Christopher Hitchens har en intressant text om Arthur Koestler i senaste numret av The Atlantic Monthly. En spännande figur, onekligen, den där Koestler. (Utdrag ur Darkness at Noon här och här.)

He was periodically paralyzed by self-reproach and insecurity, and once wrote a defensive third-person preface to one of his later novels (The Age of Longing) in which he described its style as modeled on that of a certain “A. Koestler,” whose writing, “lacking in ornament and distinction, is easy to imitate.” The author himself was written off as “a much afflicted scribe of his time, greedy for pleasure, haunted by guilt, who enjoyed a short vogue and was then forgotten, like the rest of them.”

[. . .]

Otto Katz once said to him, “We all have inferiority complexes of various sizes, but yours isn’t a complex—it’s a cathedral.” Koestler liked this remark so much that he included it in his autobiography, thus attaining the status of one who could actually brag about his inferiority complex as if size mattered.

Alexander Kefeli

Alexander Kefeli  hat ein Leben hinter sich, wie es nur das 20. Jahrhundert schreiben konnte. 93 Jahre ist er jetzt alt, versorgt sich selbst, kauft einmal in der Woche ein. Nur sein Fahrrad schiebt er mittlerweile lieber, als im Sattel zu sitzen. Er gehört dem fast vergessenen und im Westen so gut wie unbekanntem Volksstamm der Chasaren an, die vor dem Aufstieg der Kiewer Rus vom siebten bis neunten Jahrhundert den ganzen Kaukasus beherrschten und in Toponymen noch immer präsent sind. Das Kaspische Meer ist im Arabischen, Türkischen und Farsi nach den Chasaren, einem Turkvolk, benannt, aber auch Charkow geht auf eine chasarische Siedlung zurück, die einst Scharukan hieß. 1943 verließ Alexander Kefeli dieses Charkow in den Wirren des Krieges. In zwei Lazaretten hatte er verwundete deutsche Soldaten versorgt. eine gefährliche Vita, wenn man noch dazu einem Volk angehörte, das in der Blüte seiner Macht zum Judentum konvertiert war. Die “Juden des Nordens” hatten denn auch besonders unter dem tyrannischen “Vater aller Völker”, Josef Stalin zu leiden.

 ”Ich danke Gott, daß mein Bruder damals in Prag saß und uns herausholen konnte”, erinnert sich Alexander Kefeli. “Man hätte mich sonst bestimmt an die Wand gestellt oder in den Gulag geschickt.” Der Vater verstarb noch in Charkow, der heutigen Partnerstadt von Nürnberg, die Mutter konnte nachkommen. Bis zum Ende des Krieges fand sich immer wieder Unterkunft und Arbeit in Böhmen, bis dann im Mai 1945 die Gefahr zu groß wurde, den vorrückenden „Genossen“ in die Hände zu fallen. Mit viel Glück gelang es ihm, sich nach Sachsen durchzuschlagen, bevor es die Amerikaner an die Sowjets abgaben. Von da zogen sie weiter nach München und schließlich nach Erlangen Als die Brüder schon in Franken waren, ging über einen Kurier, der die Anschrift auswendig lernte und die Sendung erst jenseits der Grenze abschickte, damit der Brief nicht geöffnet wird, eine Nachricht an die in Prag zurückgebliebene Mutter. Wie durch ein Wunder erreichte sie die Botschaft der Söhne, und es gelang ihr, ihnen nachzukommen. Die Kontrollen hatten damals noch nicht den Charakter des Eisernen Vorhangs, offenbarten noch menschliche Züge, wie eine Episode zeigt: Der Bruder wurde bei der Flucht vom Grenzschutz gestellt. Doch als er sagte, er wolle in ein freies Land, wo er selbst bestimmen könne, ob er seine Kinder in die Kirche schicke oder nicht, erwiderten die Beamten: “Stimmt, diese Freiheit hast du hier nicht mehr. Mach, daß du weiterkommst.”

Die ganze Verwandtschaft Alexander Kefelis emigrierte später in die USA. Er blieb in Erlangen, weil er hier sein Ingenieursstudium abschließen konnte. Deutsch hatte er schon in der Schule und später in den Lazaretten gelernt. Nun profitierte er davon, daß Fachkräfte gebraucht wurden und man auch all die schon älteren Semester der Heimkehrer aus den Kriegsgefangenenlagern integrieren mußte. So war es damals möglich, mit 40 Jahren bei Siemens Arbeit zu finden, Arbeit, die Alexander Kefeli in Erlangen hielt.

In die alte Heimat wollte er nie mehr zurück. Nicht als die Kommunisten noch herrschten. “Die hätten mich sofort eingesperrt oder noch viel schlimmere Sachen mit mir gemacht. Für die war ich doch ein Kollaborateur und Vaterlandsverräter.” Auch später nicht: “Ich will nicht die ganze Armut dort sehen, und eine richtige Demokratie gibt es da ja auch noch nicht.” Lieber schickt Alexander Kefeli via Rathaus und Erlangen-Haus huckepack mit einigen Tafeln Schokolade Geldscheine an seine Wladimirer Brieffreundinnen. “Bevor ich das Geld für Reisen ausgebe, schicke ich es lieber nach Wladimir. Die können es besser brauchen.” Die Teuerung dort, drohende Arbeitslosigkeit… Alexander Kefeli verfolgt die soziale und politische Entwicklung genau.

Die Freundschaften entstanden schon Anfang der 90er Jahre, als die ersten Erzieherinnen aus Wladimir in der Partnerstadt das ABC der Waldorfpädagogik erlernten. Immer wieder kamen sie zu Hospitationen, vermittelt von Helge Köhler, bauten einen Waldorfkindergarten in Wladimir auf und fanden in Erlangen viele Freunde. Alexander Kefeli, immer auf der Suche nach Gelegenheiten für russische Konversation, sprach die Besucherinnen eines Tages einfach auf der Straße an, fragte nach dem Woher und Wohin, und so entstand eine Freundschaft, die bis heute Bestand hat. Die Frequenz der Korrespondenz übertrifft jedenfalls alle übrigen aktenkundigen Briefwechsel zwischen Erlangen und Wladimir. Alexander Kefeli freut sich besonders, daß eine seiner Briefpartnerinnen, Natalia Tarakanowa, mittlerweile im “Blauen Himmel” mitarbeitet. Nun hofft er, daß sie bald einmal wieder nach Erlangen kommt. Vielleicht schon im nächsten Jahr? 

Bis dahin vertieft sich Alexander Kefeli – ohne Brille! – weiter in seine Bibliothek mit Werken von Nikolaj Nekrassow, Alexander Puschkin, Michail Lermontow. “Die russische Lyrik muß man im Original lesen. Die Wärme und Geschmeidigkeit der russischen Sprache läßt sich nicht übersetzen. Eine Übersetzung mag noch so richtig sein, sie trifft doch nie den Zauber des Russischen.”

Die Sprache der chasarischen Vorfahren ist im Russischen aufgegangen. Anklänge an deren Geschichte findet man noch in dem Poem “Ruslan und Ludmila” von Alexander Puschkin, zur Oper verarbeitet von Michail Glinka, wo ein chasarischer Fürst mit einem warägischen Rivalen um die schöne Ludmila eifert. Derselbe Alexander Puschkin schildert in seinem “Lied vom Wahrsager Oleg”, wie der sich anschickt, an den unverständigen Chasaren Rache zu nehmen. “Как ныне сбирается вещий Олег отомстить неразумным хазарам”, zitiert Alexander Kefeli aus dem Gedächtnis. Er mußte das Zitat schon in der Schule dauernd hören, wenn man ihn foppen wollte. “Die meinten es nicht böse.” Mit Unverständnis und Unkenntnis begegnet man ja bis heute diesem Volk. Sogar der große Arthur Koestler hat ihm mit seinem letzten Werk “Der dreizehnte Stamm” eher einen Bärendienst erwiesen, wenn er behauptete, das Ostjudentum stamme von den Chasaren.

So interessant die Geschichte des Volkes sein mag, Alexander Kefeli freut sich auf seinen nächsten Besuch, eine Dame, die an Krebs erkrankt ist, und die er mit einigen Witzen erheitern will. “Die kann so herzhaft lachen!” Da wollen wir nicht zurückstehen:

In einem Frauenkloster wird renoviert. Die Oberin schickt eine Schwester mit dem Essen zu den Bauarbeitern. Die will aber zuerst feststellen, ob es sich um gläubige Menschen handelt und fragt den Polier, ob er wissen, wer Pontius Pilatus sei. Statt zu antworten ruft der zum Gerüst hinauf: “Wer von euch heißt Pontius Pilatus? Hier ist eine Alte, die ihm das Essen bringen will.”

Sarah zu Mosche: “Ich habe gar keine Lust, die Einladung von Liebermanns anzunehmen.” Mosche: “Was fällt dir ein! Was glaubst du, wie die sich ärgern, wenn wir kommen!”

Zwei Russen und ein Jude bei der Musterung. Der erste Russe klagt über Magenschmerzen. Der Arzt schreibt ihn tauglich mit dem Hinweis darauf, daß Michail Frunse die sowjetischen Truppen trotz seines Magengeschwürs siegreich geführt habe. Der zweite Russe verweist auf sein schwaches Herz. Auch er wird tauglich geschrieben, schließlich habe sich Felix Dserschinskij auch nicht geschont und habe mitten in einer Rede seinen tödlichen Herzanfall bekommen. Darauf dreht sich der Jude um und will gehen. “Was fällt dir ein?” ruft ihm der Arzt nach. Darauf der Jude: ”Wenn ich jetzt sage, ich sei verrückt, bekomme ich ja doch nur zu Antwort, Genosse Stalin sei das auch und arbeite dennoch unermüdlich weiter zum Wohle aller Völker…”

Den Witz, so Alexander Kefeli, durfte man seinerzeit nicht in der Straßenbahn erzählen. Und hier in Deutschland kennen viele die historischen Bezüge nicht. Er aber könnte geistreich und mit Witz noch vieles erzählen. Nicht nur Witze.

One thing that I didn’t expect to find while researching Arthur Koestler’s book, ‘The Ghost In The Machine’, was that the man was an early critic of Darwin’s evolutionary theory.

In his book, he subjects the neo-Darwinistic evolutionary theory to intense scrutiny and manages to shoot some convincing holes in it.

Just to give a few quotes so that people can get a sense of what I’m talking about (from page 115, The Ghost In The Machine):

The classical Darwinian answer to the question how man was created out of a blob of slime is much the same as Watson’s answer to the question how Patou creates a gown out of a piece of silk: ‘He pulls it in here, he pulls it out there, makes it tight or loose at the waist… he manipulates his material until it takes on the semblance of a dress…’ The evolutionary process is supposed to operate by similar random manipulations of its raw material – pulling it in here, pushing out there, putting a tail on here, putting an antler there – until a ‘pattern is hit upon’, fit to survive.

Flat-earth science explains mental evolution by random tries, preserved by selective reinforcement (the stick and the carrot) , and biological evolution by random mutations (the monkey at the typewriter) preserved by natural selection. Mutations are defined as spontaneous changes in the molecular structure of genes, and are said to be random in the sense that they have no relation whatsoever the organism’s adaptive needs.

Now that last line there needs emphasizing – because if you ask a current Darwinian like Richard Dawkins today whether their creed still hinges upon mutations being random, they will flat-out deny it and state that you ‘do not understand evolution’ and that Darwin always argued that mutations in his evolutionary theory was ‘non-random’. It could be argued that this position (on Darwin always having been right from the inception of his theories) is straight-out revisionism (or at best a cop-out, if you go by the strawman that evolution is random, but the ‘natural selection’ process isn’t) as evidenced by the numerous times Koestler goes into the neo-Darwinist mindset – time and time again he reiterates that the official orthodoxy hinges upon the consensus that mutation is random and haphazard for lack of a better description.

Although these criticisms and doubts have made numerous breaches in the walls, the citadel of Neo-Darwinism orthodoxy still stands - mainly, one supposes, because nobody has had a satisfactory alternative to offer. The history of science indicates that a well-established theory can take a lot of battering and get into a tangle of absurdities and contradictions, yet still be upheld by the Establishment until an acceptable global alternative is offered.

This begs the question: who created the ‘preconditions’ that led to it becoming an ‘accepted’ theory? And who exactly does Koestler refer to when talking about the ‘Establishment’? (assuming the myth that we’re still living in a ‘democracy’ has any validity to it – for a minute, mind you)? Big money interests and an elite interested in endorsing a particular creed perhaps? Was not eugenics pretty much the same thing – faulty science being pushed as an established fact? Is not global warming following steadily in its footsteps today? So if ’science’ is just about – oh, this sounds most plausible – then why are skeptics on the Darwinist version of evoltuion being utomatically derided for ‘denying reality’ and being ’stupid’? Is that not really evidence of an acolyte-like disdain for anyone who doesn’t concur with their views?

Continuing on from the book:

A number of corrections and amendments to neo-Darwinian theory have been proposed by evolutionists over a number of years; and if these were to be put together, there would be little left of the original theory – as amendments to a Parliamentary bill can reverse its emphasis and intent.

Darwinians are the most vocal critics of religion out there. One of their chief complaints regarding Christianity is that The Bible was written and amended by thousands of Men over the ages, including Kings and Queens interested in keeping the public under their thumb – and that it’s a hodgepodge of fairy tales and interpretations of the laws of nature that serve to control ‘people’. Yet what does that make Darwinism then given this charge by Koestler?

To leave no doubt of the shakiness of Darwinism’s foundations in Koestler’s opinion, let’s offer a few more quotes:

The propounders of the orthodox theory may have been uneasily aware that something essential was missing, and paid occasional lip service to ‘unsolved problems’, then hurriedly swept them under the carpet. To quote one authority, Sir Peter Medawar (himself not excessively given to tolerance of other people’s opinions): ‘Twenty years ago it all seemed easy: with mutation as a source of diversity, with selection to pick and choose… Our former complacency can be traced, I suppose, to an understandable fault of temperament; scientists tend not to ask themselves questions until they can see the rudiments of an answer in their minds. Embarrassing questions tend to remain unasked or, if asked, to be answered rudeley…“

Could it be that by upholding ’science’ that can’t be entirely validated – but has to be agreed to nonetheless – that the people practicing science are in fact enslaving themselves and the people they are supposed to ‘enlighten’ from the Dark Ages – because they can’t break free of its trappings? That they’re kind of like the computer code running inside the debugger – they can’t break free out of the program – they remain stuck inside that atom forever. (a somewhat flimsy analogy, admittedly. Perhaps I will think of a more valid one at a later date).

Continuing on from page 157…

Yet it is precisely this perverse view which determines the orthodox interpretation not only of the evolution of new animal forms, but also of new patterns of animal behaviour. The only explanation that neo-Darwinian theory has to offer is that new forms of behaviour, too, arise from chance mutations affecting the nervous system, preserved by natural selection. If, apart from a few tentative studies, the evolution of behaviour (as distinct from the evolution of physical structures) is still an uncharted territory, the reason may perhaps be an unconscious reluctance to put the already strained theoretical framework of neo-Darwinian genetics to an additional test.

This review seems to recognize Koestler’s criticism without the usual vindictive disdain – but seems to struggle coming up with a genuine rebuttal all the same:
http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/rawdataupload/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005af7_1.pdf

Given that Koestler gets a free pass by Darwinian evolutionist followers, what is the justification for Ben Stein being villified in the press and on blogs like the one from Richard Dawkins for merely releasing a movie that merely states the obvious – that Darwinism layed the seeds for eugenics and the Nazi movement’s own implementation of that ’science’? To my mind, that can’t even be debated – it’s part of the historical record. Perhaps they object to the pro-’intelligent design’ message – but otherwise it strikes me as odd for the entire media apparatus to denounce this as ‘unscientific’ given what Koestler and the rest of the academic community already purported about Darwinism back in the ’70s – namely, that it was composed of contradictions and implausibilities.

Die Lehre von der Vererbung erworbener Eigenschaften hat sich bis zum heutigen Tage, obwohl sie richtig ist, praktisch nicht durchsetzen können. (Der Krebs)

Bei dieser Verteidigung des Lamarckismus dachte Reich wohl an das Schicksal eines seiner wichtigsten frühen Anreger. 1919 hatte Reich den österreichischen Zoologen Paul Kammerer (1880-1926) persönlich kennengelernt, dem es gelungen war, die Vererbung erworbener Eigenschaften an Niederen Tieren und Amphibien experimentell nachzuweisen.

Vor kurzem ist der Biologe Alexander Vargas von der Universität von Chile nach Untersuchung der Laborbücher Kammerers zu dem Schluß gekommen, daß Kammerer ein früher Vertreter der im ersten Teil besprochenen Epigenetik war.

An Kammerers Biologievorlesungen erinnerte sich Reich „mit besonderer Vorliebe“. Ilse Ollendorff zufolge führte Reich sein bleibendes Interesse an der Biologie auf Kammerers Wirken zurück. In Der Krebs zitiert er Kammerer ausführlich.

Näheres über Kammerer kann der Leser in Arthur Koestlers Der Krötenküsser (München 1972) finden. Hier sei Kammerer nur kurz zitiert, um einen Eindruck von seiner Grundeinstellung zu vermitteln, die nachhaltig auf Reich gewirkt hat:

Entwicklung ist (…) nicht erbarmungslose Auslese, die alles Lebendige formt und vervollkommnet, nicht verzweifelter Kampf ums Dasein, der allein die Welt beherrscht. Alles Geschaffene strebt vielmehr aus eigener Kraft nach oben dem Lichte und der Lebensfreude zu und begräbt nur Unbrauchbares im Gräberfeld der Selektion.

Anfang der 1920er Jahre war Kammerer einer der berühmtesten aber auch umstrittensten Biologen der Welt. Zu einer Zeit als sich die Eugenik, d.h. die Züchtung wertvollen und die „Ausmerzung“ wertlosen Lebens zunehmend durchsetzte, vertrat Kammerer offensiv einen Lamarckismus, demzufolge beispielsweise die guten Eigenschaften, die eine gute Kindererziehung mit sich bringt, an zukünftige Generationen vererbt wird. Es war nur naheliegend, daß er 1926 an die Kommunistische Akademie der Wissenschaften in Moskau, die Institution für fortschrittliches Gedankengut, berufen wurde.

Leider konnte er diesen Posten nicht mehr ausfüllen, da er infolge des Skandals um einen angeblichen wissenschaftlichen Betrug Selbstmord verübte. Stattdessen wurde Iwan Wladimirowitsch Mitschurin zum führenden sowjetischen Lamarckisten. Unter Mitschurins Einfluß war die Parteilinie seit 1929 offiziell Lamarckistisch. Er stand so hoch in Kurs, daß seine Heimatstadt Koslow nach seinem Tod 1935 in Mitschurinsk umbenannt wurde. So heißt sie heute noch.

