james's blog

Warring World(s) Part 1. Introduction to the Enemy

Seeing that there isn't a whole lot going on here at the moment, I thought I'd take the opportunity to write some more on things not covered in my previous essay. I'll do it in parts.

Part 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE ENEMY
(Or as the Rolling Stones would have it, “Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name”!

It has been said that all wars throughout history are waged by the elite against the ordinary citizen. It may appear that it is one nation against another and that is the sum total of it. But the wars are always started and supported by the elite on both sides and are paid for by the citizenry on both sides (whom have no argument with each other) in lives, health, housing , infrastructure and taxes. Let us not forget the taxes. They pay the armaments and equipment manufacturers for their deadly production that is then totally destroyed and taking with it the wealth accumulated from previous years production. All wasted. Jobs in the Military/Industrial Complex are jobs creating poverty. Fully half of the worlds scientists and 90% of the worlds physicists work directly or indirectly for war, for violence, for destruction. Unbelievable! Think of the problems that could be solved if all this effort were to be redirected.

And then there are the bankers who finance this carnage and destruction. The same people win no matter who “wins” and who “loses” because waging war is profitable. While ever a nation has privately owned banks and privatley owned for profit armaments manufacturers, it will have wars. No question about it.

These same war manufacturers have taken over the government. They have the money and they have a need. They need to orient the economy and the education system towards war (I doubt there's a university in America that doesn't get a grant from the Dept of Defence, for instance, and there isn't a State or Congressional electorate in the United States that doesn't have a “Defence” industry). For all the details, history and likely future see this article from researcher Brian Bogart
They also need a front to hide behind because the average citizen, though very imperfect morally, is not committed to doing evil as the war manufacturers are and so would reject them if they knew this agenda of destruction; this agenda of violence. Most people are committed to creation though they may not consciously realise it or express it that way.

So this is how the lines are drawn; the overwelming majority committed to creative endeavours and the minority to destructive ones. Another way to describe this is the basically good versus the decidedly evil. Or, the people versus the psychopaths.

The psychopaths cannot profit from destruction if there first isn't wealth creation. Creation doesn't need destruction but destruction needs creation. One can exist by itself, the other cannot. Destruction is parasitical and therefore the destroyers, the violent, are parasites. We have seen these parasites deceive with every move they make, lie with every word they utter. They are committed to war with us, to our destruction. If these destroyers worship a god or are acting on behalf of a god, then this god must also be a parasitical god (which is an oxymoron) and dependent on a creative God. They cannot be the same God, or parts of the same God, because God cannot be at war with itself. It cannot have two natures and not be two Gods. And if this is so then only one is sustainable, the other is not. They are far from equal and only one can be God. So if you want to devote yourself to the cause of destruction or violence, then you are also commiting yourself to destruction. You are following a Being (or behaviour, at least) that calls for your destruction, too. How dumb is that? How insane is that? This is the reality of violence.

A real world example of this nonsense is the theology of Freemasonry. In the lower rungs (or initiations, as they call them) the fledgling Mason is led to believe that the God they worship is the Christian God, Jesus. Further up they are told that there are two gods, Jesus and Lucifer, Light and Dark. This is otherwise know as Dualism. Then finally Lucifer is presented as transcendent. Of course, by changing the theology so dramaticaly they are telling the neophyte that they have lied to him along the way. Why does he now continue to follow people who lie to him? More on this later.

Whether you, the reader, believe in a personalised Evil Being and/or God or not, I don't think it matters to the reasoning and logic of my essay. The opposing spiritual forces represent opposing principles and we follow one or the other, by and large, whether we like it or not. Either way, I find this “cosmic” overview very helpful in sorting out the cacophany of confusing voices and problems in the world which is the subject of the next part. Perhaps this apocalyptic approach (Good Vs Evil) is my way of going to the “source” and working my way back from there. Whatever, thanks for reading this far. Comments and feedback welcomed.

Next part here

WORLD WAR

It's a lot like an Agatha Christie novel, figuring out this Armageddon thing. We have a crime, the bombing of Gaza. We have victims, the Palestinians. We even have the culprits, the people running the Israeli government. But are they the principal actors here? We have accomplices, the people running the US and UK governments. But, again, are they the primary motivators?

I think it is worthwhile when trying to understand a long running situation to look behind the stage props, the actors, the details of the plot and dialogue to inquire into the motivations of the writers, producers and directors of the “show”. To look for the source.

What do we know about Israeli history, culture and people? Are they autonomous or are they dependent on others or act on others instructions? We know that the Rothschild family has been heavily involved in the formation and growth of Israel; that they have provided a lot of the initial funding and have used their political clout to further the cause of Israel. It is highly unlikely that their influence over Israeli policy has waned over the years. International bankers tend to do things as a group. There are other Jewish banking families and I think it is entirely reasonable to believe they are involved with the Israel enterprise as well. When these banking families get involved in something, they like to control it and they treat everything as an investment. They have a purpose and they want a return. It's business ..... the business of the pursuit of evermore wealth and power.

