Jesus isn’t any better than his mother— it’s in his blood. He is so spoiled that he has become the proverbial son or disciple who is unfaithful to his wife and a disgrace to his parents or his teachers. 11 This is quite an unexpected turn in Jesus’ life that goes far beyond the New Testament narrative— unless one wants to follow the later identification of Mary Magdalene with the unknown “immoral woman” in Luke (7: 36– 50), 12 who wets Jesus’ feet with her tears, wipes them with her hair, kisses them, and anoints them with myrrh (7: 38). The Pharisees, who observe this scene, know her as a prostitute (7: 39) and want to use this fact as proof that Jesus is no real prophet as he claims (because he did not seem to know what kind of woman she was), but Jesus, seeing through their bad intentions, publicly forgives the woman her sins and thus reveals that he did know of her bad reputation. The Talmud could again have inverted this New Testament story and insinuated that Jesus indeed knew her— but not in order to forgive her her sins and to unmask the Pharisees; rather, he knew her for what she really was (a prostitute) because he had an affair with her.

Jesus is also a bad student who is excommunicated by his teacher for his “frivolous thoughts.”

The framework plot of our narrative, in both the Bavli and in the Yerushalmi versions, does not help much to understand and to locate historically the core of the story: the strange incident between a teacher (Yehoshua b. Perahya/ Yehuda b. Tabbai) and his favorite student (anonymous/ Jesus). The incident occurs in an inn on their way back to Jerusalem. 14 Satisfied with how they are received, the master praises the inn, but his student, misunderstanding him as praising the (female) innkeeper, 15 makes a disparaging remark about the less than beautiful appearance of the lady. The master is horrified by his student’s frivolous thoughts and immediately excommunicates him. The poor student tries to appease his master but initially in vain. When the master finally is ready to forgive him, the student misunderstands his body language, leaves the master in despair and becomes an idolater. Now the master begs him to repent, but the student is convinced that he has committed a capital sin, which forever excludes penitence and forgiveness.

Jesus exhibits idolatry in this tale by worshipping a brick, in keeping with an ancient Babylonian custom.

How does the Talmud explain the miracles of Christ?

[I]t presents an ironical critique of Jesus’ and his followers’ belief in their magical power. True, it argues, their magical power is undeniable: it works, and one cannot do anything against its effectiveness. But it is an unauthorized and misused power. It is just shegaga— a mistake, an unfortunate error.Hence, our story ultimately conveys the message: this Jesus and his followers claim to have the keys to heaven, to use their magical power with divine authorization— but they are dead wrong! The fact that heaven accepts what they do does not mean that it approves of it. On the contrary, they are tricksters and impostors who abuse their power. The real power and authority still rest with their opponents, the rabbis.

Jesus is executed because he engaged in sorcery and has led Israel into idolatry, which is far more serious than his sexual misconduct. He is not crucified by the Romans, but is stoned and then hanged in accordance with Jewish law.

Yes indeed, the Bavli admits, Jesus was a Jewish heretic, who was quite successful in seducing many of us. But he was taken care of according to the Jewish law, got what he deserved— and that’s the end of the story.

Schäfer writes:

What we then have here in the Bavli is a powerful confirmation of the New Testament Passion narrative, a creative rereading, however, that not only knows some of its distinct details but proudly proclaims Jewish responsibility for Jesus’ execution. Ultimately and more precisely, therefore, it turns out to be a complete reversal of the New Testament’s message of shame and guilt: we do accept, it argues, responsibility for this heretic’s death, but there is no reason to be ashamed of it and feel guilty for it. We are not the murderers of the Messiah and Son of God, nor of the king of the Jews as Pilate wanted to have it. Rather, we are the rightful executioners of a blasphemer and idolater, who was sentenced according to the full weight, but also the fair procedure, of our law.

When Jesus dies he goes to hell where he sits in his own boiling excrement, which Schäfer views as an inversion of the Eucharist with Jesus becoming the opposite of divine food.

Jesus incited Israel to eating— and hence is punished by sitting in what eating produces: excrement. And what is the “eating” that Jesus imposed upon his followers? No less a food than himself— his flesh and blood. 32 As he has told his disciples during the Last Supper: (26) While they were eating, Jesus took a loaf of bread, and after blessing it he broke it, gave it to the disciples, and said: “Take, eat; this is my body.” (27) Then he took a cup, and after giving thanks he gave it to them, saying: “Drink from it, all of you; (28) for this is my blood of the (new) covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” 33 What we have, then, in our Bavli narrative is a devastating and quite malicious polemic against the Gospels’ message of Jesus’ claim that whoever follows him and, literally, eats him becomes a member of the new covenant that superseded the old covenant with the Jews.

A similar fate in hell awaits the followers of Christ.

Schäfer, who has also written Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World and The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity shaped each other, delves into other aspects of the talmudic counter-narrative in this very readable 232-page book. He focuses only on the portrayals of Jesus and his family, without going into the other controversial issue of the Talmudic view of gentiles, a subject I will discuss in a future post here.

*Rabbi Jacob Neusner, Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System (Augsburg Fortress, 1995), as quoted in Michael Hoffman’s Judaism’s Strange Gods (Independent History and Research, 2012.)