Diese Entwicklung war nicht verwunderlich, denn schon Engels hatte davon gesprochen, daß die Bedürfnisse des Vormenschen sich ihre Organe geschaffen hätten. Bereits 1906 hatte Stalin darauf hingewiesen, daß die Theorie des Neo-Lamarckismus an die Stelle des Neo-Darwinismus rücke, denn sie zeige, „wie quantitative Veränderungen qualitative hervorbringen“ (C.D. Darlington: Das Gesetz des Lebens, Wiesbaden 1959).

Als „humanistische Materialisten“ wollten die Sowjetmarxisten die Welt langfristig zum Guten wenden, und dazu bot damals nur der Lamarckismus einen realistischen Ansatzpunkt, wollte man nicht wie die Nazis Menschen züchten. Der Lamarckismus war das Ideal für die über Generationen inweg in die Zukunft blickenden Erziehungsdiktatoren der Sowjetunion. Aktuelle Verhaltensveränderungen würden sich verewigen und so das Sowjetsystem langfristig absichern.

Es ist nicht verwunderlich, daß der „bürgerliche“ Begründer des Behaviorismus, J.B. Watson, enthusiastisch Kammerers Ergebnisse über die Vererbbarkeit erworbener Eigenschaften begrüßte. (Zu Watson siehe auch Die Funktion des Orgasmus in der Verhaltenstherapie.) Watson:

Wie viel würde es für die Pädagogen, für die Gesellschaft im allgemeinen bedeuten, wenn [Kammerers Resultate] richtig wären!

Reich reiht sich hier lückenlos ein. Noch 1949 hat Reich den berühmt-berüchtigten Hohenpriester des „Mitschurin-ismus“, Trofim Denissowitsch Lyssenko, in einem Brief an Neill gegen die amerikanischen Genetiker verteidigt. Reich beklagt nur, die Russen hätten rein politische Motive geleitet, die sie zufällig auf die richtige wissenschaftliche Seite geführt hätten.

Neben dem Einfluß des Vitalismus (wie ihn Kammerer vertrat) und des „Dialektischen Materialismus“ auf Reich ist natürlich in vorderster Linie Freud zu nennen. In der Psychoanalyse diente der Lamarckimus hauptsächlich dem Zweck, eine Art Ursünde auf den Grund des Unbewußten zu setzen. So führt Freud (noch ziemlich vage) in Totem und Tabu den Ödipuskomplex auf den „Vatermord in der Urhorde“ zurück, der so quasi angeboren ist. Explizit sollte sich Freud zwei Jahrzehnte später in Der Mann Mosese zum Lamarckimus bekennen, trotz der „gegenwärtigen Einstellung der biolgischen Wissenschaft (…), die von der Vererbung erworbener Eigenschaften auf die Nachkommen nichts wissen will.“

Freud brauchte den Fortbestand von Erinnerungsspuren aus der archaischen Erbschaft, um die Kluft zwischen Individual- und Massenpsychologie überbrücken zu können, d.h. um die Völker wie einzelne Neurotiker behandeln zu können. Freud:

Wir tun damit auch noch etwas anderes. Wir verringern die Kluft, die frühere Zeiten menschlicher Überhebung allzu weit zwischen Mensch und Tier aufgerissen haben. Wenn die sogenannten Instinkte der Tiere, die ihnen gestatten, sich von Anfang an in der neuen Lebenssituation so zu benehmen, als wäre sie eine alte, längst vertraute, wenn dies Instinktleben der Tiere überhaupt eine Erklärung zuläßt, so kann es nur die sein, daß sie die Erfahrung ihrer Art in die neue eigene Existenz mitbringen, also Erinnerungen an das von ihren Voreltern erlebte in sich bewahrt haben. Beim Menschentier wäre es im Grunde auch nicht anders. Den Instinkten der Tiere entspricht seine eigene archaische Erbschaft, sei sie auch von anderem Umfang und Inhalt.

Reich hat sich nie mit dem Mißbrauch des Lamarckismus durch die Stalinisten und Freudianer auseinandergesetzt. Dazu war er zu sehr in der jeweiligen Tradition verankert. Seine Kritik galt ausschließlich dem Mißbrauch des Darwinismus durch rechte reaktionäre Kreise im Sinne der Klassengesellschaft und des Rassenwahns. So unterscheidet Reich 1933 in seiner Massenpsychologie des Faschismus zwischen der Darwinschen Hypothese der natürlichen Zuchtwahl, die von Hitler rassistisch mißbraucht werden konnte, Reich nennt sie „reaktionär“, und dem Darwinschen Nachweis der Abstammung der Arten, der Reich zufolge „revolutionär“ gewesen sei.

Det er gitt ut rundt 15.000 bøker om den spanske borgerkrigen, tror Rolf Sæther. Da var det på høy tid å skrive boka om Norges rolle i krigen.

(Gyldendal har i høst gitt ut Tusen dager: Norge og den spanske borgerkrigen 1936-1939 av Rolf Sæther og Jo Stein Moen. Denne saken skrev jeg i Ny Tid i 2007, mens forfatterne fortsatt var på jakt etter forlag.)

– Det finnes ingen bøker om Norges rolle i den spanske borgerkrigen. Slike bøker er gitt ut i de fleste andre land, men merkelig nok har ingen norske historikere tatt opp tråden. Jeg hadde egentlig tenkt å skrive en roman fra borgerkrigen, men verden er full av romaner og dette ble et kall, forteller Rolf Sæther.

Han er tidligere direktør i Norges Rederiforbund, og innehaver av Norges største samling av litteratur om den spanske borgerkrigen. Hjemme på Bygdøy guider han oss gjennom hyllemetre med originalbøker, flyveblader, dokumenter, kunst og anarkistisk propaganda. Han er i innspurten med boka, som han skriver sammen med Jo Stein Moen og håper å få gitt ut alt til høsten.

– Jeg vet alt hvordan den skal slutte: Med appelsinaffæren i 1947.

ROLF SÆTHER, FOTO: OSM.NO

Et speilbilde
Mer om appelsinaffæren senere, men klarer Sæther å komme i mål er det god timing. 18. juli er det 70 år siden borgerkrigen brøt ut, og denne uka har Antony Beevor fått stor oppmerksomhet rundt Kampen om Spania, en oppdatert utgave av hans første krigshistoriske verk fra 1982.

– En sprø samler som meg må prioritere, og jeg har valgt vekk de militært orienterte bøkene. Jeg kjøpte Beevors bok da den kom ut, men selv om han er både grundig og skikkelig, synes jeg ikke den er mer enn ok. Nettopp fordi jeg ikke er så opptatt av de militære og strategiske sidene av krigen.

Sæther beskriver borgerkrigen som en fillekrig i et av Europas mest tilbakestående land, utkjempet mellom to av Europas mest tilbakestående armeer. Så hvorfor fascinerer den fortsatt så kraftig? Sæther mener krigen var et speilbilde av alle politiske og sosiale motsetninger i Europa på 1930-tallet, og at den også ble en generalprøve på andre verdenskrig.

– Spania ble ikke bare en treningsleir for tyske, italienske og sovjetiske soldater, men skapte også et voldsomt folkelig engasjement i Vest-Europa og USA, som gikk på tross av regjeringenes syn. I Norge var for eksempel Ap.-regjeringen veldig opptatt av nøytralitet og ikke-intervensjon, og kriminaliserte det å verve seg. De 200-300 nordmennene som dro til Spania for å kjempe var faktisk lovbrytere.

Romantisering
Krigen trakk også til seg intellektuelle som George Orwell, Arthur Koestler, Ernest Hemingway og Pablo Neruda, noe som førte til ekstra oppmerksomhet, romantisering og heroisering. Det var også den første propagandakrigen, mener Sæther.

– Men jo mer du leser om krigen, desto mer tragisk blir den. I samtiden ble den skildret som en kamp mellom demokrati og fascisme, men da glemmer man at det første offeret var den borgerlige republikken og at det spanske folket var delt på midten. Sentrum ble knust, mens ekstremister fra høyre- og venstresiden gikk amok.

Sæther skildrer Franco som en hevngjerrig og slu mann, som styrte sine styrker med fast hånd. Motstanderne ble splittet av uenighet, og den interne volden preget manges syn på kommunismen i årene etter – blant annet i bøkene til Koestler og Orwell. I splittelsene ligger også noe av grunnen til bokflommen, tror Sæther.

– Det var så mange som tapte krigen, og de hadde alle behov for å gi sin versjon, der de forklarte at det ikke var deres skyld: Kommunistene, sosialistene, trotskistene, de baskiske nasjonalistene og venstrerepublikanerne for bare å nevne noen. Spanjolene har aldri tatt det endelige oppgjøret med borgerkrigen, og det er først nå de spanske historikerne kommer for fullt.

Gerda Grepp, ifølge boka den første norske krigsreporteren.

Norge og borgerkrigen
Borgerkrigen ble internasjonalisert da omverdenen blandet seg inn, og blant nordmennene var det også enkelte som ønsket å kjempe på Francos side.

– Dette var antikommunister og folk fra miljøet rundt Nasjonal Samling. Men Franco var en beinhard nasjonalist og skeptisk til utlendinger, selv om han paradoksalt nok vant krigen takket være marokkanske leiesoldater, portugisiske fremmedlegionærer og tyske og italienske styrker.

De fleste nordmennene kjempet mot Franco, og her finner vi de få skildringene av Norges rolle i borgerkrigen. Yngvar Ustvedt ga i 1975 ut Arbeidere under våpen, mens journalisten Lise Lindbæk i 1938 skildret kommunistiske Bataljon Thälmann i en bok med samme navn – som Sæther beskriver som et lærestykke i propaganda. Det er også gitt ut et knippe romaner, biografier og dagbøker.

– Spania dominerte utenriksnyhetene i Norge på 1930-tallet, og der venstresidas aviser var mot Franco, ble han støttet av Aftenposten og Nationen. Vi må huske at det var revolusjonære tilstander, drevet fram av kommunister og marxister, og at det var mye forlangt at den borgerlige pressen umiddelbart skulle støtte kommunister.

Etter andre verdenskrig regnet derimot hele Norge med at Francos tid snart var omme, hvilket bringer oss tilbake til appelsinaffæren i 1947.

– Da bryggeriarbeiderne nektet å losse appelsiner fra Spania, organiserte noen kloke hoder en husmoraksjon der skipene ble bordet av husmødre som selv bar appelsinene i land – og satte streikekomiteen i sjakk matt. Hendelsen illustrerte hvordan verdenssamfunnet ble nødt til å godta Francos diktatur i Spania.

Videre lesning
Rolf Sæther anbefaler:

Bok: The Spanish Civil War av Hugh Thomas (1962).
– Stor, omfattende og veldig god. Det første balanserte storverket om krigen, og skjelt ut fra både venstre- og høyresiden da den kom ut i 1962. Over 1100 sider lang, men like bra om du bare leser det som interesserer deg.

Biografi: Men In Battle av Alvah Cecil Bessie (1954).
– Forfatteren var kommunist og deltager i Abraham Lincoln-brigaden under borgerkrigen, og dette er en av de aller beste personlige fortellingene fra krigen. Bessie er ærlig, og unngår både skjønnmaling og heroisering.

Roman: Klokkene ringer for deg av Ernest Hemingway (1940).
– Uslåelig! Både kjærlighetshistorien, den ensomme helten som slåss for det han tror på i et fremmed land og de skremmende beretningene om hvordan de røde oppførte seg. George Orwells Hyllest til Katalonia er også svært god, mens Hilmar Iversens ensomhet av Jan Jakob Tønseth er den eneste norske romanen fra borgerkrigen jeg vil anbefale.

Fotografi: Heart of Spain av Robert Capa (2003).
– En strålende bok viet Robert Capas verdensberømte fotografier fra borgerkrigen. Det var disse bildene som gjorde ham til en av verdens mest kjente fotojournalister.

Film: Klokkene ringer for deg av Sam Wood (1943).
– Ingrid Bergman i hovedrollen fascinerte, og etter at jeg så denne dro jeg til Spania og ble fascinert av borgerkrigen. Jeg liker også godt Ken Loachs Land og frihet fra 1995, som handler om POUM-militsen

Last week I was involved in a lot of discussions about coaching and coach development. For years I have been thinking about the vision that links people after reading an Arthur Koestler paper in the late 1980s entitled The Vision that Links the Poet, Artist and Scientist.

This week I have been thinking about the links between coaching and composition following a Graham Abbott program about Mozart. In 1788 he composed his last three symphonies, 39 (in E flat), 40 (in G minor)  and 41 (in C). In his analysis of these three symphonies Graham Abbott suggests that one refers back to the whole of Mozart’s work, one emphasises Mozart’s present occupations and one holds within it the next century of classical music. I was wondering if that is what great coaches do too in their coaching. Do they have three concurrent rhythms running through their work: the biography that positioned them to coach in the here and now and that allows them to envisage performance that can be?

By coincidence the Hubble Telescope was in the news last week. I wondered if coach education and development might set some Hubble type aspirations:

• NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope is back in business, ready to uncover new worlds, peer ever deeper into space, and even map the invisible backbone of the universe.
• With its new imaging camera, Hubble can view galaxies, star clusters, and other objects across a wide swath of the electromagnetic spectrum, from ultraviolet to near-infrared light. A new spectrograph slices across billions of light-years to map the filamentary structure of the universe and trace the distribution of elements that are fundamental to life. The telescope’s new instruments also are more sensitive to light and can observe in ways that are significantly more efficient and require less observing time than previous generations of Hubble instruments.
• Hubble also is now significantly more well-equipped to probe and further characterize the behavior of dark energy, a mysterious and little-understood repulsive force that is pushing the universe apart at an ever-faster rate.

If this kind of vision is what coaching is about then I think coaching is about first principles too. I wondered if the insights coaches have match those of a soil scientist like Christine Jones and an innovative farmer like Cam McKellar who appeared on Radio National’s Bush Telegraph program. If you have an opportunity to listen to the podcast then it will sound very familiar to coaches interested in grassroots development!

I am hopeful that the visions held by composers, astronomers and farmers can enrich our thinking about coaching.

Photo Sources (The Commons)

The St Raphael Team

An Orchestral Practice

Hubble Image

Planting Tomatoes

I first encountered Arthur Koestler in college, in a local anthology of creative nonfiction where he is quoted on something about the “politics of creativity.” Right then I’ve already found the guy’s ideas brilliant, but it took me a good six years to finally purchase my first Koestler book, The Yogi and the Commissar. 

Divided into three parts, this collection of essays written in the 1940s discusses literature and maps out the socio-political terrain of its time. The third part, “Explorations,” specifically lays down a “well-documented survey of the Soviet experiment with the conclusions to be derived from it.”

Koestler isn’t merely a lurker, or perhaps a dabbler in these affairs. Born in Budapest with Hungarian-Austrian roots, he studied science, engineering and psychology and, not unlike the many intellectuals of his time, joined the Communist party in 1931. Disillusioned during the height of the Stalinist purges, he left the party, was imprisoned during the Spanish Civil War, and eventually joined the British Army. His novel Darkness At Noon, set during the Moscow show trials, is said to provide a searing examination of socialism and masterfully reflect the dialectics he had written about for the better part of his life.

Then my friend and the diligent MA student Jake, after I shared with him the good news of my latest paperback acquisition, dished an intriguing – if not outright shocking – tidbit about Koestler: Arthur and his wife simultaneously committed suicide, he sick with leukemia and decisive about having that final control over his body.

In his preface, Koestler shares having violently disagreed with some of his writings in the past, considering them produced during a “state of profound ignorance.” In the very same book, however, he shows a brand of sobriety and straight, lucid thinking that even “accomplished” literary and political thinkers of our time usually fail to exhibit. Every piece brims with simplicity in style, even in its intellectual rigor. It maintains a strong conviction against rabid linguistic modes that often obscures the content (Smoke and mirrors, to put it bluntly).

I have seen academic grandstanding of many forms in the university. An esteemed professor, for instance, would totally have her papers orphaned without quotes from Zizek, Williams, Neo-Marxists, and many sorts of well-meaning intellectuals. Even the most deeply engaged in my crowd would ask, “So did she say a meaningful bit that is hers alone?” Koestler chooses to do away from this deceptive track and gets right down to business, presenting clean metaphors and exhortations that encourage a serious rethinking of a number of canonical literary works and accepted ways of appraising literary merit and political relations (or lack thereof) in a given text.

For posterity’s sake, I’d like to provide excerpts from the first chapter, “Meanderings.”

Defining the Commissar:

“…believes in Change from Without. He believes that all the pests of humanity, including constipation and the Oedipus complex, can and will be cured by Revolution… a radical reorganization of the system of production and distribution of goods; that this end justifies the means, including violence, ruse, treachery and poison…” (p. 9)

Defining the Yogi:

“He believes that the End is unpredictable and that the Means alone count… He believes that logical reasoning gradually loses its compass value as the mind approaches the magnetic pole of Truth or the Absolute, which alone matters.” (p. 10)

On the new outbreak he calls the French ‘Flu:

“If an English poet dares to use words like ‘my fatherland’, ‘my soul’, ‘my heart’, etc, he is done for; if a French one dispenses musical platitude about la Patrie, la France, mon cæur and mon âme, the patient begins to quiver with admiration.” (p. 21)

On well-applauded literary works with covert shortcomings:

“But there is a black market in literature, on which human sacrifice, struggle and despair are commercialized, and the spirit is turned into hooch.” (p. 27)

On novelists and ‘temptations’ such as staying in their ivory tower or doing excessive reportage:

“To yield does not necessarily involve artistic failure; but I do believe that there is a main road leading from Ulenspiegel and Don Quixote to War and Peace, The Magic Mountain, and Fontamara. And I also believe that Tristram Shandy, and Wuthering Heights, Swann’s Way, and The Waves, are masterpieces at dead ends.” (p. 31)

On professional book reviewers in newspapers and journals:

“Of course, one can’t have a fixed yard-stick to measure literary merit, nor a thermometer for emotional heat; but one does expect a critic to have a sense of proportion as to the importance of the work reviewed.” (p. 38)

On Left intellectuals during the ’30s:

“In the thirties Left intellectuals tried to masquerade as proletarians; it was a farce. They tried to write down ‘to the masses’; and it was a failure. They derided the highbrows; it was self-derision. It’s no good trying to jump over the wall; our task is to abolish it… It is, I believe, the main and ultimate task of Socialism.” (p.40)

On ‘the popular game of highbrow-bating’:

“It is a Fascist diversion; our way is to attack the wall. As long as it stands, democracy is a sham.” (p.41)

On reading:

“Never, never read with clenched teeth for reading’s sake. For what, after all, is the aim of literature and art – if not to imbue the world with feeling and meaning, to broaden and deepen our understanding of ourselves and the things around us?” (p.42)

On the ‘highbrow’ in art and literature:

“Watch carefully what you do with your resentment – it is the only historical asset of the poor; without it they would still live in serfdom. The others would like to deflect it into the wrong direction, against ‘cleverness’, culture, art; to make you spit on those values of which they deprive you. It is a subtle maneuver of diversion; the Nazis were not the first and not the last to succeed with it. Don’t fall into that trap. Your opponent is not the highbrow, but the rich.” (p.42)

On the intelligentsia and neurosis:

“…the relation between intelligentsia and neurosis is not accidental, but functional. To think and behave independently puts one automatically into opposition to the majority whose thinking and behaviour is dependent on traditional patterns: and to belong to a minority is in itself a neurosis-forming situation. From the nonconformist to the crank there is only one step; and the hostile pressure of society provides the push.” (p. 80)

“But even for the ‘real’ intelligentsia, neurosis is an almost inevitable correlate. Take sex, for example. On the one hand we know all about the anachronistic nature of our sex-regulating institutions, their thwarting influence, and the constant barrage of unhappiness they shower on society. On the other hand, individual experiments of  ‘free companionship’, marriages with mutual freedom, etc. etc., all end in pitiful failure; the very term ‘free love’ has already an embarrassingly Edwardian taint. Reasonable arrangements in an unreasonable society cannot succeed.” (p.81)

Recently , I have seen a common thread in ‘ spiritual ‘ websites wondering when ’ we will get there ‘ . Many are very excited about 2012 due to the Mayan prophecy , which specifies that date as the end of a cycle after which there appears to be no further details . Some have said this is when the ‘ End of the World ‘ will be and others are hoping this will be the time of some form of spiritual ascension . I do not not know what will happen tomorrow let alone in 2012 so I do not feel able to pass any judgement on this , but Time is very different in reality to how we experience our lives .