The history of Israel has been one of violence from the start; a seemingly unending series of terrorist attacks and oppression against the Palestinians interspersed with wars. The Israelis have started all these wars bar one, the 1973 “Yom Kippur War”. We might conclude that they are belligerent and extremely aggressive and wont hesitate to start a war to further their interests. Why do they behave like this? The Israelis themselves have more land than they need to live in peacefully; always have. This can be simply demonstrated by the fact that they have had to aggressively promote immigration to Palestine to Jews living all over the world to populate the place. Indeed, the Israelis had to engage in “false flag” terror campaigns against the Sephardic (Oriental or Semitic) Jews living in other Middle East countries to drive them into Israel. Many claim much the same thing happened to the Ashkenazi (non-Oriental, non-Semitic) Jews in Europe through the oppression caused by the Nazis together with support from the Zionists. Historically, Jews have shown a marked resistence to immigrating during the twentieth century to Palestine as it was known prior to 1948 and to Israel as it is now known. Recently, the Israeli government has been offering large inducements to Iranian Jews to emmigrate to Israel. These have not been taken up.

Obviously there is another agenda at play here. As mentioned earlier, the principal actors here are likely to be the “International Bankers” and, if so, it is their agenda we are witnessing being played out. But first, let us return to the Israelis. How is it possible for these Jews, who have lived peacefully amongst, and as part of, a large number of other nations, to suddenly become this belligerent and warlike people?

If we look at their culture, we find it is built on ancient texts, The Hebrew Bible otherwise known as the Old Testament and the Talmud. Both these texts are exclusivist i.e. they promote the Jews as being separate from and superior to the rest of humanity. They are “God's Chosen People” which makes the rest of humanity “God's Rejected or God's Scorned or God's Enemy” and thereby the Jews' enemy. This notion of “God's Chosen” sets them up in contention with the world and if God has rejected the rest of humanity and they are now his enemy then if the Israelis attack and kill any of these same people they are doing God's work. There is no getting around this inescapable conclusion.

This world view of choseness and separateness is inculcated in Jews through their culture from birth if they happen to grow up and mix in a Jewish religious community. This is inevitable.

There are many calls for mercy and justice in the Old Testament but many of these are directed towards the disenfranchised in their own community and even when they are directed towards the benefit of the stranger it becomes confusing, contradictory. What this then requires is a sort of schizophrenic approach to these scriptures which alternatively call for mercy (Micah 6.8 ) and war (Micah 4:13) and genocide (Joshua 6:17-24). This doesn't make for a peaceful and balanced mindset. Indeed, it calls for a “splitness” in the mind to be able to function with this internal contradiction. This internal contradiction must create conflict, first internal conflict and then later external conflict

For the same reason, Christians suffer from exactly the same complaint, if not more so, as the calls for mercy and justice are even more pronounced in the New Testament. In fact, Jesus specifically rejected the priest class and its attendent legalism (the myriad of laws which, in the end, sanction wrongdoing), and the culture of violence and revenge that is such a part of the Old Testament. (See John ch8: 31-44. Jesus accuses the Judeans, known at the time as the Jews as opposed to the Israelites from Israel, as being murderers and followers of Satan. It was the Judeans who had “The Law”, the Torah, the first five books of what is now the Old Testament which called for genocide).
The answer to this mental conflict for Christians and Jews alike is to either follow the way of violence and exclusiveness or the way of mercy and inclusiveness ..... or have two minds, to split.

This cultural programming for both Jews and Christians alike lies relatively dormant until it is triggered through propaganda usually attending some crisis (also usually manufactured) and a target or victim and the means for acting out this violent disposition is provided i.e. wars against “the other”. A large number of both Christians and Jews have shown themselves quite capable of exploitation of the each other. Both groups share the Old Testament and its sentiments and both claim the title of “God's Chosen People”. Despite this competition for God's favour, many Christians and Jews have managed to unite. They have united to persecute a third group, the Muslims, specifically the Palestinians. Some very vocal Christian and Jewish leaders would have us believe that the Palestinians are not only their enemy but everybody's enemy and even God's enemy because they are resisting God's will that Palestine belongs to the Jews as outlined in the Old Testament alongside calls to genocide (See both the Books of Deuteronomy and Joshua).