— Comments —

Alex writes:

My experience with Israelis in the U.S., in New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles, has shown me that they think Christianity is B.S. with a capital B. They view American women as objects to be used and then discarded like unwanted tissue. They view American Christians as suckers and a source of money. They are especially happy to destroy white Christian societies in the name of diversity: South Africa anyone? American Jews dislike Republicans because they tend to have Christian values and actually believe in Christ: Hollywood anyone? American Jews also tend to be socialist or Communist. There is real animosity between the two religions which is mostly ignored by the press, even the Church tries to gloss over the differences. They also feel the Old Testament is their book and Christians have no real understanding of its meaning; it’s for the Jews. “Thou shalt not kill” is a misunderstanding of what is meant: ” Thou shall not murder” is the correct meaning and is meant for Jews only. For Jews, killing is okay and there is no handwringing if someone deserved it. Jews are the fifth column in the U.S. This reality has yet to dawn on most Americans, it is a reality they don’t want to face which would mean doing something about it. Lastly, our multicultural problems are being brought to us by Christian clergy who have ruined two thousand years of Christian history and we are only starting to see the outcome.

Bill R. writes:

Thank you for a fascinating and informative posting on the Talmud. For me, it was not only fascinating but timely, as it happens to be a subject I have become interested in lately owing to a book I’ve been reading by David Duke called Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening to the Jewish Question. I have been so astonished by the degree of anti-Christian viciousness displayed in some passages of the Talmud which Duke mentions, that I have been interested in additional commentary about the Talmud.

You note that, “Some of these stories and discussions are disguised in code and decoy texts, possibly to throw off critics.” Indeed. According to Duke, there is a passage in the Talmud (which I see you have also noted) in which it is said that Jesus is boiling in hot semen and excrement (Gittin 57a). But the word for Jesus in the passage is “Balaam.” Duke writes, “When I asked my Jewish friend’s rabbi about the passage, he told me that Balaam was not Jesus. He sounded very convincing, but that very evening, I looked up Balaam in The Jewish Encyclopedia and was shocked to read that Balaam was a pseudonym for Jesus.” Duke goes on to note that the Talmud similarly employs various pseudonyms for Gentiles and Christians, and that footnotes to the most popular English-language translation of the Talmud, known as the Soncino edition, as well as passages in The Jewish Encyclopedia, “blatantly mention this intentional artifice.”

Duke summarizes his early impression of the Talmud thus: “As an idealistic teenager, I was totally unprepared for this dark side of a faith that I had always respected. My impression had been that the Jewish faith had no animosity toward Jesus Christ. I was always told that they had much respect for him as a prophet or at least as a great teacher but simply did not accept Him as the Messiah. It disturbed me to have come across violently obscene descriptions of the Savior and of Christians in the Talmud.”

I found it especially intriguing to learn from your Schafer quote that the Talmud actually admits that the Jews were responsible for executing Jesus, indeed, that it proudly proclaims it. Think of that! One of the Jews’ most sacred texts, the “alpha and omega of truth” for them, proudly proclaims of this central event in Christian history what, for a Gentile to even suggest, is considered anti-Semitic.

I know when I mentioned Duke to you once before (I had not read him at the time), in response to my noting that he had been marginalized, you asked if he did not deserve to be marginalized. Having now read some of what he has to say (I’m about 70 pages into the book), I am of the opinion that he has been unfairly and unjustly maligned. Given how quickly Jews fire off the accusation of anti-Semitism in the face of any criticism of themselves at all as Jews, I am not at all surprised to find that the man’s own words, once given a chance, do not at all match the hysterical hate-mongering one would expect to find given the popular impression of him which has been created. He says that his book is “ultimately about lessening both the dangers and hatreds between our peoples” and asserts that “all peoples have the right to preserve their unique identities, including Jews.” For myself, I see no good reason not to take the man at his word. On the other hand, having read what he has to say about Jews, and knowing how hypersensitive, if not pathologically intolerant, they are of any criticism directed toward them as a group, I can readily see why they would use their considerable power and influence to demonize this man and malign his reputation, which they have had enormous success in doing. (I think the slash-and-burn job that was done on Duke was made extra thorough because of the fact that, at one time, it looked as though his political star might be very seriously on the rise, and this is surely one reason his name has become imbedded more deeply into the popular culture than other alleged “anti-Semites.”) Also, he is not a pagan brand of white advocate. Given his very positive and affectionate references to Christianity, particularly when comparing it with Judaism, I was pleased but not surprised to learn that he identifies himself as a Christian. By the way, he also has an impressive list of what various past Popes had to say (and do) about the Talmud. (For us Protestants :-), he also has a powerful quote from Martin Luther excoriating the Talmud, which Luther had thoroughly studied in its original Hebrew.)

Laura writes:

Thank you.

I have not read Duke’s works so I cannot comment on them and whatever I said before about him was based on hearsay.

Regarding the admission in the Babylonian Talmud that the Jews did put Christ to death, it is a quite proud admission. Christ, the promiscuous sexpot and sorcerer, was guilty of heresy and that was his greatest offense, according to Schäfer’s reading of the rabbinic sources. From his introduction:

Most remarkably, they [the Talmudic rabbis] counter the New Testament Passion story with its message of the Jews’ guilt and shame as Christ killers. Instead, they reverse it completely: yes, they maintain, we accept responsibility for it, but there is no reason to feel ashamed because we rightfully executed a blasphemer and idolater. Jesus deserved death, and he got what he deserved. Accordingly, they subvert the Christian idea of Jesus’ resurrection by having him punished forever in hell and by making clear that this fate awaits his followers as well, who believe in this impostor. There is no resurrection, they insist, not for him and not for his followers; in other words, there is no justification whatsoever for this Christian sect that impudently claims to be the new covenant and that is on its way to establish itself as a new religion (not least as a “Church” with political power). (Location 217, Kindle edition)

Of course, it is not surprising that the rabbis would reject Christian theology once they rejected the divinity of Christ. But the degree to which they repudiate and demonize Jesus is surprising. These scathing indictments have arguably very effectively immunized Jews, even, I believe, those who have never read any portion of the Talmud and even those who are not Orthodox Jews, against the Christian narrative. When an Orthodox Jew walks through a major European museum and sees all the madonnas, he sees paintings of a whore, or at least of an adulteress who conned her fiancé into marrying her even though she was pregnant with another man’s child. Think of how that view alienates him, the Orthodox Jew, psychologically from the society around him. Think of how this alienation might harden and spread within his subculture with the passage of years, so that centuries later vestiges of it might remain even in those whose ancestors long ago rejected the Talmud.