Arthur Koestler wrote a famous book called ” The Ghost in the Machine ” in which he pondered on human existence . Wikipedia says : ” One of the book’s central concepts is that as the human brain has grown it has built upon earlier , more primitive brain structures and that they are the Ghost in the machine of the title . Koestler’s theory is that at times these structures can overpower logic and are responsible for hate , anger and other such impulses . “

This is true but what I would add to this is that our emotions are actually ghosts . They do not exist any more . They are replaying a moment in time when we had a thought of a world which was full of death , hate , anger , guilt and fear and the rest but this one thought has kept on repeating itself over who knows how long .It is like an addiction which we simply keep on doing again and again .It was only an idea and as such does not exist in concrete reality , but for some reason we are unwilling to let it go . The world is over NOW – it only exists in the past and as the past does not exist any more, our world doesn’t either . It is only in our Mind does it continue.

Everything that we experience through our bodies is second hand . When you look at yourself or anything , it takes but an instant for the light waves to be received by your brain . Again this goes for your thoughts and feelings which are decoded in the brain , but in this instant is the difference between the real world and the world we see . For everything you sense in the body is in the past and therefore does not exist any more and has never been . I once worked for a company that sold semi precious stones and we had a few customers who said that they could release souls who were dead but were trapped in the earthly plane and send them to the light . I do not know whether this is true or not , but it is actually us who are dead . Our bodies , mind and feelings are no more – we are ghosts haunting an imaginary world .

We are ‘ there ‘ now . The world we see through our egoic mind is dead and it is only with spiritual vision will we be able to see the real world and it is this which the current spiritual bombardment is trying to achieve . So when we will we get there in linear time . will it be 2012 or 6012 ? The answer is it does not matter – the world of separation , death , hate , fear and guilt is over . The outcome is assured but it is up to us when we accept our egoistical mind and bodies are dead and amend our vision accordingly .

Having skipped the real estate and pizza delivery adverts in today’s Tehran Times, scrolled through the local news articles (196 confirmed cases of swine flu in the country, will all flights to Saudi Arabia cancelled during Ramadan to try and contain the spread of it), and glanced at the international tabloid section (Chinese star Jet Li to help Taiwan’s typhoon relief), I finally found the story I was after: ‘Bahman Farmanara Seeks Green Light To Host Anti-Stalinist Play In Tehran’.

Chamberlain & Hitler - Obama & Ahmadinejad (Photoshopper Unknown)

The Iranian director, whose latest film has just been released after significant censorship editing, is seeking a performing licence from the Ministry of Culture And Islamic Guidance to put Arthur Koestler’s 1940 classic ‘Darkness at Noon’ on stage. Set, though it’s never directly stated, during the Stalinist purges and show trials of the late 1930s it tells of an old school Bolshevik who confesses – eventually – to false charges.

Comparisons with the Iranian regime are striking. Circa one hundred reformists were recently put on trial accused of attempting to overthrow the regime, or more specifically ‘participating in riots, acting against national security, disturbing public order, vandalising public and government property, having ties with counter-revolutionary groups and of planning to launch a velvet revolution.’ Dragged from their prison beds in nothing but their night clothes, the defendants were carted off to court and, bereft of solicitors, forced to confess – publicly via state media in some instances.

© Edward Cropper (Photoshopped editorial on current affairs)

Ever loyal and friendly towards the supposed president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whom I always consider more Hitlerite than Stalinesque, Iranian daily newspaper Kayhan demanded that the worst offenders be put to death as ‘mohareb’ – fighters against Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala – but even escaping with their life a counter-revolutionary can face up to five years in gaol. And, of course, such ‘leniency’ draws attention away from those who die during interrogation and protesting.

So how will Iran’s totalitarian Ministry of Culture And Islamic Guidance judge Koestler’s work on totalitarianism? Who knows. Inspired by a Transit Lane blog post I read the other day the real question I have is why, without airbrushing, touching up, cropping, clipping, merging, etc does (or rather did, as he’s long since passed into paradise) Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini resemble Sir Sean Connery in a manner that can only be described as, well . . .

. . .uncanny?

Första inlägget om Darkness at Noon här.

—

‘Apage Satanas!‘ repeated Ivanov and poured himself out another glass. ‘In the old days, temptation was of carnal nature. Now it takes the form of pure reason. The values change. I would like to write a Passion play in which God and the Devil dispute for the soul of Saint Rubashov. After a life of sin, he has turned to God—to a God with the double chin of industrial liberalism and the charity of the Salvation Army soups. Satan, on the contrary, is thin, ascetic and a fanatical devotee of logic. He reads Machiavelli, Ignatius of Loyola, Marx and Hegel; he is cold and unmerciful to mankind, out of a kind of mathematical mercifulness. He is damned always to do that which is most repugnant to him: to become a slaughterer, in order to abolish slaughtering, to sacrifice lambs so that no more lambs may be slaughtered, to whip people with knouts so that they may learn not to let themselves be whipped, to strip himself of every scruple in the name of a higher scrupulousness, and to challenge the hatred of mankind because of his love for it—an abstract and geometric love. Apage satanas! Comrade Rubashov prefers to become a martyr. The columnists of the liberal Press, who hated him during his lifetime, will sanctify him after his death. He has discovered a conscience, and a conscience renders one as unfit for the revolution as a double chin. Conscience eats through the brain like a cancer, until the whole of the grey matter is devoured. [s. 149-50]

[...]

‘My point is this,’ he said; ‘one may not regard the world as a sort of metaphysical brothel for emotions. That is the first commandment for us. Sympathy, conscience, disgust, despair, repentence, and atonement are for us repellent debauchery. To sit down and let oneself be hypnotized by one’s own navel, to turn up one’s eyes and humbly offer the back of one’s neck to Gletkin’s revolver—that is an easy solution. The greatest temptation for the likes of us is: to renounce violence, to repent, to make peace with oneself. Most great revolutionaries fell before this temptation, from Spartacus to Danton and Dostoevsky; they are the classical form of betrayal of the cause. The temptations of God were always more dangerous for mankind than those of Satan. [s. 152-3]

[...]

‘The greatest criminals in history,’ Ivanov went on, ‘are not of the type Nero and Fouché, but of the type Gandhi and Tolstoy. Gandhi’s inner voice has done more to prevent the liberation of India than the British guns. To sell oneself for thirty pieces of silver is an honest transaction; but to sell oneself to one’s own conscience is to abandon mankind. History is a priori amoral; it has no conscience. To want to conduct history according to the maxims of the Sunday school means to leave everything as it is. You know that as well as I do. You know the stakes in this game, and here you come talking about Bogrov’s whimpering. . . .’ [s. 153]

[...]

‘There are only two conceptions of human ethics, and they are at opposite poles. One of them is Christian and humane, declares the individual to be sacrosanct, and asserts that the rules of arithmetic are not to be applied to human units. The other starts from the basic principle that a collective aim justifies all means, and not only allows, but demands, that the individual should in every way be subordinated and sacrificed to the community—which may dispose of it as an experimentation rabbit or a sacrificial lamb. The first conception could be called anti-vivisection morality, the second, vivisection morality. Humbugs and dilettantes have always tried to mix the two conceptions; in practise, it is impossible. Whoever is burdened with power and responsibility finds out on the first occasion that he has to choose; and he is fatally driven to the second alternative. Do you know, since the establishment of Christianity as a state religion, a single example of a state which really followed a Christian policy? You can’t point out one. In times of need—and politics are chronically in a time of need—the rulers were always able to evoke “exceptional circumstances”, which demanded exceptional measures of defence. Since the existence of nations and classes, they live in a permanent state of mutual self-defence, which forces them to defer to another time the putting into practice of humanism. . . .’

Rubashov looked through the window. The melted snow had again frozen and sparkled, an irregular surface of yellow-white crystals. The sentinel on the wall marched up and down with shouldered rifle. The sky was clear but moonless; above the machine-gun turret shimmered the Milky Way.

Rubashov shrugged his shoulders. ‘Admit,’ he said, ‘that humanism and politics, respect for the individual and social progress, are incompatible. Admit that Gandhi is a catastrophe for India; that chasteness in the choice of means leads to political impotence. In negatives we agree. But look where the other alternative has led us. . . .’

‘Well,’ asked Ivanov. ‘Where?’

Rubashov rubbed his pince-nez on his sleeve, and looked at him shortsightedly. ‘What a mess,’ he said, ‘what a mess we have made of our golden age.’

[s. 157-8]

Die Welt ist eine Bühne, die Bühne umfaß die ganze Welt, Schauprozesse hier wie da. Mal sehen wie viel Selbstironie die Zensurbehörde der Islamischen Republik besitzt. Abgesehn davon weiß man nicht recht: ist diese Meldung schwarzer Humor, suberversive Aktion oder beruflicher Selbstmord? Als mutig wird man den Antrag des Regisseurs Bahman Farmanara jedenfalls bezeichnen dürfen.

Iranian director Bahman Farmanara plans to stage a play featuring Stalin’s purge trials of the 1930s, but he must gain the Culture Ministry’s permission for it. Entitled “Darkness at Noon,” the play is based on a novel of the same name by Arthur Koestler, which was published in 1940.

“Darkness at Noon” is set in the tumultuous Soviet Union of the 1930s during the treason trials and is about Nicholas Rubashov, an old guard Bolshevik who at first denies, then confesses to, crimes that he did not commit.

Farmanara plans to apply for a performing license from the Ministry of Culture Islamic Guidance soon, he told the Persian service of ISNA on Saturday.

He previously planned to stage Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons” as his theatrical debut in Tehran this spring, but the Culture Ministry refused to grant a performing license for it.

His latest film “Earthbound,” which faced a number of cuts to receive a screening license, is currently on screen in Iranian movie theaters.

Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon (1940). Rubashovs dagbok inför det andra förhöret:

“It has been said that No. 1 has Machiavelli’s Prince lying permanently by his bedside. So he should: since then, nothing really important has been said about the rules of political ethics. We were the first to replace the nineteenth century’s liberal ethics of ‘fair play’ by the revolutionary ethics of the twentieth century. In that also we were right: a revolution conducted according to the rules of cricket is an absurdity. Politics can be relatively fair in the breathing spaces of history; at its critical turning points there is no other rule possible than the old one, that the end justifies the means. We introduced neo-Machiavellianism into this country; the others, the counter-revolutionary dictatorships, have clumsily imitated it. We were neo-Machiavellians in the name of universal reason – that was our greatness; the others in the name of a national romanticism, that is their anachronism. That is why we will in the end be absolved by history; but not they…”

Under uppväxten hyllades George Orwells Djurfarmen i otaliga sammanhang. Den var given att läsa på svenskan. Men jag blev alltid lika förvirrad över den bristfälliga analysen*. Så är det tydligen än i dag när man läser Rikard Westerbergs ledarstick i DN. Det har tvingat mig att läsa om den där förbaskade boken gång på gång på gång, trots att jag nog anser att hans mer “okända” verk ger mer.

Men det är ju knappast ingen slump att 1984 och Djurfarmen lyfts upp då de kunnat användas som ideologiskt slagträ från höger mot vänster och därmed tjänat som bättre verktyg än när Eric Blair avslöjade kolonialismens och kapitalismens hierarkiska människoförakt i Dagar i Burma och Nere för räkning i London och Paris.

För vad är det egentligen som händer i Djurfarmen? Djuren reser sig emot den kapitalistiska utsugningen och förtrycket, men revolutionen skapar ett nytt ledarskikt och utsugning. Sista meningen lyder så här:

“The creatures outsidelooked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man; but already it was impossible to say wich was wich.”

Att som marknadsliberal hylla en bok som avslöjar att det inte går att se skillnad på den stalinistiska ledarklicken och kapitalets herrar verkar rena julafton för en psykoterapeut!

* Att man läser litteratur utifrån olika perspektiv är ju helt uppenbart. Arthur Koestlers Natt klockan 12 på dagen kan ses som en specifik antikommunistisk katekes – eller som en allmän beskrivning av hur makten fungerar när den bryter ned människan.

Czy to pożyteczne, komentować książki, obok których przeszedłem mimochodem? Na usprawiedliwienie mogę jedynie rzec – Gladiatorów Arthura Koestlera sumiennie i po uczniowsku przeczytałem, czyniąc na marginesach ołówkowe notatki, wspomniana powieść stanowi element trylogii, która tematycznie bliska jest Grobowcowi Dawida Borysowicza, w końcu zaś język literatury niekoniecznie jest językiem biblijnym i pomiędzy apokaliptycznymi tak i nie może być chyba w nim trochę letniości i niemoralnych półcieni?

Książka Koestlera traktuje, z historyczną dowolnością, o powstaniu Spartakusa. Siadałem do Koestlera, jak często mi się zdarza z historycznymi powieściami, jak do kryminału – ramy wydarzeń jak i zakończenie raczej znane, pozostało przeczytać, aby dowiedzieć się, jak do zakończenia doszło. Literatura pozostała. Oczekiwałem na to, co po drodze. Otóż to, co po drodze – w dosłownym, pieszym i tym przenośnym, czytelniczym znaczeniu – się garstce tytułowych gladiatorów przydarza zaspokaja wszystkie konwencje historycznej powieści: jest podstarzały, zrzędliwy rzymski urzędnik (postać mająca u czytelnika wywołać pobłażliwy uśmiech, że wszystkie epoki są takie same), jest szczypta archeologicznego szczegółu (obracana w rękach biesiadników waza taka a taka), jest demoniczna, milcząca kochanka wodza, jest w końcu mesjanistyczna interpretacja powstania Spartakusa (jako poprzednika Chrystusa, który nie utrafił w odpowiedni czas). A, skryba! Jest oczywiście skryba, który losy powstania spisze.

Szczęśliwie książka Koestlera broni się przed polityczną jednoznacznością – zagrożenia spartakijskiej utopii i ciążące na niej odium przemocy pokazane są z przenikliwością człowieka, który stracił wiarę w komunizm. Tym niemniej w zestawieniu z takimi powieściami jak Pamiętniki Hadriana czy Ja, Klaudiusz wyprana jest ona z psychologicznej głębi czy wszelkiej innej głębi – ma w sobie coś z domorosłej historiografii, gdzie autor odgrywa bogactwo postaci i bitewnych pejzaży na złożonej z kilku klawiszy klawiaturze.

Aby oddać w pełni sprawiedliwość Koestlerowi, muszę przyznać się do jednego – czytałem powieść po francusku, przetłumaczoną z angielskiego. Oryginał był pisany po węgiersku. Co straciłem jako czytelnik, ile z wrażenia, że Gladiatorzy są papierową, nieprzekonywającą rozprawką, zawdzięczam temu, że dwa tłumaczeniowe żarna mełły prozę Koestlera – nie wiem i dowiedzieć się, nie dowiem. (Na marginesie, nie tak dawno temu francuskie wydawnictwo Flammarion świadomie zabawiło się w tłumaczeniowy głuchy telefon – opublikowało bowiem francuskie tłumaczenie japońskiego tłumaczenia Prób Montaigne’a.)

Rom 10:12  For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.

The Messiah is the TRUE CHOSEN ONE
Isa 42:1  Behold My Servant; I will uphold Him; My Elect in whom My soul delights! I have put My Spirit on Him; He shall bring forth justice to the nations.
Luk 23:35  And the people stood watching. And the rulers with them also scoffed, saying, He saved others; let Him save Himself, if this One is the Christ, the Elect of God.

The Messiah is spoken of as the Elect One numerous times in the book of Enoch.  Whether or not you believe this is Scripture or not is not important, Enoch was written around during the times of the Messiah and is a good historical document to see what the ancients believed. The Elect Ones in the book of Enoch point to those who will rule in the Kingdom with Messiah.

Enoch 39:6a. And in that place mine eyes saw the Elect One of righteousness and of faith,
7a. And I saw his dwelling-place under the wings of the Lord of Spirits.
Enoch 45:3. On that day Mine Elect One shall sit on the throne of glory
And shall try their works,
And their places of rest shall be innumerable.
And their souls shall grow strong within them when they see Mine Elect Ones,
And those who have called upon My glorious name:
4. Then will I cause Mine Elect One to dwell among them.
And I will transform the heaven and make it an eternal blessing and light
5. And I will transform the earth and make it a blessing:
And I will cause Mine elect ones to dwell upon it:
But the sinners and evil-doers shall not set foot thereon.
6. For I have provided and satisfied with peace My righteous ones
And have caused them to dwell before Me:
But for the sinners there is judgement impending with Me,
So that I shall destroy them from the face of the earth.

Enoch 61
9And trouble shall seize them, when they shall behold this Son of woman sitting upon the throne of his glory.

10Then shall the kings, the princes, and all who possess the earth, glorify him who has dominion over all things, him who was concealed; for from the beginning the Son of man existed in secret, whom the Most High preserved in the presence of his power, and revealed to the elect.

11He shall sow the congregation of the saints, and of the elect; and all the elect shall stand before him in that day.

The true chosen people are those in Messiah Yahshua
Eph 1:3  Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:
Eph 1:4  According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Eph 1:5  Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Eph 1:6  To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.
Eph 1:7  In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 1:8  Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;
Eph 1:9  Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
Eph 1:10  That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:
Eph 1:11  In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
Eph 1:12  That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.

Rom 9:24  Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?
Rom 9:25  As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.
Rom 9:26  And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.
Rom 9:27  Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved:

Joh 15:16  Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
Joh 15:19  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
Col 3:10  And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
Col 3:11  Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
Col 3:12  Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;
Col 3:13  Forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye.
Col 3:14  And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.
Col 3:15  And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body; and be ye thankful.
Col 3:16  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.
Col 3:17  And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
1Pe 1:1  Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
1Pe 1:2  Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.
Mat 20:16  So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
1Pe 2:9  But ye are a chosen generation (chosen race), a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

His Elect are those that came out of Judah and Jacob…who entered into the new covenant through Messiah Yahshua
Isa 65:9  And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah one to inherit My mountains. And My elect shall inherit, and My servants shall live there.