The conditions of relative freedom for the Jews in Babylon intensified the talmudic critique of Christ. Schäfer continues in his introduction:

I will demonstrate that this message [that the Jews were proud to kill Christ] was possible only under the specific historical circumstances in Sasanian Babylonia, with a Jewish community that lived in relative freedom, at least with regard to Christians— quite different from conditions in Roman and Byzantine Palestine, with Christianity becoming an ever more visible and aggressive political power. This is not to say that the Palestinian sources are devoid of any knowledge of Christianity and Jesus. On the contrary, they are vividly and painfully aware of the spread of Christianity. They are not simply denying or ignoring it (in a kind Freudian mechanism of denial and repression), as has often been suggested; rather they are acknowledging Christianity and engaged in a remarkably intense exchange with it. But still, Jesus as a person, his life, and his fate are much less prominent in the Palestinian sources. So my claim is that it is not so much the distinction between earlier and later sources that matters but the distinction between Palestinian and Babylonian sources, between the two major centers of Jewish life in antiquity. As we shall see, the different political and religious conditions under which the Jews lived created very different attitudes toward Christianity and its founder. (Kindle location, 218)

Schäfer explains that Balaam sometimes refers to Jesus. The name also refers at times to a pagan magician, who is punished in hell by sitting in boiling semen, so the rabbi Duke spoke to could have said with some honesty that Jesus is not Balaam.

Laura writes:

By the way, I do not know whether Schäfer himself is of Jewish background. I presume that he is as he studied at Hebrew University and, cynically, I presume that Princeton would not have published this book if he were not. But I may be wrong.

Bill R. writes:

You write, “But the degree to which they repudiate and demonize Jesus is surprising.” And as if that were not enough, one is then confronted by the degree to which they conceal this repudiation and demonization (at least from non-Jews), and then repudiate and demonize you should you discover and reveal it anyway.

[Laura writes: Actually, there is a passage in the Talmud that refers to the death penalty for gentiles who critique the Talmud. BT Sanderin 59a: “Rabbi Yohanan said: A non-Jew who engages in the study of Torah is liable for execution, for the verse states (Deuteronomy 33:4): ‘Moses commanded us a Torah, an inheritance for the congregation of Jacob’ — to us, the Jewish people, the Torah was given as an inheritance, but not to them, the other nations. — Quoted in Michael Hoffman’s Judaism’s Strange Gods, p. 9. This may be why — I am not sure — I.B. Pranaitis, the Latvian priest and scholar who translated the Talmud, was murdered by the Soviet Cheka police.]

You write, “The name also refers at times to a pagan magician, who is punished in hell by sitting in boiling semen.” I looked up Gittin 57a in the Soncino edition online, and footnote 2 suggests that the significance of semen is because “he enticed Israel to go astray after the daughters of Moab.” Wouldn’t that seem to suggest Jesus as opposed to a magician? Or is it possible that the pagan magician reference itself could be another pseudonym for Jesus?

Also, Duke notes specifically that, “In The Jewish Encyclopedia, under the heading ‘Balaam,’ it says ‘…the pseudonym “Balaam” given to Jesus in Sanhedrin 106b and Gittin 57a.” Gitten 57a is where it is said that Balaam is punished with boiling hot semen. So at least we know in that one case, as far as The Jewish Encyclopedia is concerned, at any rate, there does not appear to be any equivocation; Balaam is Jesus.

This is a bit off the subject and I don’t mean to put too much focus on Duke, but since I wrote you earlier I’ve come across a paragraph in his book that I think better describes his philosophy than I was able convey earlier, and the central point he’s trying to get across with his book, and I’d like to quote it.

Even as I write these provocative words, I harbor no hatred toward the Jewish people. There are intolerant Jews just as there are intolerant Gentiles. It is also true that there are many Jews who respect our Christian heritage. But unless the nonchauvinist Jews are willing to work hard to bring to their own faith and community the same kind of love and reconciliation that Christ taught, the cycle of hatred between Jew and Gentile could fester. Unless they temper their supremacism with acceptance and love, they could suffer a replay of the terrible excesses of the past.

Laura writes:

I’m not sure about the different Balaam references, except that I know Schäfer refers to passages in which Balaam is not Jesus. He writes:

Balaam incited Israel to sexual orgies— and hence is punished by sitting in semen. Jesus incited Israel to eating— and hence is punished by sitting in what eating produces: excrement. And what is the “eating” that Jesus imposed upon his followers? No less a food than himself— his flesh and blood. (Kindle location, 1717]

Laura writes:

Regarding the last statement by Duke you quoted: Judaism, which is distinct from the religion of the ancient Israelites, entails certain beliefs and a certain view of the role of the Jewish people in salvational history. He might just as well ask them to give up their religion because to cover over what they believe with hugs and kisses would not make it substantially different.

David J. writes:

This is in response to Bill R.:

What a coincidence! Only last night, I finished viewing two lengthy interviews of David Duke concerning Jewish influences on the West, including those deriving from the Talmud. The interviews, totaling six to seven hours, were hosted by Tommy Sotomayor on one of his YouTube channels.