Disinheritance because of unbelief and the heirs coming through one man.  Moshe was a picture of Yahshua.  ALL the branches of the olive tree were broken off according to Paul in Romans 11.  The chosen people are those who repent and come to belief in Messiah and are grafted back into that olive tree of Yisrael.
Num 14:11  And YHWH said to Moses, Until when will this people despise Me? And until when will they continue not to believe in Me for all the signs I have done in its midst?
Num 14:12  I shall strike it with pestilence and dispossess (yarash KJV disinherit) it. And I will make you a nation greater and mightier than it.

Becoming strangers through idolatry
Eze 14:4  Therefore, speak to them and say to them, So says the Lord YHWH: Every man of the house of Israel who causes idols to go up in his heart, and who puts the stumbling-block of his iniquity before his face, and comes to the prophet, I, YHWH, will answer him in it by the host of his idols,
Eze 14:5  so that I may capture the house of Israel in their own heart, who are estranged (zur-stranger) from Me by their idols, all of them.
Eze 14:6  Therefore, say to the house of Israel, So says the Lord YHWH: turn, and be turned from your idols, and from all your abominations turn away your faces.

Being born again=chosen/elect.  We are born again by the Word being implanted into our hearts and watered until it brings forth life, fruit.  The connection between those who are born again and those who are the chosen people is so strong that it can not be denied.

1Pe 2:9  But you are “an elect* race**,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; LXX-Ex. 23:22; MT-Ex. 19:5, 6

The word translated into english as elect or chosen is a greek word which when broken down to its root means “by or from the Word”
G1588*
ἐκλεκτός
eklektos
Thayer Definition:
1) picked out, chosen
1a) chosen by God
1a1) to obtain salvation through Christ
1a1a) Christians are called “chosen or elect” of God
1a2) the Messiah in called “elect”, as appointed by God to the most exalted office conceivable
1a3) choice, select, i.e. the best of its kind or class, excellence preeminent: applied to certain individual Christians
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G1586

G1586
ἐκλέγομαι
eklegomai
Thayer Definition:
1) to pick out, choose, to pick or choose out for one’s self
1a) choosing one out of many, i.e. Jesus choosing his disciples
1b) choosing one for an office
1c) of God choosing whom he judged fit to receive his favours and separated from the rest of mankind to be peculiarly his own and to be attended continually by his gracious oversight
1c1) i.e. the Israelites
1d) of God the Father choosing Christians, as those whom he set apart from the irreligious multitude as dear unto himself, and whom he has rendered, through faith in Christ, citizens in the Messianic kingdom: (Jam_2:5) so that the ground of the choice lies in Christ and his merits only
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: middle voice from G1537 and G3004 (in its primary sense)

G1537
ἐκ  /  ἐξ
ek  /  ex
Thayer Definition:
1) out of, from, by, away from
Part of Speech: preposition
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative

G3004
λέγω
legō
Thayer Definition:
1) to say, to speak
1a) affirm over, maintain
1b) to teach
1c) to exhort, advise, to command, direct
1d) to point out with words, intend, mean, mean to say
1e) to call by name, to call, name
1f) to speak out, speak of, mention
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: a root word
–

Family of Elohim; New Creation
Eph 3:14  For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Eph 3:15  Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,
Eph 3:16  That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man;
Eph 3:17  That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
Eph 3:18  May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
Eph 3:19  And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.

Partakers of His divine nature
Heb 12:10  For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
2Pe 1:2  Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
2Pe 1:3  According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
2Pe 1:4  Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature (G5449), having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

G5449 φύσις phusis
foo’-sis
From G5453; growth (by germination or expansion), that is, (by implication) natural production (lineal descent); by extension a genus or sort; figuratively native disposition, constitution or usage: – ([man-]) kind, nature ([-al]).

Fleshly Jews are of the seed of Abraham but at the same time their father is the devil.  We must repent and turn the Yahshua in order to be translated from the kingdom of darkness to the Kingdom of Light.
Joh 8:37  I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Joh 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Act 13:6  And when they had gone through the isle unto Paphos, they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Barjesus:
Act 13:7  Which was with the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
Act 13:8  But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith.
Act 13:9  Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him,
Act 13:10  And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?

Cain was of the wicked one yet he had the same parents as Abel
1Jn 3:12  Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous.
Even in Rabbinic writings, it is taught that being a son is dependant upon doing the will of the Most High

Kiddushin 61c
“When Israelites do the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, they are called sons; but when they do not do His will, they are not called sons.”

Messiah Yahshua & John the Baptist tried to teach the Jews that the flesh does not profit but faith in the Most High is what makes you elect
Joh 6:63  It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh does not profit, nothing! The Words which I speak to you are spirit and are life.
Luk 3:7  Then he said to the crowds going out to be baptized by him, Offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?
Luk 3:8  Then bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as father. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham out of these stones.
Luk 3:9  And also the axe is already laid to the root of the trees; therefore, every tree not producing good fruit is being cut down and being thrown into the fire.
Luk 4:22  And all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words coming out of His mouth. And they said, Is this not the son of Joseph?
Luk 4:23  And He said to them, Undoubtedly you will speak this parable to Me, Physician, heal yourself. What things we heard were happening in Capernaum, do also here in your fatherland.
Luk 4:24  But He said, Truly I say to you that no prophet is acceptable in his fatherland.
Luk 4:25  But truthfully I say to you, Many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah when the heaven was shut up over three years and six months, when a great famine came on all the land;
Luk 4:26  and yet Elijah was sent to none of them except to Zarephath of Sidon, to a widow woman.
Luk 4:27  And many lepers were in Israel during the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was made clean except Naaman the Syrian.
Luk 4:28  And all were filled with anger, hearing these things in the synagogue.
Luk 4:29  And rising up, they threw Him outside the city, and led Him up to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, in order to throw Him down.
Luk 4:30  But He went away, passing through their midst.

Mat 8:10  And hearing, Jesus marveled, and said to those following, Truly I say to you, Not even in Israel did I find such faith.
Mat 8:11  But I say to you that many will come from east and west, and will recline with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of Heaven,
Mat 8:12  but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of the teeth.

Rom 9:6  Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7  Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8  That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

Faith in Messiah is what makes us chosen
Gal 3:26  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29  And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Promise w/ Abraham’s seed  Rm 4:13
Eph 2:19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Act 13:26  Men and brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you feareth God, to you is the word of this salvation sent.

The example of Judas
Joh 6:70  Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?
Joh 6:71  He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
G2455 Ἰουδάς Ioudas
Thayer Definition:
Judah or Judas = “he shall be praised”

Mat 10:2  Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
Mat 10:3  Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
Mat 10:4  Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

Thaddeus was named Judas.  There were two Judas’. One who betrayed, one who believed…so too there are Jews who believe and are in the Yisrael of Elohim, and there are Jews who deny Yahshua and are considered antichrist.
Luk 6:16  And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
6) the apostle, Joh_14:22, who was surnamed Lebbaeus or Thaddaeus, and according to opinion wrote the Epistle of Jude.

Jud 1:1  Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called:
Jud 1:2  Mercy unto you, and peace, and love, be multiplied.
Jud 1:3  Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.
Jud 1:4  For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
Jud 1:5  I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
Jud 1:6  And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
Jud 1:7  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.
Jud 1:8  Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.
Jud 1:9  Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Jud 1:10  But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.
Jud 1:11  Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
Jud 1:12  These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Jud 1:13  Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Only Jews?

There is not one verse in the Scriptures that says the Jews are the chosen people.  It is always Yisrael is His chosen.  If this is the case, are all Israelites Jews?

Deu 7:6  For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God: the LORD thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.
Deu 7:7  The LORD did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people:
Deu 7:8  But because the LORD loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
Deu 7:9  Know therefore that the LORD thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations;
Deu 14:2  For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth.

Seed of Israel, Children of Jacob are the chosen
1Ch 16:13  O ye seed of Israel his servant, ye children of Jacob, his chosen ones.
Psa 105:6  O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his chosen.
Psa 106:4  Remember me, O LORD, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation;
Psa 106:5  That I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance.
Isa 45:4  For Jacob my servant’s sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

Messiah is the chosen
Isa 42:1  Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.

We are seed of Israel and chosen through Messiah Yahshua
Gal 3:16  Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Gal 3:26  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29  And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Eph 2:2  Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph 2:3  Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh (Jews and gentiles, w/out Yahshua are sons of satan), fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Eph 2:4  But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph 2:5  Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Eph 2:6  And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Eph 2:7  That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Eph 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Eph 2:10  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
Eph 2:11  Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Eph 2:12  That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Eph 2:13  But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
Eph 2:14  For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Eph 2:15  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
Eph 2:16  And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Eph 2:17  And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph 2:18  For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
Eph 2:19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 2:21  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
Eph 2:22  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

2 Families…House of Ephraim (10 Northern Tribes) & House of Judah (2 Southern Tribes)
Jer 33:24  Considerest thou not what this people have spoken, saying, The two families which the LORD hath chosen, he hath even cast them off? thus they have despised my people, that they should be no more a nation before them.
Jer 33:25  Thus saith the LORD; If my covenant be not with day and night, and if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and earth;
Jer 33:26  Then will I cast away the seed of Jacob, and David my servant, so that I will not take any of his seed to be rulers over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob: for I will cause their captivity to return, and have mercy on them.

2 Chosen Families, are in the new covenant.
Jer 31:31  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:6  But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7  For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8  For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10  For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11  And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12  For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13  In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Heb 10:15  Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,
Heb 10:16  This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;
Heb 10:17  And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Mat 26:26  And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body.
Mat 26:27  And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
Mat 26:28  For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Believers in Messiah Yahshua are the chosen people
1Pe 2:9  But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:

Nazarenes

The Chosen People come OUT of Israel and Judah
Isa 65:9  And I will bring forth a seed out of Jacob, and out of Judah an inheritor of my mountains: and mine elect shall inherit it, and my servants shall dwell there.
“Jews” will become a curse word, whereas the followers of Yahshua will be called a different name…Netsarim/Nazarenes/Christians

Isa 10:20  And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon him that smote them; but shall stay upon the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.
Isa 10:21  The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God.
Isa 10:22  For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a remnant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with righteousness.

The chosen people are called by a different name.
Isa 65:15  And ye shall leave your name for a curse unto my chosen: for the Lord GOD shall slay thee, and call his servants by another name:

Believers in Messiah in the 1st century were called Christians & Nazarenes
Act 11:26  And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
Peshitta translates the Greek word Christianos as Kristyane
Act 24:5  For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

The Nazarenes/Christians are from the tree of Israel, but a different sprout
Job 14:7  For there is hope of a tree, if it is cut down, that it will sprout again, and its shoot will not cease.
Job 14:8  Though its root becomes old in the earth, and its stump dies in the dust,
Job 14:9  at the scent of water it will bud and bring forth branches like a plant.

The word sprout in verse 7 is the Hebrew word chalaf.  It means to change, to go or pass through one thing to another, an exchange.

Isa 11:1  And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch* shall grow out of his roots:
*H5342 נצר nêtser…netser is the origin of the word Netsarim/Nazarenes/Christians

Another prophecy of a new name for the Land/People
Isa 62:1  For Zion’s sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.
Isa 62:2  And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name.
Isa 62:11  Behold, the LORD hath proclaimed unto the end of the world, Say ye to the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy salvation cometh; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.
Isa 62:12  And they shall call them, The holy people, The redeemed of the LORD: and thou shalt be called, Sought out, A city not forsaken.

Israel was Reformed
Jer 18:1  The word which came to Jeremiah from the LORD, saying,
Jer 18:2  Arise, and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
Jer 18:3  Then I went down to the potter’s house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
Jer 18:4  And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
Jer 18:5  Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
Jer 18:6  O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

Belief in Yahshua is what separates TRUE Israel from FALSE Israel
Luk 2:34  And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against;
Luk 2:35  (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.
Joh 7:40  Then hearing the Word, many of the crowd said, This is truly the Prophet.
Joh 7:41  Others said, This is the Christ. But others said, No! For does the Christ come out of Galilee?
Joh 7:42  Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David, and from Bethlehem, the village where David was? Mic. 5:2
Joh 7:43  Then a division occurred in the crowd because of Him.
Luk 12:51  Do you think that I came to give peace in the earth? No, I say to you, But rather division.
Luk 12:52  For from now on five in one house will have been divided, three against two, and two against three.
Luk 12:53  Father will be divided against son, and son against father; mother against daughter, and daughter against mother; mother-in-law against her bride, “and the bride against her mother-in-law.” Mic. 7:6

Yahshua came to separate the wheat from the chaff
Mat 3:9  And do not think to say within yourselves, We have a father, Abraham. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Mat 3:10  But already the axe is even laid at the root of the trees; therefore, any tree not bringing forth good fruit is cut off and is thrown into fire.
Mat 3:11  I indeed baptize you in water to repentance; but He who is coming after me is stronger than me, of whom I am not able to lift The sandals. He will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and fire,
Mat 3:12  whose fan is in His hand, and He will cleanse His floor and will gather His wheat into the storehouse. But He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

Yahshua came to divide fleshly Israel from the Israel of Elohim (Gal 6)
Mat 10:32  Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 10:33  But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 10:34  Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
Mat 10:35  For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
Mat 10:36  And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

Parables

Parables speaking of this
Luk 19:11  And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
Luk 19:12  He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
Luk 19:13  And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
Luk 19:14  But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.
Luk 19:15  And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
Luk 19:16  Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
Luk 19:17  And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
Luk 19:18  And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
Luk 19:19  And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
Luk 19:20  And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
Luk 19:21  For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
Luk 19:22  And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
Luk 19:23  Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
Luk 19:24  And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
Luk 19:25  (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.)
Luk 19:26  For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
Luk 19:27  But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Mat 21:33  Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:
Mat 21:34  And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it.
Mat 21:35  And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another.
Mat 21:36  Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise.
Mat 21:37  But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son.
Mat 21:38  But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance.
Mat 21:39  And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him.
Mat 21:40  When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?
Mat 21:41  They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons.
Mat 21:42  Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?
Mat 21:43  Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.
Mat 21:44  And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
Mat 21:45  And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.
Mat 21:46  But when they sought to lay hands on him, they feared the multitude, because they took him for a prophet.

Mar 12:1  And He began to speak to them in parables: “A man planted a vineyard, and set a fence around it,” and dug a winevat, “and built a tower.” And he rented it to vinedressers and went away. Isa. 5:1, 2
Mar 12:2  And at the season, he sent a slave to the vinedressers, that he might receive from the vinedressers the fruit of the vineyard.
Mar 12:3  But taking him, they beat him, and sent him away empty.
Mar 12:4  And again he sent to them another slave; stoning that one, they struck him in the head and sent him away, insulting him.
Mar 12:5  And again, he sent another, and they killed that one; also many others, indeed beating these, and killing these.
Mar 12:6  Yet having one son, his own beloved, then he sent him to them also, last of all, saying, They will have respect for my son.
Mar 12:7  But these vinedressers said to themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him and the inheritance will be ours.
Mar 12:8  And taking him, they killed him and threw him outside the vineyard.
Mar 12:9  What, then, will the lord of the vineyard do? He will come and will destroy the vinedressers and will give the vineyard to others.
Mar 12:10  Have you not even read this Scripture: The “Stone which the builders rejected, this One came to be Head of the Corner;
Mar 12:11  this came about from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes”? Psalm 118:22, 23; Acts 4:11
Mar 12:12  And they sought to seize Him, yet feared the crowd. For they knew that He spoke the parable against them. And leaving Him, they went away.


Isa 29:10  For YHWH has poured out on you the spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes. He has covered the prophets and your heads, the seers.
Isa 29:11  And the whole vision to you is like the words of a sealed book which they give to one knowing books, saying, Please read this. Then he says, I am not able, for it is sealed.
Isa 29:12  And the book is given to one who does not know books, saying, Please read this. Then he says, I do not know books.
Isa 29:13  And the Lord says, Because this people draws near with its mouth, and they honor Me with its lip; but its heart is far from Me, and their fear of Me is taught by the commandments of men;
Isa 29:14  So, behold, I am adding to do wonderfully with this people, the wonder, even a wonder. For the wisdom of his wise ones shall perish, and the wit of his witty ones shall be hidden.
Isa 29:15  Woe to those who go deep to hide their purposes from Jehovah; yea, their works are in the dark; and they say, Who sees us? And, Who knows us?
Isa 29:16  Oh your perversity! Shall the former be counted as the clay? For shall the work of its maker say, He did not make me? Or shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, He does not understand?
Isa 29:17  Is it not yet a little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field; and the fruitful field shall be counted for the forest?

Gill’s Commentary
and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field; the forest of Lebanon should be as Carmel. The meaning is, that the Gentile world, which was like a forest uncultivated, and full of unfruitful trees, to which wicked men may be compared, should through the preaching of the Gospel be manured, become God’s husbandry, and be like a fruitful field, abounding with people and churches, fruitful in grace and good works:

and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest? the people of the Jews, who once had the word and ordinances of God, and were a fruitful and flourishing people in religion; through their rejection of the Messiah, and contempt of his Gospel, should be deprived of all their privileges, and become like a forest or barren land: this was fulfilled, when the kingdom of God was taken from them, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits of it, Mat_21:43. See Isa_32:15.

But Yahshua is still King over Israel, not a new gentile church
Joh 1:49  Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
Joh 12:13  Took branches of palm trees, and went forth to meet him, and cried, Hosanna: Blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.
Joh 12:14  And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon; as it is written,
Joh 12:15  Fear not, daughter of Sion: behold, thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt.
Joh 19:19  And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Joh 19:20  This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
Joh 19:21  Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
Joh 19:22  Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

A true Jew is one that is spiritual, not of the flesh
Rom 2:28  For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29  But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

There are still Israelites according to the flesh, but they are not of the chosen people (the Israel of Elohim)
1Co 10:18  Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?
Rom 9:1  I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Rom 9:2  That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
Rom 9:3  For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4  Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5  Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 9:6  Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7  Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8  That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Gal 6:13  For neither they themselves who are circumcised keep the law; but desire to have you circumcised, that they may glory in your flesh.
Gal 6:14  But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
Gal 6:15  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Gal 6:16  And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Php 3:2  Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
Php 3:3  For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
Php 3:4  Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
Php 3:5  Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
Php 3:6  Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
Php 3:7  But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
Php 3:8  Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
Php 3:9  And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
Php 3:10  That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
Php 3:11  If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
Php 3:12  Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus.
Php 3:13  Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
Php 3:14  I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

One in Messiah
Gal 3:26  For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:27  For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal 3:28  There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal 3:29  And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Rom 2:10  But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

Olive Tree of Yisrael

Yisrael was cut down to be renewed
Joh 15:1  I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
Joh 15:2  Every branch{G2814} in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
Joh 15:3  Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Joh 15:4  Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch{G2814} cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
Joh 15:5  I am the vine, ye are the branches{G2814}: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
G2814 κλῆμα klēma klay’-mah From G2806; a limb or shoot (as if broken off): – branch.

YISRAEL’S BRANCHES BROKEN
Jer 11:16  The LORD called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.
Jer 11:17  For the LORD of hosts, that planted thee, hath pronounced evil against thee, for the evil of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah, which they have done against themselves to provoke me to anger in offering incense unto Baal.
Luk 3:8  Then bring forth fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say within yourselves, We have Abraham as father. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham out of these stones.
Luk 3:9  And also the axe is already laid to the root of the trees; therefore, every tree not producing good fruit is being cut down and being thrown into the fire.

The Messiah is Israel
Isa 49:3  And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.
Isa 49:5  And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.
Isa 49:6  And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes(H7626) of Jacob, and to restore(shub) the preserved(v’netsri) of Israel.I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation(H3444yeshua) unto the end of the earth.
H7626 שׁבט shêbeṭ shay’-bet
From an unused root probably meaning to branch off; a scion, that is, (literally) a stick (for punishing, writing, fighting, ruling, walking, etc.) or (figuratively) a clan: -  X correction, dart, rod, sceptre, staff, tribe.

Ezekiel 37:16

Eze 37:16  saying, And you, son of man, take one stick to yourself and write on it, For Judah, and for his companions, the sons of Israel. And take another stick and write on it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and all the house of Israel, his companions.
Eze 37:17  And draw them one to one for yourself, into one stick. And they shall become one in your hand.

ROMANS 11 THE REDEEMED OLIVE TREE OF ISRAEL
“GENTILES” and NATURAL BORN ISRAELITES ARE GRAFTED INTO ISRAEL
Rom 11:13  For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
Rom 11:14  If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
Rom 11:15  For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? (Eze 37; Zec 12:10; Mic 5:3)
Rom 11:16  For if the firstfruit (1Cor 15:52) be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root (Isa 6:13; Gal 3:16) be holy, so are the branches (Joh 15:5).
Rom 11:17  And if some of the branches be broken off (Jer 11:16), and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; (Isa 14:1; Deu 29:9-12; Zec 2:11)
Rom 11:18  Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
Rom 11:19  Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
Rom 11:20  Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
Rom 11:21  For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
Rom 11:22  Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Rom 11:23  And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
Rom 11:24  For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Rom 11:25  For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
Rom 11:26  And so all Israel (BOTH HOUSES) shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: (Isa 59:20; 45:25)
Rom 11:27  For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins…..JEREMIAH 31:31 THE NEW COVENANT IS ONLY WITH THE TWO HOUSES OF ISRAEL HEB 8:8; 10:16

WILD BRANCHES GRAFTED IN
Rom 11:17  And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;

NATURAL BRANCHES GRAFTED IN
Rom 11:24  For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?

Netsarim

Not a respector of persons
Rom 2:9  trouble and pain on every soul of man that works out evil, both of Jew first, and of Greek.
Rom 2:10  But glory and honor and peace will be to everyone working out good, both to the Jew first, and to the Greek.
Rom 2:11  For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12  For as many as sinned without Law will also perish without Law. And as many as sinned within Law will be judged through Law.
Act 10:34  Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:

Jas 2:1  My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.
Jas 2:9  But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
Luk 20:21  And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly:

This is always how it has been, if we obeyed we would be called His chosen, if we didn’t we would be rejected
Exo 19:5  Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6  And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.
Deu 10:15  Only the LORD had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.
Deu 10:16  Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiffnecked.

Jews who reject Yahshua are blinded and blotted out of the book of the living
Psa 69:19  You have known My reproach, and My shame, and My dishonor; those vexing Me are all before You.
Psa 69:20  Reproach has broken My heart, and I am faint; and I waited for one to show pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.
Psa 69:21  They also gave Me gall in My food; and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink.
Psa 69:22  Let their table be a trap before them, and to those at ease a snare.
Psa 69:23  Let their eyes be darkened from seeing, and cause their loins to quiver continually.
Psa 69:24  Pour out Your wrath on them; and let the glow of Your anger overtake them.
Psa 69:25  Let their home be made desolate; let no one dwell in their tents.
Psa 69:26  For whom You have stricken, they have persecuted; and they gossip to the pain of those You pierced.
Psa 69:27  Put iniquity to their iniquity, and do not let them enter into Your righteousness.
Psa 69:28  Blot them out from the Book of Life; yea, let them not be written with the righteous.

Psalm 69 verse 21 is a reference to the crucifixion
Mat 27:33  And coming to a place called Golgotha, which is called, Place of a Skull,
Mat 27:34  they gave Him vinegar mingled with gall to drink. And having tasted, He would not drink.
Mar 15:22  And they brought Him to Golgotha Place, which is, being translated, Place of a Skull.
Mar 15:23  And they gave Him wine spiced with myrrh to drink. But He did not take it.
Joh 19:29  Then a vessel full of vinegar was set, and having filled a sponge with vinegar, and putting hyssop around, they brought it to His mouth. Psa. 69:21
Joh 19:30  Then when Jesus took the vinegar, He said, It has been finished. And bowing His head, He delivered up the spirit.

Psalm 69 verse 22 is quoted by Paul in reference to unbelieving Jews
Rom 11:7  What then? What Israel seeks, this it did not obtain, but the election obtained it, and the rest were hardened;
Rom 11:8  even as it has been written, “God gave to them a spirit of slumber, eyes not seeing and ears not hearing” until this day. Isa. 29:10; Deut. 29:4
Rom 11:9  And David said, “Let their table become for a snare and a trap, and for a stumbling block,” and a repayment to them;
Rom 11:10  “let their eyes be darkened, not to see, and their back always bowing.” LXX-68:23, 24; MT-Psa. 69:22, 23
Rom 11:25  For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be wise within yourselves, that hardness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the nations comes in;
Rom 11:26  and so all Israel will be saved, even as it has been written, “The Deliverer will come out of Zion, and He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

Psa 109:2  For the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are opened against me: they have spoken against me with a lying tongue.
Psa 109:3  They compassed me about also with words of hatred; and fought against me without a cause.
Psa 109:4  For my love they are my adversaries: but I give myself unto prayer.
Psa 109:5  And they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
Psa 109:6  Set thou a wicked man over him: and let Satan stand at his right hand. (Michael is the ruler of the true Yisrael according to Daniel 10…satan is the ruler of false Israel…ie Jews who don’t believe in Yahshua.
Psa 109:7  When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
Psa 109:8  Let his days be few; and let another take his office. (This is applied to Judas Iscariot.  As established above, there are two Judas’ among the 12 disciples.  One true, the other false.)
Psa 109:9  Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.
Psa 109:10  Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. (This is a description of Cain.  A vagabond and wanderer.  Why is it that in history, those that are of the Jewish faith yet reject Messiah are called the “wandering Jews”?  Could it be a fulfillment of these verses of Scripture?  Abel was a foreshadow of Messiah, Cain is a foreshadow of those who hate and kill Messiah because He wouldn’t play religion according to their ways and the Father accepted Him and not them.)
Psa 109:11  Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
Psa 109:12  Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
Psa 109:13  Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out.
Psa 109:14  Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the LORD; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.
Psa 109:15  Let them be before the LORD continually, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.
Psa 109:16  Because that he remembered not to shew mercy, but persecuted the poor and needy man, that he might even slay the broken in heart.
Psa 109:17  As he loved cursing, so let it come unto him: as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him.
Psa 109:18  As he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones.
Psa 109:19  Let it be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle wherewith he is girded continually.
Psa 109:20  Let this be the reward of mine adversaries from the LORD, and of them that speak evil against my soul.

Paul makes a distinction between unbelieving Jews and those Jews who believe in the Lord Yahshua
1Th 2:14  For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
1Th 2:15  Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
1Th 2:16  Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Php 3:3  For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

Paul warns us of unbelieving Jews
Tit 1:14  Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
Php 3:2  Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.
Php 3:3  For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
1Ti 1:4  Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1Ti 1:5  Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned:

John warns us not to receive unbelieving Jews or we will partake of their evil deeds
2Jn 1:7  For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2Jn 1:8  Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
2Jn 1:9  Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Synagogue of Satan

Rev 2:9  I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
Rev 3:9  Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. (In future studies I hope to cover the topic of the false Temple.  This verse about the false Jews bowing before believers fits into this prophecy)

YAHSHUA’S TEACHINGS ON PHARISEES Matthew Chapter 23
Mat 16:6  Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Mat 16:12  Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.
Luk 12:1  In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.
Mat 15:4  For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
Mat 15:5  But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
Mat 15:6  And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
Mat 15:7  Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
Mat 15:8  This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9  But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Mat 15:12  Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?
Mat 15:13  But he answered and said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.
Mat 15:14  Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.

NOT ALL YISRAEL IS YISRAEL
Rom 9:6  Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7  Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8  That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Rom 2:28  For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
Rom 2:29  But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

In the 1st Century not all those who were called Jews were descendants of Jacob but proselytes

The Herodians were not of Jewish stock. Herod the Great encouraged the circulation of the legend of the family descent from an illustrious Babylonian Jew (Ant., XIV, i, 3), but it has no historic basis. It is true the Idumeans were at that time nominal Jews, since they were subdued by John Hyrcanus in 125 bc, and embodied in the Asmonean kingdom through an enforced circumcision, but the old national antagonism remained (Gen_27:41).
Rev 2:9  I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
1Ma 5:3  Then Judas fought against the children of Esau in Idumea at Arabattine, because they besieged Gael: and he gave them a great overthrow, and abated their courage, and took their spoils.

Josephus Aniquities Book 13 Chapter 9
1. BUT when Hyrcanus heard of the death of Antiochus, he presently made an expedition against the cities of Syria, hoping to find them destitute of fighting men, and of such as were able to defend them. However, it was not till the sixth month that he took Medaba, and that not without the greatest distress of his army. After this he took Samega, and the neighboring places; and besides these, Shechem and Gerizzim, and the nation of the Cutheans, who dwelt at the temple which resembled that temple which was at Jerusalem, and which Alexander permitted Sanballat, the general of his army, to build for the sake of Manasseh, who was son-in-law to Jaddua the high priest, as we have formerly related; which temple was now deserted two hundred years after it was built. Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, (25) and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.

Wicked Judges from Babylon…
Susanna 1:5, 56
(13:5) The same year were appointed two of the ancients of the people to be judges, such as the Lord spake of, that wickedness came from Babylon from ancient judges, who seemed to govern the people.
(13:56) So he put him aside, and commanded to bring the other, and said unto him, O thou seed of Chanaan, and not of Juda, beauty hath deceived thee, and lust hath perverted thine heart.

It is these judges from Babylon that came to the Land and took control of the people.  These are the people that Yahshua stood against and called vipers and the seed of satan.  It is these people who rejected Messiah and are seen today in the rabbis who teach from the BABYLONIAN Talmud.
Eze 11:12  and ye shall know that I am the LORD; for ye have not walked in My statutes, neither have ye executed Mine ordinances, but have done after the ordinances of the nations that are round about you.’

SONS OF SATAN
Joh 8:37  I know that ye are Abraham’s seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you.
Joh 8:38  I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father.
Joh 8:39  They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham.
Joh 8:40  But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham.
Joh 8:41  Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God.
Joh 8:42  Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
Joh 8:43  Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Joh 8:44  Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Mat 23:33  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mat 23:15  Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mat 23:33  Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Mat 23:34  Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
Mat 23:35  That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
Mat 23:36  Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation (G1074).

G1074 γενεά  genea ghen-eh-ah’
From (a presumed derivative of) G1085; a generation; by implication an age (the period or the persons): – age, generation, nation, time.

Mat 23:37  O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Mat 23:38  Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.
Mat 23:39  For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.

Mat 3:7  But seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, Offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 3:8  Therefore, bring forth fruits worthy of repentance.
Mat 3:9  And do not think to say within yourselves, We have a father, Abraham. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.
Mat 3:10  But already the axe is even laid at the root of the trees; therefore, any tree not bringing forth good fruit is cut off and is thrown into fire.

Seed of the Woman vs seed of the serpent
Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.

Judah given up until the end times
Mic 5:3  Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel.
Jer 18:7  At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;
Jer 18:8  If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them.
Jer 18:9  And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it;
Jer 18:10  If it do evil in my sight, that it obey not my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.
Jer 18:11  Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.
Jer 18:12  And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart.
Jer 18:13  Therefore thus saith the LORD; Ask ye now among the heathen, who hath heard such things: the virgin of Israel hath done a very horrible thing.
Jer 18:14  Will a man leave the snow of Lebanon which cometh from the rock of the field? or shall the cold flowing waters that come from another place be forsaken?
Jer 18:15  Because my people hath forgotten me, they have burned incense to vanity, and they have caused them to stumble in their ways from the ancient paths, to walk in paths, in a way not cast up;
Jer 18:16  To make their land desolate, and a perpetual hissing; every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished, and wag his head.
Jer 18:17  I will scatter them as with an east wind before the enemy; I will shew them the back, and not the face, in the day of their calamity.
Jer 22:5  But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation.

Psa 69:25  Let their habitation be desolate; and let none dwell in their tents.
Psa 69:26  For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded.
Psa 69:27  Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness.
Psa 69:28  Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.
Psa 69:29  But I am poor and sorrowful: let thy salvation, O God, set me up on high.
Psa 69:30  I will praise the name of God with a song, and will magnify him with thanksgiving.
Psa 69:31  This also shall please the LORD better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs.
Psa 69:32  The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.
Psa 69:33  For the LORD heareth the poor, and despiseth not his prisoners.
Psa 69:34  Let the heaven and earth praise him, the seas, and every thing that moveth therein.
Psa 69:35  For God will save Zion, and will build the cities of Judah: that they may dwell there, and have it in possession.
Psa 69:36  The seed also of his servants shall inherit it: and they that love his name shall dwell therein.

The habitation of Judah was made desolate when they rejected Yahshua, they are blotted out of the book of the living because they rejected the Messiah.  However, YHWH will save Zion and build the cities of Judah, the seed of HIS servants shall inherit it and dwell therein.  YHWH rebuilds Judah, not the United Nations.

Before Yahshua comes Jerusalem is referred to as Sodom and Egypt
Rev 11:1  And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
Rev 11:2  But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
Rev 11:3  And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.

Rev 11:8  And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.

The northern house of Israel rises to predominance
Isa 54:1  Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.
Isa 54:2  Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes;
Isa 54:3  For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited.
Isa 54:4  Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.
Isa 54:5  For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called.

Yisrael became Lo-Ammi according to Hosea due to their wickedness…Judah shared in their fate due to their wickedness

Jer 7:13  And now, because you have done all these works, says Jehovah, and I spoke to you, rising up early and speaking, but you did not hear. Yea, I called you, but you did not answer.
Jer 7:14  And I will do to the house on which My name is called, in which you are trusting, and to the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I have done to Shiloh.
Jer 7:15  And I will cast you out from My face as I cast out all your brothers, all the seed of Ephraim.

TALMUD

Deu 12:32  What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
Pro 30:6  Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
1Ti 1:4  Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
Tit 1:14  Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Jewish thoughts of the Lord Yahshua

They do not refer to Him by His given name Yahshua or even Yeshua but Yeshu which is an acronym for the Hebrew expression ימח שמו וזכרו (yemach shemo vezichro), meaning “May his name and memory be obliterated”,

“It is a mitzvah [religious duty; ARC], however, to eradicate Jewish traitors, minnim, and apikorsim, and to cause them to descend to the pit of destruction, since they cause difficulty to the Jews and sway the people away from God, as did Jesus of Nazareth and his students, and Tzadok, Baithos, and their students. May the name of the wicked rot.” Maimonides Mishnah Torah CH 10 ENGLISH TRANSLATION

Jas 2:7  Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?

The subject of the Talmud will be covered in more detail in a future posting, Yah willing.

Racism

It is not by genealogy…even if it was the Jews still have no more claim to being called the chosen people than the Irish, Scottish, British, Ethiopian etc.

Dr. Alfred Lilenthal What Price Israel p216
“The Jewish racial myth flows from the fact that the words Hebrew, Israelite, Jew, Judaism, and the Jewish people have been used synonymously to suggest a historic continuity. But this is a misuse. These words refer to different periods in history. Hebrew is a term correctly applied to the period from the beginning of Biblical history to the settling in Canaan. Israelite referes correctly to the members of the twelve tribes of Israel. The name Yehudi or Jew is used in the Old Testament to designate members of the tribe of Judah, descendants of the fourth son of Jacob, as well as to denote citizens of the Kingdom (or house) of Judah, particularly at the time of (the prophet) Jeremiah and under the Persian (Babylonian) occupation. Centuries later, the same word (Jew) came to to be applied to anyone, no matter of what origin, whose religion was Judaism.

Lilienthal states that most Christians today have more blood from Abraham than do the ‘Jews’ today.

1Ch 5:1  And the sons of Reuben the first-born of Israel (for he was the first-born; but since he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel; and the genealogy is not to be counted according to the birthright;
1Ch 5:2  for Judah prevailed among his brothers, and from him was the chief ruler, but the birthright was Joseph’s);
Jer 31:9  They shall come with weeping, and I will lead them with prayers. I will cause them to walk by rivers of waters, in a right way; they will not stumble in it. For I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My first-born.
Heb 12:22  But you have drawn near Mount Zion, even the city of the living God, to a heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
Heb 12:23  and to a gathering, an assembly of the first-born ones having been enrolled in Heaven; and to God the Judge of all, and to spirits of just ones who have been perfected;
Heb 12:24  and to Jesus the Mediator of a new covenant, and to blood of sprinkling speaking better things than that of Abel.

Khazars

The subject of the Khazars is a controversial one.  It is a historical fact that most of the people who claim Jewish descent have little lineage back to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  Regardless of that fact, they are Jews because of their faith.  Our faith is what makes us what we are.  Not who are parents are.  Nevertheless, the following information is put in this study to show that even if being a chosen person was according to genealogy (which I firmly believe is not the case) the people who are know as the chosen people today would still not be able to stake that claim.

Thirteenth Tribe – Arthur Koestler pg 151
“According to the article ‘Statistics’ in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, in the sixteenth century the total Jewish population of the world amounted to about one million.  This seems to indicate, as Poliak, Kutschera and other have pointed out, that during the Middle Ages the majority of those who professed the Judaic faith were Khazars.  A substantial part of this majority went to Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, and the Balkans, where they founded that Eastern Jewish community which in its turn became the dominant majority of world Jewry.  Even if the original core of that community was diluted and augmented by immigrants from other regions, its predominantly Khazar-Turkish derivation appears to be supported by strong evidence, and should at least be regarded as a theory worth serious discussion.”

Khazars become Ashkenazi Jews which consist of 80% of Jews today.  The other 20% are Sephardic which do descend from the Jews that left Babylon.

In his controversial book The Thirteenth Tribe, Arthur Koestler goes to great lengths to attempt to prove that the modern Jews of the Western world descend from the people of the kingdom of the mysterious Khazars.  The Jews themselves, admit that the rulers and many people of the Khazars converted to Judaism in historical times.