Eric writes:

Since we seem to be taking this path, allow me to recommend two books, both by Israel Shahak, an Israeli author. Shahak was a leftist Jew who objected to what he viewed as the primitive roots of the Israeli theocracy, and wrote several lucid works from that perspective(if you can believe that).

The first title, “Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years” describes the path of Jews through the European past and how it bears upon modern Judaism. It is concise, entertaining, and readable.

The second, “Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel” , is an analysis of what happens when Judaism turns to Zionism. It, too, is quite readable, and quite concise. I have seen the Israel described by Shahak reflected in many, many news stories about settlers, Gaza, etc., and feel that I now have a lens through which to view the ongoing struggle in the Middle East.

I cannot recommend them enough, especially the first one, which is a bargain on Amazon for less than five bucks. Each runs about 150 pages, and can be read in one or two evenings.

Bill R. writes:

You write, “He might just as well ask them to give up their religion because to cover over what they believe with hugs and kisses would not make it substantially different.”

He might have been waxing a bit lovey-dovey there, I suppose, but I think he’s mainly trying to show that he believes in the possibility of enough cooperation and mutual respect between Jew and Gentile that will spare them the fate of simply trying to annihilate each other, and, two, I think he’s making an effort to show his critics, and/or those who are uncertain or new to his writings but perhaps not his reputation, that he’s not coming from a destructive, violent, or hateful point of view on the issue, but rather a rational one that possesses the potential for a rational and peaceful solution. As one myself who is new to his writings, it was a reassurance I appreciated.

Thanks to David J. for the references to the Sotomayor interviews with Duke. I hadn’t been aware of them. He was also recently a guest on the Alex Jones show. I haven’t had an opportunity to watch it yet but there was an interesting article about it at The Occidental Observer.

Laura writes:

Just to clarify: The Catholic Church has never sought to annihilate Jews. I think you were probably not suggesting that but there is the implication in your comment that Christians and Jews are bound to desire to annihilate each other when in close contact. Starting in the Middle Ages, the Church, in its doctrine of sicut Judaeis non, demanded that physical harm not be inflicted on Jews and that they be allowed to practice their religion. It also sometimes expelled them from areas where they were believed to be exploiting and harming Christians. This expulsion was as much to protect Jews as it was to protect Christians, as without it the Jews were destined to come to physical harm, mostly because of the anger their economic usury had aroused. (I am certainly not advocating expulsion of Jews from any country by noting this fact nor am I denying that some Catholics did not observe the doctrine of sicut Judaeis non.)

It is Talmudic Judaism, not race itself and not Christianity, that is the great calamity of the Jewish people.

Also, as I have said before, this is not primarily a racial issue. The ancient followers of Judaism are not even racially the same as the Ashkenazi Jews. The fact that Judaism is a creed of racial exclusiveness and supremacy does not change the reality that it is ideology, not race, that is the primary issue.

Paul T. writes:

You raise the possibility that the Soviet Cheka police who killed a Latvian priest were doing so by way of enforcing Rabbi Yonahan’s diktat. This seems very unlikely, since Jewish Communists tend to be atheists who agree with Marx’s statement that the solution of the Jewish question is the ’emancipation of society from Judaism.’ In any case, while one could probably find Orthodox Jews who ‘converted’ to Communism (or Scientology, or whatever), I imagine we’d be hard put to find Jewish Communists who continued to live as Orthodox Jews.

There’s an irrepressible conflict between the two belief systems.

Laura writes:

The Soviet state was, to a considerable extent, the creation of non-religious Jews. Both Communism and Orthodox Judaism involve political messianism. Also, atheist Jews tend to retain a sense of national identity and view themselves as having a bond with all Jews.

Nevertheless, I don’t know the details of Fr. Pranaitis’s death. I am trying to find out more.


What becomes the white man?

I Don’t Care About Black People

In light of both recent events and long-simmering racial issues in this country, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s time for me to state my sincere and forthright position on race relations, specifically those involving the black population. So here it is: I don’t care about black people.

In our age of Totalism, this needs some clarification. Totalism means that there is no middle–one must either love something with all of one’s heart and be willing to work tirelessly for its benefit, or (clearly) one must hate it and wish to see it destroyed with maximum force. By no means can there be any in-between. This paradigm is a tool of control–one common in history, but particularly loved by Puritans, which means that it is now primarily in the hands of the puritanical left. Few want to be seen as so heartless or vicious as to hate something–or, commonly, some group of people–enough to wish destruction upon it. And so, accepting the Totalist frame, most people feel compelled to insist that they do love it, and would bear any burden for its betterment. They dare not take the risk of being painted as a villain (which these days usually means someone who doesn’t believe in the sacred dogma of equality). But there are some of us who know better, and who reject the frame given us. And that is what I mean to do here.

I don’t care about black people, which means by definition that I don’t hate them. In order to hate something or someone, you must care about them deeply. Hate is a serious, long-term emotional investment, and one must actually care very much about the object of one’s hatred in order to make it. As is often said, hate is not the opposite of love; indifference is. And I have come to be very indifferent about the fortunes of blacks.

I don’t care about black people. Their problems are not my problem. Their enemies are not my enemy. Their concerns are not my concern. I feel no need to understand them or their ways, and I don’t care whether or not they understand me or my ways. I wish them well–in fact, I know not a single white person, no matter how outwardly racist, who does not wish that blacks were doing better than they are, if for no other reason than that we must all live with the effects of their failures. I hope that the issues that seem to ceaselessly dog their community all get solved somehow. I have no desire to do them and theirs injury, except as punishment for injury done by them against me and mine. But I don’t care about them–there is nothing more I want from them other than to simply leave me alone, and in exchange, I will gladly leave them alone as well.