Thirteenth Tribe – Arthur Koestler pg 151
“According to the article ‘Statistics’ in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, in the sixteenth century the total Jewish population of the world amounted to about one million.  This seems to indicate, as Poliak, Kutschera and other have pointed out, that during the Middle Ages the majority of those who professed the Judaic faith were Khazars.  A substantial part of this majority went to Poland, Lithuania, Hungary, and the Balkans, where they founded that Eastern Jewish community which in its turn became the dominant majority of world Jewry.  Even if the original core of that community was diluted and augmented by immigrants from other regions, its predominantly Khazar-Turkish derivation appears to be supported by strong evidence, and should at least be regarded as a theory worth serious discussion.”

In his book, Koestler points out that the Khazar Empire was a mighty Jewish state, which ruled from the seventh to the tenth centuries, A.D., and which dominated Eastern Europe between the Volga river and the Caucasus.  It played a significant part in shaping the destinies of all of Europe and the world.  An indication of the power and prestige of the Khazars revealed in the fact that in the tenth century, letters addressed to the Pope in Rome, and to the Roman Emperor in the West, had a gold seal worth two solidi attached to them; however, letters to the King of the Khazars displayed a seal worth three solidi!

Who were these Khazars?  Koestler says they were “a people of Turkish stock.”

“It has even been suggested, on the basis of linguistic evidence, that the Jews of Eastern Europe were not predominantly part of the diaspora from the Middle East, but were members of another ethnic group that adopted Judaism.

“…One linguist has recently argued that Yiddish began as a Slavic language that was ‘relexified,’ with most of its vocabulary replaced with German words.

“…Even more troublesome are demographic studies indicating that during the Middle Ages there were no more than 25,000 to 35,000 Jews in Western Europe. These figures are hard to reconcile with other studies showing that by the 17th century there were hundreds of thousands of Jews in Eastern Europe.

“More recently, Koestler’s controversial thesis has been revived and expanded in a 1993 book, The Ashkenazic ‘Jews’: A Slavo-Turkic People in Search of a Jewish Identity (Slavica Publishers), by Dr. Paul Wexler, a Tel Aviv University linguist.

“Wexler uses a reconstruction of Yiddish to argue that it began as a Slavic language whose vocabulary was largely replaced with German words. Going even further, he contends that the Ashkenazic Jews are predominantly converted Slavs and Turks who merged with a tiny population of Palestinian Jews from the Diaspora.”

In Ahab’s reign Edom revolted
2Ki 8:20  In his days Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah, and they caused a king to reign over them.
It was not till the reign of Ahaz that they shook the yoke of Judah entirely off (2Ki_16:6; 2Ch_28:17), without Judah being ever able to reduce them again. At length, however, they were completely conquered by John Hyrcanus about b.c. 129, compelled to submit to circumcision, and incorporated in the Jewish state (Josephus, Ant. xiii. 9, 1, xv. 7, 9). At a still later period, through Antipater and Herod, they established an Idumaean dynasty over Judea, which lasted till the complete dissolution of the Jewish state.

Are Edomites ruling over Israel today? After the pattern established during Herod’s time?

First off we must establish what a Jew is  http://www.jewsnotzionists.org/differencejudzion.html
To begin with, a few definitions: Who is a Jew? A Jew is anyone who has a Jewish mother or who converted to Judaism in conformity with Halacha, Jewish religious law. This definition alone excludes racism. Judaism does not seek converts, but those who do convert are accepted on a basis of equality. Let us see how far this goes. Some of the most eminent and respected rabbis were converts to Judaism. Jewish parents throughout the world bless their children every Sabbath and holiday eve, and they have done it in the same way for millennia. If the children are girls, the blessing is, “May G-d let you be like Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel and Leah.” Not one of these matriarchs was born a Jewess; they were all converts to Judaism. If the children are boys, the blessing is, “May G-d let you be like Ephraim and Menashe.” The mother of these two was an Egyptian woman who became Jewish and had married Joseph. Moses himself, the greatest Jew who ever lived, married a Midianite woman who became Jewish. Finally, the Tenach, the holy writings of the Jew, contains the book of Ruth. This woman was not only not Jewish by birth, but she came from the Moabites, traditional enemies of the Jewish people. This book describes Ruth’s conversion to Judaism and is read annually on the holiday commemorating the giving of the Torah, the “Law,” i.e. the Pentateuch. At its very end, the book of Ruth traces the ancestry of King David, the greatest king the Jews ever had, to Ruth, his great-grandmother.

Apart from the Zionists, the only ones who consistently considered the Jews a race were the Nazis. And they only served to prove the stupidity and irrationality of racism. There was no way to prove racially whether a Mrs. Muller or a Mr. Meyer were Jews or Aryans (the Nazi term for non-Jewish Germans. The only way to decide whether a person was Jewish was to trace the religious affiliation of the parents or grandparents. So much for the this racial nonsense.

…in the days of John Hyrcanus (end of the second century B.C.E.) … the [non-Israelite] Edomites became a section of the Jewish people. “EDOM,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, Israel: Encyclopaedia Judaica Company, 1971) Vol. 6, p. 378

They [the non-Israelite Edomites] were then incorporated with the Jewish nation…. “EDOM, IDUMEA,” The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York & London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1904) Vol. V, p. 41

…from then on they [the non-Israelite Edomites] constituted a part of the Jewish people, Herod [King of Judea] being one of their descendants. “EDOM (Idumea),” The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1977) p. 589

…they [the Edomites] were hereafter no other than [non-Israelite] Jews. Flavius Josephus, The Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Dregel Publications, 1960) Book XIII, Chapter IX, Verse 1, p. 279

Benjamin H. Freedman, Jewish Historian – Researcher – Scholar.
From “Common Sense”, p. 2-1-53 and 5-1-59
Incontestable facts supply the unchallengeable proof of the historic accuracy that so-called “Jews” throughout the world today of eastern European origin are unquestionably the historic descendants of the Khazars, a pagan Turko-Finn ancient Mongoloid nation deep in the heart of Asia, according to history, who battled their way in bloody wars about the 1st century B.C. into eastern Europe where they set up their Khazar kingdom. In the 7th century CE they founded an independent Khaganate in the Northern Caucasus along the Caspian Sea, where over time Judaism became the state religion. At their height, they and their tributaries controlled much of what is today southern Russia, western Kazakhstan, eastern Ukraine, Azerbaijan, large portions of the Caucasus (including Dagestan, Georgia), and the Crimea.

The Jewish Encyclopedia tells us that “Edom is in Modern Jewry”. This witness from the 1905 edition records the connection between modern day Jews and the race of Edom: “Some anthropologists are inclined to associate the racial origins of the Jews, not with the Semites, whose language they adopted, but with the Armenians and Hittites of Mesopotamia, whose broad skulls and curved noses they appear to have inherited (Vol. X, p. 284). Thus Esau/Edom was now absorbed into the Canaanite people by means of his Hittite and Hivite wives. According to Strong’s Concordance the word Canaan means “trader or merchant” and the Phoenicians, as Canaanites, are derived from Ham’s incestuous relationship with Naamah the sister of Tubalcain, the wife Noah took with him in the Ark (Genesis 9:18-27; 10:6, 15-19).

Arthur Koestler was by no means the first to draw attention to this particular issue. He quotes from 20th-century works on the subject by, amongst others, Professors A.N.Poliak of Tel Aviv University, D.M. Dunlop of Columbia University in New York, and J.B. Bury of Cambridge University. The courageous Jewish anti-Zionist commentator Dr Alfred Lilienthal raised the issue 50 years ago and has continued to do so for decades. In fact, the famous H.G.Wells in the early 1920s in his popular Outline of History described the Jews as “a Turkish people” and stated that “[to the] Jewish Khazars … are to be ascribed the great settlements of Jews in Poland and Russia” (Chap. XXXII:8) and “The main part of Jewry never was in Judea, and never came out of Judea” (XXIX:1).

Lord Moyne, the British secretary of state in Cairo, declared on June 9, 1942, in the House of Lords that the Jews were not the descendants of the ancient Hebrews and that they had no “legitimate claim” on the Holy Land. A proponent of curtailing immigration into Palestine, he was accused of being “an implacable enemy of Hebrew independence.” (Isaac Zaar, Rescue and Liberation: America’s Part in the Birth of Israel, New York: Bloch, 1954, p. 115).

On November 6, 1944, Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo by two members of the Stern Gang led by Yitzak Shamir, latter to become premier of Israel. (This assassination was not unique in the history of Zionism. In September 1948 Count Folke Bernadotte, appointed by the UN as mediator between the Zionist settlers in Palestine and the native Palestinians, was murdered on orders from the same Yitzhak Shamir. Count Bernadotte was the head of the Swedish Red Cross and had risked his life to save thousands of Jews from German concentration camps. This set a precedent and encouragement for the Zionist use of assassination as a convenient political instrument, which the US and European governments have in effect condoned since then.

Much old documentary evidence exists on the subject of the Khazars dating from the ninth and tenth centuries and earlier — from Arab, Byzantine, Hebrew, Russian and other sources. The conversion of the Khazars to Judaism is described in the so-called ‘Khazar Correspondence’ dating from the tenth century between Hasdai Ibn Shaprut, the Jewish chief minister of the Caliph of Cordoba in Spain, and Joseph, the king of the Khazars. In this the king traces the ancestry of his people not to Shem, father of the Semites, but to Japheth, Noah’s third son. The Book of Genesis (10:2,3) itself also describes Ashkenaz as a descendent of Japheth, rather than Shem. In other words, the Jews are not a Semitic people, but their contempt for the Arab world and their bitter and violent war of dispossession against the Palestinian Arabs could be termed anti-Semitic.

After being defeated by the Rus around 965 AD, the power of the Khazars waned, and a gradual migration commenced westwards and northwestwards into Eastern Europe — the Ukraine, Hungary, Poland and Lithuania. Koestler shows that Yiddish (the former Jewish lingua franca of eastern Europe which is classed as a German dialect) developed not in Germany but in Poland as an amalgam of German, Hebrew and Slavonic (Russian and Polish) — the strong German basis of the language being the result of the German social and cultural prominence in the main cities of Poland in medieval times (Koestler Chapt. VII:3). Hebrew itself was only used for liturgical and rabbinic-scholastic purposes, not for everyday communication. No archaeological or other evidence exists of the use in biblical times of the six-pointed ’star of David’, the emblem of the Ashkenazi Jews and the Israeli state, and the yarmulke, the skullcap worn by Jewish males, likewise has no biblical foundation. So neither the use of Hebrew nor the star of David nor the wearing of the yarmulke indicate any historical connection with the territory. Koestler says: “The historical evidence … indicates that the bulk of Eastern Jewry — and hence of world Jewry — is of Khazar-Turkish, rather than Semitic, origin” (p. 175).

The British journalist Douglas Reed, former chief Central European correspondent of the Times, in 1950 wrote “The Eastern European Zionists are not Semites (though the Arabs are), have no semitic blood, and their remote forefathers never trod Palestinian earth.”

Benjamin Freedman

Mr Benjamin Freedman, a Jewish industrialist born in New York, wrote in the Economic Council Letter published there of October 15 1947: “These Eastern European Jews have neither a racial nor a historic connection with Palestine. Their ancestors were not inhabitants of the Promised Land. They are the direct descendants of the people of the Khazar Kingdom. The Khazars were a non-semitic, Turko-Mongolian tribe.”

Mr Freedman was challenged, unwisely, by a Zionist objector. He invited his challenger to go with him to the Jewish Room of the New York Public Library. There they could together examine the Jewish Encyclopaedia volume I pp. 1-12, and the published works of Graetz, Dubnow, Friedlander, Raisin and many other noted Jewish historians, which, as well as other non-Jewish authorities, “establish the fact beyond all possible doubt.” (Somewhere South of Suez, 1950, pp. 349-350.)

A Jewish Defector Warns America:

Benjamin Freedman Speaks

by Benjamin H. Freedman

Introductory Note  — Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century.

Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States.

Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times.

This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley’s patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.  Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman’s essential message to us — his warning to the West — is more urgent than ever before. — K.A.S. —

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF THE HOLOCAUST

Ladies and gentlemen, you are about to hear a very frightening speech.  This speech is an explanation of the plans now being laid to throw the United States into a third world war.  It was made a short time ago before a large group in the Congressional `Room of the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C.  Both the speech and the question and answer period later so electrified the audience that a group of patriots has transferred it to two long-playing records which you may buy to play for friends, clubs, and your church group in your community. The speaker is Mr. Benjamin Freedman, noted authority on Zionism and all of its schemes. Mr. Freedman is a former Jew, and I mean a FORMER Jew.  He has fought the Communist world conspiracy tooth and nail, and stands today as a leading American patriot. We now take you to the speaker’s platform to present Benjamin Freedman.

(applause)

[Freedman's speech]

What I intend to tell you tonight is something that you have never been able to learn from any other source, and what I tell you now concerns not only you, but your children and the survival of this country and Christianity.  I’m not here just to dish up a few facts to send up your blood pressure, but I’m here to tell you things that will help you preserve what you consider the most sacred things in the world:  the liberty, and the freedom, and the right to live as Christians, where you have a little dignity, and a little right to pursue the things that your conscience tells you are the right things, as Christians.

Now, first of all, I’d like to tell you that on August 25th 1960 — that was shortly before elections — Senator Kennedy, who is now the President of the United States, went to New York, and delivered an address to the Zionist Organization of America.   In that address, to reduce it to its briefest form, he stated that he would use the armed forces of the United States to preserve the existence of the regime set up in Palestine by the Zionists who are now in occupation of that area.

In other words, Christian boys are going to be yanked out of their homes, away from their families, and sent abroad to fight in Palestine against the Christian and Moslem Arabs who merely want to return to their homes. And these Christian boys are going to be asked to shoot to kill these innocent [Arab Palestinians] people who only want to follow out fifteen resolutions passed by the United Nations in the last twelve years calling upon the Zionists to allow these people to return to their homes.

Now, when United States troops appear in the Middle East to fight with the Zionists as their allies to prevent the return of these people who were evicted from their homes in the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists who were transplanted there from Eastern Europe… when that happens, the United States will trigger World War III.

You say, when will that take place?  The answer is, as soon as the difficulty between France and Algeria has been settled, that will take place.  As soon as France and Algeria have been settled, that will take place. As soon as France and Algeria have settled their difficulty, and the Arab world, or the Moslem world, has no more war on their hands with France, they are going to move these people back into their homes, and when they do that and President kennedy sends your sons to fight over there to help the crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent men, women and children, we will trigger World War III; and when that starts you can be sure we cannot emerge from that war a victor. We are going to lose that war because there is not one nation in the world that will let one of their sons fight with us for such a cause.

I know and speak to these ambassadors in Washington and the United Nations — and of the ninety-nine nations there, I’ve consulted with maybe seventy of them — and when we go to war in Palestine to help the thieves retain possession of what they have stolen from these innocent people we’re not going to have a man there to fight with us as our ally.

And who will these people have supporting them, you ask.  Well, four days after President Kennedy — or he was then Senator Kennedy — made that statement on August 28, 1960, the Arab nations called a meeting in Lebanon and there they decided to resurrect, or reactivate, the government of Palestine, which has been dormant more or less, since the 1948 armed insurrection by the Zionists.

Not only that… they ordered the creation of the Palestine Army, and they are now drilling maybe a half a million soldiers in that area of the world to lead these people back to their  homeland.  With them, they have as their allies all the nations of what is termed the Bandung Conference Group.  That includes the Soviet Union and every Soviet Union satellite.  It includes Red China; it includes every independent country in Asia and Africa; or eighty percent of the world’s total population.  Eighty percent of the world’s population.  Four out of five human beings on the face of the earth will be our enemies at war with us.  And not alone are they four out of five human beings now on the face of this earth, but they are the non-Christian population of the world and they are the non-Caucasians… the non-white nations of the world, and that’s what we face.

And what is the reason?  The reason is that here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government.  For many reasons too many and too complex to go into here at this — time I’ll be glad to answer questions, however, to support that statement — the Zionists and their co-religionists rule this United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country.

Now, you say, ‘well, that’s a very broad statement to make’, but let me show what happened while you were — I don’t want to wear that out — let me show what happened while WE were all asleep.  I’m including myself with you. We were all asleep.  What happened?

World War I broke out in the summer of 1914.  Nineteen-hundred and fourteen was the year in which World War One broke out.  There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey. What happened?

Within two years Germany had won that war:  not alone won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean, and Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, stood there with one week’s food supply  facing her — and after that, starvation.

At that time, the French army had mutinied.  They lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme.  The Russian army was defecting.  They were picking up their toys and going home, they didn’t want to play war anymore, they didn’t like the Czar.  And the Italian army had collapsed.

Now Germany — not a shot had been fired on the German soil.  Not an enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany.  And yet, here was Germany offering England peace terms.  They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis.  That means: “Let’s call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started.”

Well, England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that. Seriously!   They had no choice.  It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and — I am going to be brief because this is a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make  if anyone here is curious, or doesn’t believe what I’m saying is at all possible — the Zionists in London went to the British war cabinet and they said: “Look here.  You can yet win this war.  You don’t have to give up.  You don’t have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany.  You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally.”

The United States was not in the war at that time.  We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful.  They [Zionists] told England: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.”

In other words, they made this deal:  “We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay us  is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.”

Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever.   It’s absolutely absurd that Great Britain — that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine — should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.

However, they made that promise, in October of 1916.   October, nineteen hundred and sixteen. And shortly after that — I don’t know how many here remember it — the United States, which was almost totally pro-German — totally pro-German — because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews, and they were pro-German because their people, in the majority of cases came from Germany, and they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar.

The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war.  So the German bankers — the German-Jews — Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar.   They stood aside and they said: “As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!”  But they poured money into Germany, they fought with Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, they went to England and they made this deal.  At that time, everything changed, like the traffic light that changes from red to green.  Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good.   They were villains.   They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses.  They were cutting off babies’ hands.  And they were no good.

Well, shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.

The Zionists in London sent these cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis: “Go to work on President Wilson.  We’re getting from England what we want.  Now you go to work, and you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war.”  And that did happen. That’s how the United States got into the war.  We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room.

Now the war — World War One — in which the United States participated had absolutely no reason to be our war. We went in there — we were railroaded into it — if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into — that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine.   Now, that is something that the people  in the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War One. Now, what happened?

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: “Well, we performed our part of the agreement.  Let’s have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war.”   Because they didn’t know whether the war would last another year or another ten years.   So they started to work out a receipt.   The receipt took the form of a letter, and it was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn’t know what it was all about.   And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain’s promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war.   So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill.   And I don’t think I could make it more emphatic than that.

Now, that is where all the trouble started.  The United States went in the war.  The United States crushed Germany.  We went in there, and it’s history. You know what happened.  Now, when the war was ended, and the Germans went to Paris, to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch.  I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened?

The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations that claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, the Jews said, “How about Palestine for us?”  And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration.   So the Germans, for the first time realized, “Oh, that was the game!  That’s why the United States came into the war.”  And the Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered this terrific reparation that was slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine and they were determined to get it at any cost.

Now, that brings us to another very interesting point.  When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it.  Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany.

You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country.   You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd’s and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family.  You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers — the biggest in the world.  The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that.  Now, the Germans felt: “Well, that was quite a sellout.”

It was a sellout that I can best compare — suppose the United States was at war today with the Soviet Union.  And we were winning.  And we told the Soviet Union: “Well, let’s quit.  We offer you peace terms.  Let’s forget the whole thing.” And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union.  And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat.  A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man’s imagination cannot encompass.

Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we thought they were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, in the United States against Chinese?  I don’t think that one of them would dare show his face on any street.  There wouldn’t be lampposts enough, convenient, to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.

Well, that’s how the Germans felt towards these Jews.  “We’ve been so nice to them”; and from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany.  And Germany gave them refuge.  And they were treated very nicely.  And here they sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than they wanted Palestine as a so-called “Jewish commonwealth.”

Now, Nahum Sokolow — all the great leaders, the big names that you read about in connection with Zionism today — they, in 1919, 1920, ‘21, ‘22, and ‘23, they wrote in all their papers — and the press was filled with their statements — that “the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by our intercession and bringing the United States into the war against them.”

The Jews themselves admitted that.  It wasn’t that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer.  There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political.  It was economic.  It was anything but religious.

Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said “Shema’ Yisrael” or “Our Father.”  No one cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States.  Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: that the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat, for no reason at all, because World War One was started against Germany for no reason for which they [Germans] were responsible.  They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful.  They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.

You must remember, Germany, at the time of Napoleon, at the time of the French Revolution, what was the German Reich consisted of 300 — three hundred! — small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth.  Three hundred little separate political entities. And between that time, between the period of. . . between Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years after that time they became one of the world’s great powers. Their navy was rivalling Great Britain’s, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody and make better products.  And what happened?  What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia that: “We must slap down Germany”, because there isn’t one historian in the world that can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically. Now, what happened after that?

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it.   But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed.  Not a single hair.  Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew who Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners. And he wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.

They were in excellent shape; everybody treated well.  And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to be maybe 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time.  And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, Masons, and others who had international affiliations.

Now, the Jews sort of tried to keep the lid on this fact.  They didn’t want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

So they did take appropriate action against them [against the Jews].  They. . . shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could?  They shunned them.  The same as we would the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.

Now, after a while, the Jews of the world didn’t know what to do, so they called a meeting in Amsterdam.  Jews from every country in the world attended in July 1933.  And they said to Germany: “You fire Hitler!  And you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist, no matter what he was.  You can’t treat us that way!  And we, the Jews of the world, are calling upon you, and serving this ultimatum upon you.”  Well, the Germans told them. . . you can imagine.  So what did they [the Jews] do?

They broke up, and Samuel Untermyer, if the name means anything to people here. . .  (You want to ask a question? — Uh, there were no Communists in Germany at that time.  they were called ‘Social Democrats.)

Well, I don’t want to go by what they were called.  We’re now using English words, and what they were called in Germany is not very material. . . but they were Communists, because in 1917, the Communists took over Germany for a few days. Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, and a group of Jews in Germany took over the government for three days.  In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war, he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia, and that he was going to meet the same fate that the Czar did in Russia. So he left and went to Holland for safety and for security.

Now, at that time, when the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, it was quiet, the Jews were working, still trying to get back into their former — their status — and the Germans fought them in every way they could, without hurting a hair on anyone’s head.  The same as one group, the Prohibitionists, fought the people who were interested in liquor, and they didn’t fight one another with pistols, they did it every way they could.

Well, that’s the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany.  And, at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans and there were only 460,000 Jews. . . less than one half of one percent of Germany were Jews.  And yet, they controlled all of the press, they controlled most of the economy, because they had come in and with cheap money — you know the way the Mark was devalued — they bought up practically everything.

Well, in 1933 when Germany refused to surrender, mind you, to the World Conference of Jews in Amsterdam, they broke up and Mr. Untermeyer came back to the United States — who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference –  and he went from the steamer to ABC and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he said:

“The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany.  We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans.  And we are going to starve them into surrender.  We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them, that will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business.”

And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany’s food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported.  Their labor.  So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany’s population would have to starve. There just was not enough food for more than one third of the population.

Now in this declaration, which I have here, it was printed on page — a whole page — in the New York Times on August 7, 1933,  Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that: “this economic boycott is our means of self-defense.  President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the NRA” . [National Recovery Administration]  — which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless they followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, which of course was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court at that time.

Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn’t find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words “made in Germany” on it.

In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted.  If anyone came in and found a dish marked “made in Germany,” they were picketed with signs: “Hitler”,  “murderer”, and so forth,  and like — something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South.

R. H. Macy, which is controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews. . . a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked “made in Germany”.  Well, they were cotton stockings. They may have been there 20 years, because since I’ve been observing women’s legs in the last twenty years, I haven’t seen a pair with cotton stockings on them.  So Macy!  I saw Macy boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying “MURDERS”  and “HITLERITES”, and so forth.

Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany.  There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Now, that. . . naturally, the Germans said, “Why, who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and our industries come to a standstill?  Who are they to do that to us?”  They naturally resented it.  Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews.

Why should a German go in and give their money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott who was going to starve Germany into surrender into the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be?  Well, it was ridiculous.

That continued for some time, and it wasn’t until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot one of the officials [a German official] that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany.  And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now, for anyone to say that –  I don’t like to use the word ‘anti-Semitism’ because it’s meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I’ll have to use it — the only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible: number one, for World War One; number two, for this world-wide boycott, and number three — did I say for World War One, they were responsible? For the boycott — and also for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive.

In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided [that] Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. It’s going to be Christian or it’s going to be Communist. And the Germans decided: “We’re going to keep it Christian if possible”.  And they started to re-arm.

And there intention was — by that time the United States had recognized the Soviet Union, which they did in November, 1933 — the Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized: “Well, our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.”  The same as we in this country are saying today, “Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong.”

And our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars of your money for defense, they say. Defense against whom?  Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other governments of the world.

Now, for this country to now be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination.  I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons.  A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT.  One million tons of TNT is a megaton.  Now, our nuclear bombs have a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT.  That was when they were first developed five or six years ago.  Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

So, what do we face now?   If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished.  And why will it take place?  It will take place because Act III. . . the curtain goes up on Act III.  Act I was World War I.  Act II was World War II.  Act III is going to be World War III.

The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government.  Now, that is just as true as I am standing here, because not alone have I read it, but many here have read it, and it’s known all over the world.

Now, what are we going to do?  The life you save may be your son’s.  Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you you don’t know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe.  Did you know it at that time?  Not a person in the United States knew it.  You weren’t permitted to know it.

Who knew it?  President Wilson knew it.  Colonel House knew it.  Other ’s knew it. Did I know it?  I had a pretty good idea of what was going on:  I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there.

I was ‘confidential man’ to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the Finance Committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer.  So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson’s brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and also indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement.

Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand, and President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby.  And that’s how they got us into World War I, while we all slept.

Now, at this moment… at this moment they may be planning this World War III, in which we don’t stand a chance even if they don’t use nuclear bombs.  How can the United States — about five percent of the world — go out and fight eighty to ninety percent of the world on their home ground?  How can we do it… send our boys over there to be slaughtered?  For what?  So the Jews can have Palestine as their ‘commonwealth’?  They’ve fooled you so much that you don’t know whether you’re coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, “Gentlemen, any witness that you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony.” That is correct.   I don’t know from what state you come, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury.  If that witness said one lie, disregard his testimony.

Now, what are the facts about the Jews?

The Jews — I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don’t call them Jews.  I refer to them as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.  If Jesus was a Jew, there isn’t a Jew in the world today, and if those people are Jews, certainly our Lord and Savior was not one of them, and I can prove that.

Now what happened?  The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world’s population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars.

They were a warlike tribe that lived deep in the heart of Asia.  And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe — and to reduce this so you don’t get too confused about the history of Eastern Europe — they set up this big Khazar kingdom: 800,000 square miles.  Only, there was no Russia, there were no other countries, and the Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe — so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That’s how big and powerful they were.

Now, they were phallic worshippers, which is filthy.  I don’t want to go into the details of that now.  It was their religion the way it was the religion of many other Pagans or Barbarians elsewhere in the world.

Now, the [Khazar] king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith — either  Christianity, Islam — the Moslem faith — or what is known today as Judaism — really Talmudism.  So, like spinning a top and calling out “eeny, meeny, miney, moe,”  he picked out so-called Judaism.  And that became the state religion.

He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of these rabbis with their teachings, and opened up synagogues and schools in his kingdom of 800,000 people — 800,000 thousand square miles — and maybe ten to twenty million people; and they became what we call Jews.  There wasn’t one of them that had an ancestor that ever put a toe in the Holy Land, not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time.  Not one of them!  And yet they come to the Christians and they ask us to support their armed insurrection in Palestine by saying:

“Well, you want to certainly help repatriate God’s  chosen people to their Promised Land, their ancestral homeland,  It’s your Christian duty.  We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior.  You now go to church on Sunday, and kneel and you worship a Jew, and we’re Jews.”

Well, they were pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish [were converted].  And it’s just as ridiculous to call them “people of the Holy Land,” as it would be. . . there are 54 million Chinese Moslems.  Fifty four million!  And, Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., so in that time, 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief.

Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, where the city of Mecca is located, where Mohammed was born. . . imagine if the 54 million Chinese called themselves  ‘Arabs’.  Imagine! Why, you’d say they’re lunatics.  Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy.  All they did was adopt as a religious faith; a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia.

The same as the Irish.  When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants that were Christians. They weren’t different people.  They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

Now, these Pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns. . . they were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe.  They likewise, because their king took the faith — Talmudic faith — they had no choice.  Just the same as in Spain:  If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic.  If not, you had to get out of Spain.  So everybody — they lived on the land just like the trees and the bushes; a human being belonged to the land under their feudal system — so they [Khazars] all became what we call today, Jews!

Now imagine how silly it was for the Christians. . . for the great Christian countries of the world to say, “We’re going to use our power, our prestige to repatriate God’s chosen people to their ancestral homeland, their Promised Land.”

Now, could there be a bigger lie than that?  Could there be a bigger lie than that?

And because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, they have the ministers in the pulpit, they have the politicians on the soap boxes talking the same language . . . so naturally you’d believe black is white if you heard it often enough.  You wouldn’t call black black anymore — you’d start to call black white.  And nobody could blame you.

Now, that is one of the great lies. . . that is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.  Because after two wars fought in Europe — World War I and World War II — if it wasn’t possible for them to live in peace and harmony with the people in Europe, like their brethren are living in the United States, what were the two wars fought for?  Did they have to — like you flush the toilet — because they couldn’t get along, did they  have to say, “Well, we’re going back to our homeland and you Christians can help us”?

I can’t understand yet how the Christians in Europe could have been that dumb because every theologian, every history teacher, knew the things that I’m telling you.  But, they naturally bribed them, shut them up with money, stuffed their mouths with money, and now. . . I don’t care whether you know all this or not.  It doesn’t make any difference to me whether you know all these facts or not, but it does make a difference to me.  I’ve got, in my family, boys that will have to be in the next war, and I don’t want them to go and fight and die… like they died in Korea.  Like they died in Japan. Like they’ve died all over the world.  For what?

To help crooks hold on to what they stole from innocent people who had been in peaceful possession of that land, those farms, those homes for hundreds and maybe thousands of years?  Is that why the United States must go to war?  Because the Democratic Party wants New York State — the electoral vote?  Illinois, the electoral vote? And Pennsylvania, the electoral vote?… which are controlled by the Zionists and their co-religionists?. . . the balance of power?

In New York City there are 400,000 members of the liberal party, all Zionists and their co-religionists.  And New York State went for Kennedy by 400,000 votes.  Now, I don’t blame Mr. Kennedy.  I’m fond of Mr. Kennedy.  I think he’s a great man.  I think he can really pull us out of this trouble if we get the facts to him.  And I believe he knows a great deal more than his appointments indicate he knows.  He’s playing with the enemy.  Like when you go fishing, you’ve got to play with the fish.  Let ‘em out and pull ‘em in.  Let ‘em out and pull ‘em in.  But knowing Mr. Kennedy’s father, and how well informed he is on this whole subject, and how close Kennedy is to his father, I don’t think Mr. Kennedy is totally in the dark.

But I do think that it is the duty of every mother, every loyal Christian , every person that regards the defense of this country as a sacred right, that they communicate — not with their congressman, not with their senator, but with President Kennedy.  And tell him, “I do not think you should send my boy, or our boys, wearing the uniform of the United States of America, and under the flag that you see here, our red, white and blue, to fight there to help keep in the hands of these that which they have stolen”.  I think everyone should not alone write once, but keep writing and get your friends to write.

Now, I could go on endlessly, and tell you these things to support what I have just asked you to do.  But I don’t think it’s necessary to do that.  You’re above the average group in intelligence and I don’t think it’s necessary to impress this any more.

But. . . I want to tell you one more thing.  You talk about… “Oh, the Jews.  Why the Jews?  Christianity.  Why, we got Christianity from the Jews and the Jews gave us Jesus, and the Jews gave us our religion”.  But do you know that on the day of atonement that you think is so sacred to them, that on that day… and I was one of them!  This is not hearsay.  I’m not here to be a rabble-rouser.  I’m here to give you facts.

When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, the very first prayer that you recite, you stand — and it’s the only prayer for which you stand — and you repeat three times a short prayer. The Kol Nidre.  In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months — any oath, vow or pledge that you may take during the next twelve months  shall be null and void.

The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force and effect, and so forth and so on.

And further than that, the Talmud teaches: “Don’t forget — whenever you take an oath, vow, and pledge — remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and that exempts you from fulfilling that”.

How much can you depend on their loyalty?  You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916.

And we’re going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.  You can’t depend upon something as insecure as the leadership that is not obliged to respect an oath, vow or pledge.  Now I could go on and recite many other things to you, but I would have a little respect for your time, and you want to really, uh, get through with all of this.  Tomorrow’s going to be a long day.

Now I want to say one thing. You ask me. . . well, you think to yourself: “well how did this fellow get mixed up in this the way he got mixed up in it.”  Well, I opened my mouth in 1945, and I took big pages in newspapers and tried to tell the American people what I’m telling you.  And one newspaper after another refused the advertisement.  And when I couldn’t find a newspaper to take them — I paid cash, not credit — what happened?  My lawyer told me, “There’s an editor over in Jersey with a paper who will take your announcement”.  So, I was brought together with Mr. McGinley, and that’s how I met him.

So somebody told me the lawyer who introduced me, who was the son of the Dean of the Methodist Bishop, he said: “Well, I think he’s a little anti-Semitic.  I don’t know whether I can get him over here.  So he brought him over to my apartment and we hit it off wonderfully, and have since then.

Now, I say this, and I say it without any qualifications.  I say it without any reservations.  And I say it without any hesitation. . . if it wasn’t for the work that Mr. Conley McGinley did with “Common Sense” — he’s been sending out from 1,800,000 to 2,000,000 every year — if it wasn’t for the work he’s been doing sending those out for fifteen years now, we would already be a communist country. Nobody has done what he did to light fires.  Many of the other active persons in this fight learned all about if for the first time through “Common Sense”.

Now, I have been very active in helping him all I could.  I’m not as flush as I was.  I cannot go on spending the money. . . I’m not going to take up a collection.  Don’t worry.  I see five people getting up to leave.  (laughter)

I haven’t got the money that I used to spend.  I used to print a quarter of a million of them out of my own pocket and send them out.  Mr. McGinley, when I first met him, had maybe 5,000 printed and circulated them locally.  So I said, “With what you know and what I know, we can really do a good job”.  So I started printing in outside shops of big newspaper companies, a quarter of a million, and paid for them.  Well, there’s always a bottom to the barrel.  I suppose we’ve all reached that at times.

I’m not so poor that I can’t live without working and that’s what worries the Anti-Defamation League.  I can just get by without going and asking for a job or getting on the bread line.  But Mr. McGinley is working.  He’s sick and he’s going at this stronger than ever.  And all I want to say is that they want to close up “Common Sense” more than any other single thing in the whole world, as a death-blow to the fight Christians are making to survive.

So I just want to tell you this.  All they do is circulate rumors: “Mr. Benjamin H. Freedman is the wealthy backer of ‘Common Sense’.”   The reason they do that is to discourage the people in the United States: don’t send any money to Common Sense. They don’t need it.  The’ve got the wealthy Mr. Freedman as a backer.  That all has strategy.  They don’t want to advertise me so that people that have real estate or securities to sell will come and call on me. They just want people to lay off “Common Sense”. And all I’m telling you is, I do try to help him, but I haven’t been able to.  And I will be very honest. One thing I won’t do is lie.  In the last year I’ve had so much sickness in my family that I could not give him one dollar.

How he’s managed to survive, I don’t know. God alone knows.  And he must be in God’s care because how he’s pulled through his sickness and with his financial troubles, I don’t know.  But that press is working. . . and every two weeks about a hundred or a hundred-fifty-thousand of “Common Sense” go out with a new message.  And if that information could be multiplied. . . if people that now get it could buy ten or twenty five, or fifty, give them around.  Plow that field.  Sow those seeds, you don’t know which will take root, but for God’s sake, this is our last chance.

[Freedman then discusses the importance of people forgoing unnecessary purchases to 'buy more stuff', play golf, etc., and use the money to keep "Common Sense" going.  He explains that the paper is going in debt; could be closed down and he (Freedman) no longer has the funds, having spent some $2,400,000 in his attempt to bring the information to the American public and elected officials.  He then asks for questions from the audience.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

{Question inaudible]

Freedman:  All right, I’ll comment on that.  This is rather deep, but you all have a very high degree of intelligence, so I’m going to make an attempt.  In the time of Bible history, there was a geographic area known as Judea.  Judea was a province of the Roman Empire.  Now, a person who lived in Judea was known as a Judean, and in Latin it was Judaeus; in Greek it was Judaius.  Those are the two words, in Greek and Latin, for a Judean.

Now, in Latin and Greek there is no such letter as ‘j’, and the first syllable of Judaeus and Judaius starts ‘ghu’.  Now, when the Bible was written, it was first written in Greek, Latin, Panantic, Syriac, Aramaic… all those languages.  Never Was the word Jew in any of them because the word didn’t exist.  Judea was the country, and the people were Judeans, and Jesus was referred to only as a Judean.  I’ve seen those early… the earliest scripts available.

In 1345, a man by the name of Wycliffe in England thought that it was time to translate the Bible into English.  There was no English edition of the Bible because who the Devil could read?  It was only the educated church people who could read Latin and Greek, Syriac, Aramaic and the other languages.  Anyhow, Wycliffe translated the Bible into English.  But in it, he had to look around for some words for Judaeas and Judaius.

There was no English word because Judea had passed out of existence.  There was no Judea.  People had long ago forgotten that.  So in the first translation he used the word, in referring to Jesus, as ‘gyu’, “jew”.  At the time, there was no printing press.