Lest one think that this is all motivated by sheer meanness and lack of charity, there is another reason for my lack of enthusiasm for the cause of helping black people. The truth is that I don’t know how to help them, and I don’t know anyone else who does. For at least fifty years (more like a hundred and fifty, really) whites have been trying to find a way to solve the problems of black people. We must now be realistic and admit that all of these attempts have failed miserably. Fifty years into the War on Poverty, drive around a black ghetto (if you dare) and note what you see. It is indeed certain to look like there has been a war there, but it is equally certain to not look like any victory over poverty has been won. What you’ll find there is the result of whites having tried everything they could possibly think of to uplift blacks, and of it all having either not worked at all or having actually made things worse. As evidenced by the wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, Americans are notoriously slow to understand that their plan hasn’t worked and to accept defeat, but at some point, reality asserts itself in a way that is undeniable.

So here is the undeniable reality: when it comes to whites trying to solve the problems of black people, none of our plans have worked, and we’re pretty much out of ideas. I, certainly, have nothing new to add on the issue–believe me, if I did, I would. I have no secret, sadistic desire to see blacks suffer, and I, too, must live with the results of their failures. But like everybody else, I don’t have any more solutions to offer.

And I am not alone in my sense of resignation on this topic. Some are angrier than I am, and frequent, horrific reports of interracial crime–statistically almost all black on white–give them reason to be. Among many others, what has been termed “negro fatigue” has set in–an exasperated feeling of just being sick and tired of constantly hearing about blacks and their seemingly endless problems. Even on the left, which instinctively senses that the excuses and rationalizations for the failures of the black community (most especially its disproportionate rates of criminality) are wearing thin, the effects of this can be seen. One aspect of the establishment left’s recent push for gay rights is that they are quietly but visibly dumping blacks as their most favored oppressed minority in favor of gays. This is largely a simple matter of political practicality. When nice white ladies of the sort who often vote for Democrats turn on the TV and see large groups of feral blacks burning down Baltimore, it makes an impression. Doubtless so too have the nice white ladies’ own previous encounters with lower-class blacks. Say what you will about gays, but they are, as a group, not greatly given to torching senior centers or stealing purses. It makes their cause an easier sell.

In addition, it seems obvious that the left is as out of ideas about how to help blacks as everyone else. The election of Barack Obama was supposed to make all of this better, but it plainly has not, and the only other idea that the left has been able to come up with is trying more of what has already spent half a century not working. There is no reason to believe that any of it will suddenly start working now, and the need to defend the absurd notion that it might is, even with the mainstream right being as feckless and cowardly as it is, a serious political liability. Best to simply move on to the next big thing without any further comment.

As for my own solutions to the state of race relations–which are bad, and getting worse–I have precious few. Voluntary separation based on freedom of association would seem a wise and humane way to handle things. But grown adults deciding for themselves who they want to be around is prohibited by federal law, and is harshly punished where discovered. Ethnonationalism, in which each race lives in its own territory, under its own system, and makes its own laws, which it is itself responsible for enforcing, also seems to be a decent and viable solution. But this will not happen without the breakup of the United States and/or a civil war, which, while inevitable, is not on the immediate horizon.

So it seems that neither I, nor anyone else, have any workable answers to offer. It is time then, I believe, to invoke the spirit of the Serenity Prayer, and to learn to accept that which I cannot change. Again, I wish blacks all the success in the world; I hope they can find a way to do better and that a solution to their problems makes itself apparent. But other than in a vague Christian sense of wanting the best for my fellow man, I can no longer bring myself to care about them.

Thus, to black people, my message is simply this: Good luck, but don’t call me for help.

P.S. There is a long list of other people who I similarly don’t care about, including but not limited to: homosexuals, transgenders, Jews, Latinos, and all manner of exotic peoples in faraway countries. I wish them well, I’ll never go out of my way to harm them without provocation, I hope they get right with the Lord, and I’ll be happy to say a prayer for their souls while I’m in church. But I’ve had my fill of hearing about their problems, and I’m done caring. Whatever plagues you, work it out yourselves. Leave me alone.


“A nation without borders is not a nation.”

I know, right?

In addition a nation without common culture and race is also not a nation.

Seems like common sense to me.

Ann Coulter on the monumental stakes of our decision:

“America is not the natural state of the world. Darfur is the natural state of the world. The British Empire spread Anglo-Saxon culture around the globe – Protestant morals, individualism, and the rule of law. Most British colonies rejected those values. Only the ones populated by actual British people – America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – managed to hold on to them and, as a result, prospered. The Empire’s most successful experiment was the United States. Anyone who hesitates for a moment to recognize that some groups have it over other groups in producing free and prosperous nations has been brainwashed beyond reclamation.” (p 57)

Nothing you love will survive without white people.

You aren’t just betraying your principles.

Dear Cuckservative,

You are not alone. Like you, Erick Erickson at RedState.com, Matt Lewis at the Daily Caller, Taylor Millard at Hot Air, the blogger Ace of Spades, and Jim Harper with the Cato Institute are all squirming under the lash of this new coinage. They are squirming because a single word–cuckservative–lays bare the rot at the heart of your movement: American conservatism can conserve nothing if it cannot conserve the nation’s founding stock. I’ll put it bluntly: Nothing you love will survive without white people.

Do you stand for limited government and a balanced budget? Count your black and Hispanic allies. Do you admire Thomas Jefferson? He was a slave-holder who will end up on the dung heap with the Confederate flag. Do you care about stable families and the rights of the unborn? Look up illegitimacy, divorce, and abortion rates for blacks and Hispanics. Do you cherish the stillness at dawn in Bryce Canyon? When the park service manages to get blacks and Hispanics to go camping they play boom-boxes until 1:00 a.m. Was Ronald Reagan your hero? He would not win a majority of today’s electorate.

Do you love Tchaikovsky? Count the non-whites in the concert hall. Do you yearn for neighborhoods where you can leave the keys in your car? There still are some; just don’t expect them to be “diverse.” Are hunting and firearms part of your heritage? Explain that to Barack Obama or Sonia Sotomayor. Are you a devout Christian? Muslim immigrants despise you and your faith. Do you support Israel? Mexicans, Haitians, Chinese, and Guatemalans don’t.

Your great festival–CPAC–is as white as a meeting of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. That’s because blacks and Hispanics and even Asians don’t share your dreams. You’ve heard the old joke: “What do you call the only black person at a conservative meeting? The keynote speaker.” Outreach doesn’t work. You can’t talk someone into loving what you love. Faith, patriotism, duty, and honor come from deeply cultural, religious, and ancestral sources you can’t reach.

Why do you evoke Martin Luther King when you call for a “colorblind” America? You know he wanted quotas for blacks. You evoke King because you think he’ll help you silence blacks and liberals. But it doesn’t work, does it? That’s because only whites–and Asians, when it suits them–even think in terms of “colorblindness.” Blacks and Hispanics will squeeze every unfair advantage out of you they can. At what point will they ever abandon their aggressive racial agenda? When they’re the majority just think how hard they’ll squeeze your grandchildren.

You tell yourself that the things you love about America–and I love them, too–are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?

Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.

And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.

Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.

We see that in America. Can you think of a majority non-white neighborhood you’d like to live in, or a majority non-white school you’d like your children to attend? No, you can’t. Why, then, don’t you fight with all your strength against the forces of immigration and integration that are turning ever-greater parts of your county into Third-World wastelands?

I know it would be frightening for you to step outside the ever narrower confines of what we are permitted to say about race. You would court the disapproval of every institution in America. You would pay a heavy price. Not since the last Red Scare has the price of speaking out been so high. In the 1950s, it was dangerous to spout Marxist foolishness. Today, the most dangerous ideas are the historical, biological, and moral truths that men such as Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain, Walt Whitman, and your grandparents took for granted.

Muster up the courage. Speak these truths. They are your heritage. They are your destiny. They are in your bones. And when you speak these truths, you will join the people who see the only future for America in which the things you love are even conceivable. When you speak these truths you will join the camp of the saints.

And until you speak these truths you will feel the sting of the word “cuckservative.” You will feel its sting because you are not just betraying the heritage and promise of America. You are not just betraying your principles and dreams–even though you think you are working for them. You are betraying your people.


The Confederate Flag Needs To Be Raised, Not Lowered

Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that what we see happening in the United States today is an apt illustration of why the Confederate flag was raised in the first place. What we see materializing before our very eyes is tyranny: tyranny over the freedom of expression, tyranny over the freedom of association, tyranny over the freedom of speech, and tyranny over the freedom of conscience.

In 1864, Confederate General Patrick Cleburne warned his fellow southerners of the historical consequences should the South lose their war for independence. He was truly a prophet. He said if the South lost, “It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy. That our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the war; will be impressed by all of the influences of History and Education to regard our gallant debt as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.” No truer words were ever spoken.

History revisionists flooded America’s public schools with Northern propaganda about the people who attempted to secede from the United States, characterizing them as racists, extremists, radicals, hatemongers, traitors, etc. You know, the same way that people in our federal government and news media attempt to characterize Christians, patriots, war veterans, constitutionalists, et al. today.

Folks, please understand that the only people in 1861 who believed that states did NOT have the right to secede were Abraham Lincoln and his radical Republicans. To say that southern states did not have the right to secede from the United States is to say that the thirteen colonies did not have the right to secede from Great Britain. One cannot be right and the other wrong. If one is right, both are right. How can we celebrate our Declaration of Independence in 1776 and then turn around and condemn the Declaration of Independence of the Confederacy in 1861? Talk about hypocrisy!

In fact, Southern states were not the only states that talked about secession. After the southern states seceded, the State of Maryland fully intended to join them. In September of 1861, Lincoln sent federal troops to the State capital and seized the legislature by force in order to prevent them from voting. Federal provost marshals stood guard at the polls and arrested Democrats and anyone else who believed in secession. A special furlough was granted to Maryland troops so they could go home and vote against secession. Judges who tried to inquire into the phony elections were arrested and thrown into military prisons. There is your great “emancipator,” folks.

And before the South seceded, several northern states had also threatened secession. Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island had threatened secession as far back as James Madison’s administration. In addition, the states of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were threatening secession during the first half of the nineteenth century – long before the southern states even considered such a thing.

People say constantly that Lincoln “saved” the Union. Lincoln didn’t save the Union; he subjugated the Union. There is a huge difference. A union that is not voluntary is not a union. Does a man have a right to force a woman to marry him or to force a woman to stay married to him? In the eyes of God, a union of husband and wife is far superior to a union of states. If God recognizes the right of husbands and wives to separate (and He does), to try and suggest that states do not have the right to lawfully (under Natural and divine right) separate is the most preposterous proposition imaginable.

People say that Lincoln freed the slaves. Lincoln did NOT free a single slave. But what he did do was enslave free men. His so-called Emancipation Proclamation had NO AUTHORITY in the southern states, as they had separated into another country. Imagine a President today signing a proclamation to free folks in, say, China or Saudi Arabia. He would be laughed out of Washington. Lincoln had no authority over the Confederate States of America, and he knew it.