Then, between 1345 and the 17th century, when the press came into use, that word passed through so many changes… I have them all here.  If you want I can read them to you.  I will.  That word ‘gyu’ which was in the Wycliffe Bible became. . . first it was ‘ gyu ‘,  then ‘ giu ‘,  then ‘ iu ‘ (because the ‘ i ‘ in Latin is pronounced like the ‘ j ‘.    Julius Caesar is ‘ Iul ‘   because there is no ‘j’ in Latin) then ‘ iuw ‘,   then ‘ ieuu ‘,  then ‘ ieuy ‘,  then ‘ iwe ‘,  then ‘ iow ‘,  then ‘ iewe ‘, all in Bibles as time went on.  Then ‘ ieue ‘,  then ‘ iue ‘,  then ‘ ive ‘,  and then ‘ ivw ‘, and finally in the 18th century… ‘ jew ‘.  Jew.

All the corrupt and contracted forms for Judaius, and Judaeas in Latin.  Now, there was no such thing as ‘Jew’, and any theologian — I’ve lectured in maybe 20 of the most prominent theological seminaries in this country, and two in Europe — there was no such word as Jew.  There only was Judea, and Jesus was a Judean and the first English use of a word in an English bible to describe him was ‘gyu’  — Jew.  A contracted and shortened form of Judaeus, just the same as we call a laboratory a ‘lab’, and gasoline ‘gas’… a tendency to short up.

So, in England there were no public schools; people didn’t know how to read; it looked like a scrambled alphabet so they made a short word out of it.   Now for a theologian to say that you can’t harm the Jews, is just ridiculous.  I’d like to know where in the scriptures it says that.  I’d like to know the text.

Look at what happened to Germany for touching Jews.  What would you, as a citizen of the United States, do to people who did to you what the so-called Jews — the Pollacks and Litvaks and Litzianers — they weren’t Jews, as I just explained to you.  They were Eastern Europeans who’d been converted to Talmudism.  There was no such thing as Judaism.  Judaism was a name given in recent years to this religion known in Bible history as Torah [inaudible].  No Jew or no educated person ever heard of Judaism.  It didn’t exist.   They pulled it out of the air. . . a meaningless word.

Just like ‘anti-Semitic’.  The Arab is a Semite.  And the Christians talk about people who don’t like Jews as anti-Semites, and they call all the Arabs anti-Semites.  The only Semites in the world are the Arabs.  There isn’t one Jew who’s a Semite.  They’re all Turkothean Mongoloids.  The Eastern european Jews.  So, they brainwashed the public, and if you will invite me to meet this reverend who told you these things, I’ll convince him and it’ll be one step in the right direction.  I’ll go wherever I have to go to meet him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, ma’am.  Well… I can answer that.  First of all, your first premise is wrong.  Your first premise that all the Jews are loyal to each other is wrong.  Because, the Eastern European Jews outnumber all the rest by so many that they create the impression that they are the Jewish ‘race’; that they are the Jewish nation;  that they are the Jewish people. . . and the Christians swallow it like a cream puff.

But in 1844 the German rabbis called a conference of rabbis from all over the world for the purpose of abolishing the Kol Nidre from the Day of Atonement religious ceremony.  In Brunswick, Germany, where that conference was held in 1844, there was almost a terrific riot.  A civil war.

The Eastern Europeans said, “What the hell.  We should give up Kol Nidre?  That gives us our grip on our people.  We give them a franchise so they can tell the Christians, ‘Go to hell.  We’ll make any deal you want’, but they don’t have to carry it out.  That gives us our grip on our people”.  So, they’re not so united, and if you knew the feeling that exists. . .

Now, I’ll also show you from an official document by the man responsible for. . . uh, who baptized this race.  Here is a paper that we obtained from the archives of the Zionist organization in New York City, and in it is the manuscript by Sir James A. Malcolm, who — on behalf of the British Cabinet — negotiated the deal with these Zionists.

And in here he says that all the jews in England were against it.  The Jews who had been there for years, the [inaudible - probably Sephardim], those who had Portuguese and Spanish ad Dutch ancestry… who were monotheists and believed in that religious belief.  That was while the Eastern European Jews were still running around in the heart of Asia and then came into Europe. But they had no more to do with them than. . . can we talk about a Christian ‘race’?  or a Christian religion?… or are the Christians united?

So the same disunity is among the Jews.  And I’ll show you in this same document that when they went to France to try and get the French government to back that Zionist venture, there was only one Jew in France who was for it.  That was Rothschild, and they did it because they were interested in the oil and the Suez Canal

————————————————

[Question inaudible]  Freedman:  You know why?  Because if they don’t, they’re decked up.  They come around and they tell you how much you must give, and if you don’t . . . oh, you’re anti-Semitic. Then none of their friends will have anything to do with them, and they start a smear campaign. . . and you have got to give.

In New York city, in the garment center, there are twelve manufacturers in the building.  And when the drive is on to sell Israel Bonds, the United Jewish Drive, they put a big scoreboard with the names of the firms and opposite them, as you make the amount they put you down for, they put a gold star after the name.  Then, the buyers are told, “When you come into that building to call on someone and they haven’t got a gold star, tell them that you won’t buy from them until they have the gold star”.  BLACKMAIL.  I don’t know what else you can call it.

Then what do they do?  They tell you it’s for ‘humanitarian purposes’ and they send maybe $8 billion dollars to Israel, tax exempt, tax deductible.  So if they hadn’t sent that eight billion dollars to Israel, seven billion of it would have gone into the U.S. Treasury as income tax.  So what happens? That seven billion dollars deficit — that air pocket — the gullible Christians have to make up.

They put a bigger tax on gas or bread or corporation tax.  Somebody has to pay the housekeeping expenses for the government.  So why do you let these people send their money over there to buy guns to drive people out of their ancient homeland?  And you say, “Oh, well.  The poor Jews.  They have no place to go and they’ve been persecuted all their lives”.  They’ve never been persecuted for their religion.  And I wish I had two rows of Rabbis here to challenge me.  Never once, in all of history, have they been persecuted for their religion.

Do you know why the Jews were driven out of England?  King Edward the First in 1285 drove them out, and they never came back until the Cromwell Revolution which was financed by the Rothschilds.  For four-hundred years there wasn’t a Jew.  But do you know why they were driven out?  Because in the Christian faith and the Moslem faith it’s a sin to charge ‘rent’ for the use of money.  In other words – what we call interest [usury] is a sin.

So the Jews had a monopoly in England and they charged so much interest, and when the Lords and Dukes couldn’t pay, they [Jews] foreclosed.  And they were creating so much trouble that the king of England finally made himself their partner, because when they they came to foreclose, some of these dukes bumped off the Jews. . . the money-lenders.  So the king finally said — and this is all in history, look up Tianson [Tennyson?] or Rourke, the History of the Jews in England; two books you can find in your library.  When the king found out what the trouble was all about, and how much money they were making, he declared himself a fifty-percent partner of the money lenders.  Edward the First.  And for many years, one-third of the revenues of the British Treasury came from the fifty-percent interest in money-lending by the Jews.

But it got worse and worse.  So much worse that when the Lords and Dukes kept killing the money-lenders, the King then said, “I declare myself the heir of all the money-lenders.  If they’re killed you have to pay me, because I’m his sole heir”.  That made so much trouble, because the King had to go out and collect the money with an army, so he told the Jews to get out.  There were 15,000 of them, and they had to get out, and they went across to Ireland, and that’s how Ireland got to be part of the United Kingdom.

When King Edward found out what they were doing, he decided to take Ireland for himself before someone else did.  He sent Robert Southgard with a mercenary army and conquered Ireland.  So, show me one time where a Jew was persecuted in any country because of his religion.  It has never happened.  It’s always their impact on the political, social, or economic customs and traditions of the community in which they settle.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman:  Yes, sir.  Well, they say most of those things themselves.  It was unnecessary for Benjamin Franklin to say it.  Most of those things they say themselves.  But Benjamin Franklin observed, and by hearsay understood, what was happening in Europe.

When Russia, in 920 was formed, and gradually surrounded the Khazar Kingdom, and absorbed them, most of the well-to-do Khazars fled to Western Europe and brought with them the very things to which you object and I object and a lot of other people object.  The customs, the habits, the instincts with which they were endowed.

When Benjamin Franklin referred to them as Jews because that’s the name that they went by, and when the Christians first heard that these people who were fleeing from Russia — who they were — that they had practiced this Talmudic faith — the Christians in Western Europe said, “They must be the remnants of the lost ten tribes!”

And Mr. Grutz, the greatest historian amongst the Jews, said that — and he’s probably as good an authority on that subject as there is.  So when Ben Franklin came to Europe in the 18th century, he already saw the results of what these people had done after they left their homeland.  And every word of it is true… they say it themselves.  I can give you half a dozen books they’ve written in which they say the same thing:  When they have money they become tyrants.  And when they become defeated, they become ruthless.  They’re only barbarians.  They’re the descendants of Asiatic Mongols and they will do anything to accomplish their purpose.

What right did they have to take over Russia the way they did?  The Czar had abdicated nine or ten months before that.  There was no need for them. . . they were going to have a constitutional monarchy. But they didn’t want that.  When the constitutional monarchy was to assemble in November, they mowed them all down and established the Soviet Union.

There was no need for that.  But they thought, “Now is the time”, and if you you will look in the Encyclopedia Britannica under the word ‘Bolshevism’, you’ll find the five laws there that Lenin put down for a successful revolution.  One of them is, “Wait for the right time, and then give them everything you’ve got”.  It would pay you to read that.

You’d also find that Mr. Harold Blacktree, who wrote the article for the Encyclopedia Britannica states that the Jews conceived and created and cultivated the Communist movement.  And that their energy made them the spearhead of the movement.  Harold Blacktree wrote it and no one knew more about Communism than he.  And the Encyclopedia Britannica for 25 years has been printing it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Question inaudible] Freedman:  Well, I can’t advocate that you do anything that’s criminal, but I can tell you this.  You can start what I call an endless chain.  If you can get your friends to write, objectively, here is the statement:  Mr. Kennedy’s office gave me this himself.  Mr. Smith, who succeeded Mr. Kennedy, took over his office — was in his office — and gave me this.  He delivered this on the 25th, and it says here:

“For release to AM (that means morning papers), August 25th”.  “Israel is here to stay.  It is a national commitment, special obligation of the Democratic Party.  The White House must take the lead.  American intervention.  We will act promptly and decisively against any nation in the Middle East which attacks its neighbor.  I propose that we make clear to both Israel and the Arab states our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary to halt any aggression by any nation”.

Well, do you call the return of people to their homeland [the Arab Palestinians] aggression?  Is Mr. Kennedy going to do that?  Suppose three million Mexicans came into Texas and drove the six million Texans into the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico.  Suppose these Mexicans were slipped in there armed — the Texans were disarmed — and one night they drove them all out of Texas and declared themselves the Republic of the Alamo.  What would the United States say?

Would we say it’s aggression for these Texans to try to get their homes back from the Mexican thieves?  Suppose the Negroes in Alabama were secretly armed by the Soviets and overnight they rose up and drove all the whites into the swamps of Mississippi and Georgia and Florida. . . drove them out completely, and declared themselves the Republic of Ham, or the Republic of something-or-other.  Would we call it aggression if these people, the whites of Alabama, tried to go back to their homes?

Would we. . . what would we think if the soviet Union said, “No, those Negroes now occupy them! Leave them there!”, or “No, those Mexicans are in Texas.  they declared themselves a sovereign state.  Leave them there.  You have plenty of room in Utah and Nevada.  Settle somewhere else”.

Would we call it aggression if the Alabama whites or the Texans wanted to go back to their homes?  So now, you’ve got to write to President Kennedy and say, “We do not consider it aggression in the sense that you use the word, if these people want to return to their homes as the United Nations — fifteen times in the last twelve years — called upon the Zionists in occupation of Palestine to allow the Arab Palestinians to return to their former homes and farms”.

[End of transcript of Benjamin Freedman speech, given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense.]

Tares among the wheat…Yah willing, this will be further addressed in a future study.  The tares among the wheat are rightfully seen as Esau by many believers.  However, Esau may not be who you think he is.

Gen 3:15  And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.

A little hint… There are two seals of the state of Israel.  One traces back to biblical times the other is counterfeit.

Yah willing, in the future I will have the opportunity to discuss this issue further.  I have found that the weight of evidence points to the ’star of David’/’seal of Solomon’ as the mark of the beast that the book of Revelation describes.
Who is the father of the state of Israel?

What does the inscription say beside Rothschilds face?  “Avi ha’yeshuv”, which means father of the settlement.

What does Rothschild mean?  Red Shield or Ruth’s Child.

“In 1822 it [the Six-Pointed Star] was adopted by the Rothschild family and put on their coat of arms… It began in 17th century Frankfurt, Germany, where Mayer Amschel Bauer hung a red hexagram…on his door to identify his address. Soon after this [he]…began supplying coins to Prince William of Hanau and upon becoming supplier to the court, he changed his family name to Roth and Schild and Schild, meaning Red Shield.”
[N.B. Rothschild actually means “Ruth’s Child” and refers to the lineage of David and Solomon whose ancestor was Ruth (I Chron. 2:12-15).  More information will be addressed on this subject in upcoming studies on the mark of the beast and Zionism.

Videos
click here

littleguyintheeye@gmail.com

Subscribe to Little Guy in the Eye

LittleGuyintheEye

Another novel to try is Darkness at Noon as it would fit in with many of your themes. Wriiten by Arthur Koestler Darkness at Noon (1940) is one of the twentieth century’s most famous “political novels,” or fictional accounts of a historical reality. Written by a former member of the Communist Party, it is a unique glimpse into the volatile political situation under the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in the late 1930s. Its main character, Rubashov, combines characteristics of key Soviet politicians and intellectual leaders from the Bolshevik Revolution, and the story of his imprisonment and confession explains and develops the topical political themes of totalitarianism, socialism, communism, and individualism.

Read a review at Bookslut.

“HQ” High Quality available at YouTube

.

There is no racial continuum from the ancient Israel to the modern Jews

The Anti Semitism slur is just a way of affirming some mythical semitic origins

The whole race issue is redundant – it is there for the zionist cause

.

Some links to Gilad:

http://palestinethinktank.com/author/gilad-atzmon/

www.gilad.co.uk/

http://www.myspace.com/giladatzmon

copyright Moshe Ladanga 2007

I have long been an admirer of Rilke, first introduced to me by Katrin before she went on a seven-day trip to Sagada. The now-classic pocket-size Shambhala Press Edition of Letters was my first Rilke, and it was a gentle and subtly persuasive introduction to solitude, the core of my artistic practice.

To relish one’s ability to detach and contemplate things is not just a natural state, but a skill that needs to be nurtured and developed; it is a space that expands, no matter where you are in the world, no matter how you are in this life. I have treasured this gift and have even fought it.

So what does Rilke’s notion of the artistic practice have anything to do with the theoretical issues of imagination and language in art? I dare say it is the key issue, the unturned stone. The omnipresence of globalism and collaborative experiments in contemporary practices indirectly reinforce the need to slow down, to reflect, because the collective rush in my opinion is a quite human reaction to the tightening circle of information, of knowledge, not, as many are saying now, to the enthusiasm that “interconnected-ness” brings.

Yes, revolutions in art owe largely to the influx of difference, diversity, but institutionalizing a social phenomena will not only engender it, but kill it. Sometimes we forget that most theories come from observation, and this precious human facility is the one that takes time, and like a path in the woods, the riches of insight can only be gleaned after traversing the pattern of shadows.

It is an effort to be alone. Unlike the days before the internet, before cellphones, I find myself fighting constantly to be aware of my voice, to hear without prejudice the thoughts I have as I walk. Does anyone remember that fleeting subconscious moment that we have when we encounter a realisation- it felt like stepping into a light-struck place in a dense wood. Today, we often pick through our thoughts as one would pick through clothes; I must think this way, must not think like this.

Imagination and language cannot be deconstructed as Derrida would have brilliantly put it (by putting it to the page, inscribing it to form). Yes, there is an  inextractable, even inscrutable connection, but once we look, one goes into gear. Arthur Koestler, one of my heroes, once described human consciousness as an essentially metaphorical one. As we try to make sense of what is outside of us, we already create- every moment is one of invention.

As an artist, this is important to me. No matter how many pedagogical branches grow from the current trend of specialised art theories, there will always be that moment of consideration, a beginning of a circle. It is the daily choice of stepping into it that I am keen on, and to keep it I have to know what is happening. To speak of what things are, one must see as one is.

After finishing my post on writing I had the opportunity to listen to an interview with Judy Carmichael.

Photo Source

Judy is the host of the Jazz Inspired radio program. This program explores creativity and each week in the program  “celebrated artists discuss their creative process and how their passion for jazz has inspired their work. They share their favorite recordings with the listener as well as insight into their life and art.”

Her interview explored virtuosity and creativity. This is the MP3 audio of the interview.

Listening to Judy’s ease with discussing Jazz I was reminded of another marvellous music interview I heard two years ago. That was between Michael Tilson Thomas and James Brown in We Were Playing Boulez, But We Were Listening To James Brown! The trail for the program reads:

As a university student, Michael Tilson Thomas and his colleagues were on the cutting edge of modern classical music. One day, while he was driving on the LA freeway, a song by James Brown came on the radio. That song, and the many that followed, changed MTT’s views about how to perform the music of Boulez, Stravinsky, and the like. The level of energy, the precision, the sense of time, the angularity — all gave the young conductor insight into the music he was performing.

Photo Source

The confidence with which Judy Carmichael and Michael Tilson Thomas spoke about music reminded me of Maureen Pope’s discussion of the personal contruction of formal knowledge and her link to Arthur Koestler’s articulation of the vision that links poet, scientist and artist.

After listening to both interviews I revisited Howard Gardner’s discussion of multiple intelligences. He suggests that musical intelligence involves skill in the performance, composition, and appreciation of musical patterns. It encompasses the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms. (Mark Smith)

This reminded me of two quotes:

Music expresses that which can not be said and on which it is impossible to be silent (Victor Hugo)

Music is the silence between the notes (Claude Debussy)

Overall my writing about writing and about music has amplified my interest in performances of understanding and the forms this understanding can take. Lee Gutkind, Judy Carmichael and Michael Tilson Thomas have a great deal in common.

Postscript

Classic FM’s Keys to Music has broadcast (May 2009) four programs about Music Education.

1: The Body
In Part 1 of the series Graham Abbott and Richard Gill discuss the importance of dance and movement in a child’s musical experiences. In this program they are joined by Dr Micheal Giddens, a leading exponent of Dalcroze Eurhythmics.

2: The Voice
Graham and Richard discuss the importance of singing in a child’s life. They are joined by Kathryn Sadler, one of Melbourne’s leading singing teachers and choir directors.

3: Instruments Download
In Part 3 Graham and Richard discuss why learning an instrument is good for children. They are joined by Alastair McKean, Director of Border Music Camp in Albury, NSW.

4: The Mind Download
Graham and Richard conclude their discussion on the importance of Music Education for children. In this program they focus on the proven benefits of musical experiences for a child’s intellectual and social development.