Do you not find it interesting that Lincoln’s proclamation did NOT free a single slave in the United States, the country in which he DID have authority? That’s right. The Emancipation Proclamation deliberately ignored slavery in the North. Do you not realize that when Lincoln signed his proclamation, there were over 300,000 slaveholders who were fighting in the Union army?

One of those northern slaveholders was General (and later U.S. President) Ulysses S. Grant. In fact, he maintained possession of his slaves even after the War Between the States concluded. Recall that his counterpart, Confederate General Robert E. Lee, freed his slaves BEFORE hostilities between North and South ever broke out. When asked why he refused to free his slaves, Grant said, “Good help is hard to find these days.”

The institution of slavery did not end until the 13th Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865.

Speaking of the 13th Amendment, did you know that Lincoln authored his own 13th Amendment? It is the only amendment to the Constitution ever proposed by a sitting U.S. President. Here is Lincoln’s proposed amendment: “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give Congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with the domestic institutions thereof, including that a person’s held to labor or service by laws of said State.”

You read it right. Lincoln proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution PRESERVING the institution of slavery. This proposed amendment was written in March of 1861, a month BEFORE the shots were fired at Fort Sumter, South Carolina.

The State of South Carolina was particularly incensed at the tariffs enacted in 1828 and 1832. The Tariff of 1828 was disdainfully called, “The Tariff of Abominations” by the State of South Carolina. Accordingly, the South Carolina legislature declared that the tariffs of 1828 and 1832 were “unauthorized by the constitution of the United States.”

Think, folks: why would the southern states secede from the Union over slavery when President Abraham Lincoln had offered an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing the PRESERVATION of slavery? That makes no sense. If the issue was predominantly slavery, all the South needed to do was to go along with Lincoln, and his proposed 13th Amendment would have permanently preserved slavery among the southern (and northern) states. Does that sound like a body of people who were willing to lose hundreds of thousands of men on the battlefield over saving slavery? What nonsense!

The problem was Lincoln wanted the southern states to pay the Union a 40% tariff on their exports. The South considered this outrageous and refused to pay. By the time hostilities broke out in 1861, the South was paying up to, and perhaps exceeding, 70% of the nation’s taxes. Before the war, the South was very prosperous and productive. And Washington, D.C., kept raising the taxes and tariffs on them. You know, the way Washington, D.C., keeps raising the taxes on prosperous American citizens today.

This is much the same story of the way the colonies refused to pay the demanded tariffs of the British Crown – albeit the tariffs of the Crown were MUCH lower than those demanded by Lincoln. Lincoln’s proposed 13th Amendment was an attempt to entice the South into paying the tariffs by being willing to permanently ensconce the institution of slavery into the Constitution. AND THE SOUTH SAID NO!

In addition, the Congressional Record of the United States forever obliterates the notion that the North fought the War Between the States over slavery. Read it for yourself. This resolution was passed unanimously in the U.S. Congress on July 23, 1861, “The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.”

What could be clearer? The U.S. Congress declared that the war against the South was NOT an attempt to overthrow or interfere with the “institutions” of the states, but to keep the Union intact (by force). The “institutions” implied most certainly included the institution of slavery.

Hear it loudly and clearly: Lincoln’s war against the South had NOTHING to do with ending slavery – so said the U.S. Congress by unanimous resolution in 1861.

Abraham Lincoln, himself, said it was NEVER his intention to end the institution of slavery. In a letter to Alexander Stevens who later became the Vice President of the Confederacy, Lincoln wrote this, “Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days of Washington.”

Again, what could be clearer? Lincoln, himself, said the southern states had nothing to fear from him in regard to abolishing slavery.

Hear Lincoln again: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.” He also said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so and I have no inclination to do so.”

The idea that the Confederate flag (actually there were five of them) stood for racism, bigotry, hatred, and slavery is just so much hogwash. In fact, if one truly wants to discover who the “racist” was in 1861, just read the words of Mr. Lincoln.

On August 14, 1862, Abraham Lincoln invited a group of black people to the White House. In his address to them, he told them of his plans to colonize them all back to Africa. Listen to what he told these folks: “Why should the people of your race be colonized and where? Why should they leave this country? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, at least, why we should be separated. You here are freemen, I suppose? Perhaps you have been long free, or all your lives. Your race is suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from being placed on an equality with the white race. The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent not a single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of our race.”

Did you hear what Lincoln said? He said that black people would NEVER be equal with white people – even if they all obtained their freedom from slavery.

Lincoln’s statement above is not isolated. In Charleston, Illinois, in 1858, Lincoln said in a speech, “I am not, nor have ever been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on social or political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white.”

Why don’t our history books and news media tell the American people the truth about Lincoln and about the War Between the States?

It’s simple: if people would study the meanings and history of the flag, symbols, and statues of the Confederacy and Confederate leaders, they might begin to awaken to the tyrannical policies of Washington, D.C., that precluded southern independence – policies that have only escalated since the defeat of the Confederacy – and they might have a notion to again resist.

By the time Lincoln penned his Emancipation Proclamation, the war had been going on for two years without resolution. In fact, the North was losing the war. Even though the South was outmanned and out-equipped, the genius of the southern generals and fighting acumen of the southern men had put the northern armies on their heels. Many people in the North never saw the legitimacy of Lincoln’s war in the first place, and many of them actively campaigned against it. These people were affectionately called “Copperheads” by people in the South.

I urge you to watch Ron Maxwell’s accurate depiction of those people in the North who favored the southern cause as depicted in his motion picture, “Copperhead.” For that matter, I consider his movie, “Gods And Generals” to be the greatest “Civil War” movie ever made. It is the most accurate and fairest depiction of Confederate General Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson ever produced. In my opinion, actor Stephen Lang should have received an Oscar for his performance as General Jackson. But, can you imagine?

That’s another thing: the war fought from 1861 to 1865 was NOT a “civil war.” Civil war suggests two sides fighting for control of the same capital and country. The South didn’t want to take over Washington, D.C., no more than their forebears wanted to take over London. They wanted to separate from Washington, D.C., just as America’s Founding Fathers wanted to separate from Great Britain. The proper names for that war are either, “The War Between the States” or, “The War of Southern Independence,” or, more fittingly, “The War of Northern Aggression.”

Had the South wanted to take over Washington, D.C., they could have done so with the very first battle of the “Civil War.” When Lincoln ordered federal troops to invade Virginia in the First Battle of Manassas (called the “First Battle of Bull Run” by the North), Confederate troops sent the Yankees running for their lives all the way back to Washington. Had the Confederates pursued them, they could have easily taken the city of Washington, D.C., seized Abraham Lincoln, and perhaps ended the war before it really began. But General Beauregard and the others had no intention of fighting an aggressive war against the North. They merely wanted to defend the South against the aggression of the North.

In order to rally people in the North, Lincoln needed a moral crusade. That’s what his Emancipation Proclamation was all about. This explains why his proclamation was not penned until 1863, after two years of fruitless fighting. He was counting on people in the North to stop resisting his war against the South if they thought it was some kind of “holy” war. Plus, Lincoln was hoping that his proclamation would incite blacks in the South to insurrect against southern whites. If thousands of blacks would begin to wage war against their white neighbors, the fighting men of the southern armies would have to leave the battlefields and go home to defend their families. THIS NEVER HAPPENED.

Not only did blacks not riot against the whites of the south, many black men volunteered to fight alongside their white friends and neighbors in the Confederate army.

If one wants to ban a racist flag, one would have to ban the British flag. Ships bearing the Union Jack shipped over 5 million African slaves to countries all over the world, including the British colonies in North America. Other slave ships flew the Dutch flag and the Portuguese flag and the Spanish flag, and, yes, the U.S. flag. But not one single slave ship flew the Confederate flag. NOT ONE!

By the time Lincoln launched his war against the southern states, slavery was already a dying institution. The entire country, including the South, recognized the moral evil of slavery and wanted it to end. Only a small fraction of southerners even owned slaves. The slave trade had ended in 1808, per the U.S. Constitution, and the practice of slavery was quickly dying, too. In another few years, with the advent of agricultural machinery, slavery would have ended peacefully – just like it had in England. It didn’t take a national war and the deaths of over a half million men to end slavery in Great Britain. America’s so-called “Civil War” was absolutely unnecessary. The greed of Lincoln’s radical Republicans in the North, combined with the cold, calloused heart of Lincoln himself is responsible for the tragedy of the “Civil War.”

And look at what is happening now: in one instant – after one deranged young man killed nine black people and who ostensibly photo-shopped a picture of himself with a Confederate flag – the entire political and media establishments in the country go on an all-out crusade to remove all semblances of the Confederacy. The speed in which all of this has happened suggests that this was a planned, orchestrated event by the Powers That Be (PTB). And is it a mere coincidence that this took place at the exact same time that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to legalize same-sex marriage? I think not.

The Confederate Battle Flag flies the Saint Andrews cross. Of course, Andrew was the first disciple of Jesus Christ, brother of Simon Peter, and Christian martyr who was crucified on an X-shaped cross at around the age of 90. Andrew is the patron saint of both Russia and Scotland.

In the 1800s, up to 75% of people in the South were either Scotch or Scotch-Irish. The Confederate Battle Flag is predicated on the national flag of Scotland. It is a symbol of the Christian faith and heritage of the Celtic race.

Pastor John Weaver rightly observed, “Even the Confederate States motto, ‘Deo Vindice,’ (God is our Vindicator), illustrates the sovereignty and the righteousness of God. The Saint Andrews cross is also known as the Greek letter CHIA (KEE) and has historically been used to represent Jesus Christ. Why do you think people write Merry X-mas, just to give you an illustration? The ‘X’ is the Greek letter CHIA and it has been historically used for Christ. Moreover, its importance was understood by educated and uneducated people alike. When an uneducated man, one that could not write, needed to sign his name please tell me what letter he made? An ‘X,’ why? Because he was saying I am taking an oath under God. I am recognizing the sovereignty of God, the providence of God and I am pledging my faith. May I tell you the Confederate Flag is indeed a Christian flag because it has the cross of Saint Andrew, who was a Christian martyr, and the letter ‘X’ has always been used to represent Christ, and to attack the flag is to deny the sovereignty, the majesty, and the might of the Lord Jesus Christ and his divine role in our history, culture, and life.”

Many of the facts that I reference in this column were included in a message delivered several years ago by Pastor John Weaver. I want to thank John for preaching such a powerful and needed message. Read or watch Pastor Weaver’s sermon, “The Truth About The Confederate Battle Flag.”

Combine the current attacks against Biblical and traditional marriage, the attacks against all things Confederate, the attacks against all things Christian, and the attacks against all things constitutional and what we are witnessing is a heightened example of why the Confederate Battle Flag was created to begin with. Virtually every act of federal usurpation of liberty that we are witnessing today, and have been witnessing for much of the twentieth century, is the result of Lincoln’s war against the South. Truly, we are living in Lincoln’s America, not Washington and Jefferson’s America. Washington and Jefferson’s America died at Appomattox Court House in 1865.

Instead of lowering the Confederate flag, we should be raising it.