As noted earlier, large sections of the populace of both countries are predisposed to violence through religious training, or programming if you like, in large part authorised and validated by leaders pointing to passages in the Old Testament. It is not only violence being advocated but a particular kind of violence: war, slavery and genocide. This is not only sanctioned by the God of much of the Old Testament, but demanded by him. This “god” cannot be the God who created the Universe and all in it because he would be at war with his own creation; at war with himself. This is not possible. If it were possible then this God would have a split mind and as God is mind/spirit without a body this means a split nature which means two Gods; a creator God and a destroyer God; a good God and an evil God. Which God was Joshua listening to when he was told to kill every living thing, man, woman, child and beast in Canaan?
(The Christian God though a three part God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, are all of the same nature. Jesus said, “You see me and you see the Father”).

A further argument that this god of genocide is not the God that created the Universe and all in it is this; if this god was the Creator God and wanted to eliminate an entire people, he could simply withdraw their life from them, he being the source of all life. This would have a huge advantage for his “Chosen Ones” in that they would not now have to murder men, women and children and be dead or uffering from injuries and/or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and nightmares and the ongoing deliterious effects of the resultant bloodlust infecting the present and subsequent generations. To command they be murderers is hardly nurturing your “Chosen People”. Once a people visit violence upon an enemy, they bring this same spirit of violence back into their own community when they return. It is now in their psyches and being denied it will fester to erupt against perceived internal and external enemies later on. The only God that would do this is one who wanted the destruction of ALL people, perpertrator and victim alike. Yet this genocidal god can't destroy by itself, it needs to employ humans to do it. If it needs help to destroy then it couldn't possibly create by itself; the defining quality that makes God God. This genocidal god, if it exists at all, is not God but some sort of other being and so should not be given any credence or authority let alone worshipped and followed.

You see the problem here? If you choose war and genocide, you are either obeying an evil, destructive being who wants to destroy you, too, or you are deluded/insane and hearing voices or just straight out evil yourself. What you cannot be is following a loving creator God.

Let us turn to the “accomplices”. Successive US and UK governments have provided taxpayer funds, armaments and political cover for Israel over many years. Both of these countries' governments have been happy to “give” the Israelis a land that belonged to neither of them. Such arrogance! Both the United Kingdom and the United States are “Christian” countries led by “Christian” men (by and large). Both these countries have long and sordid histories of colonialism and empire building, of enslaving whole peoples. Their justification .... the New Testament (go preach the good news to all the nations) and the Old Testament (appropriating the “Chosen People” title) and their methods .... straight out of the Old Testament (war, plunder and genocide). Though it must be noted that “the Good News” which was once exclusively Christianity, is now joined by “Democracy” and “Our Way of Life” (materialism/hedonism) as the religious reasons for the non-religious.

Who are we really dealing with here? Are there actors or interests behind these governments controlling them? Those that know the mechanism of credit creation, the banking system, already know the answer to this. Bankers such as the Rockefellers, Warburgs and Morgans (Christians, Jews and Calathumpians, whatever) control the country's economy by creating money they have just pulled out of thin air by extending credit (which is received as debt to the borrower). It also furnishes them with immense wealth and power over others, not the least of which are politicians and, in turn, the control of the education, legal, police and military systems. They dominate businesses including the media. Everything is channeled their way. If it is not, then they change it. They rule. They rule Britain, the US and also Israel. To see one country ruling another is to miss who is ruling them all.

However for all their power, these bankers and their attendant elite face two problems. One is that the lust for power and wealth is never satisfied. They always want more and so are always busy plotting the next expansion. As The Oracle in the film, “The Matrix” said, “What do men with power want? More Power”!
The second problem is that because their power is based ultimately on fraud, a lie, this may be discovered and then this powerbase will be taken from them.

The country's wealth that is the backing (or that which gives it value) for the bankers manufactured Money Supply belongs collectively to the citizens of the nation, not the bankers. The wealth that comes from the issuance of the Money Supply belongs to the peoples' governments. Should the truth become widely known, then these bankers risk losing all their power and perhaps even their heads. Certainly their heads were at risk when they were dealing in past years with functioning monarchies. The monarch was always liable to discover the truth to arrest them all with no notice. Monarchies were a problem for the bankers.

The First World War eliminated many of the monarchies and hobbled the rest. The First War was of great benefit to the bankers quite apart from the profits that came from providing the loans and armaments that made the war possible in the first place. But today they are still at risk of discovery and overthrow even with a non-functioning democracy. There is always the risk of it awakening and functioning as it should. So this is why totalitarian (but not hereditary) governments are prefered such as fascist and communist ones. (As an interesting aside, the only thing Marx found praiseworthy with Western capitalist countries was their banking system!)

This is the risk posed by the bankers' own fellow citizens . There is also a risk posed by any foreign government that does not use this private banking system. First it would show another system is possible and second, it would flourish. The answer to both these risks is to dominate the world to such an extent that rival countries and systems no longer exist and the populations are controlled to the point of total domination. "1984", in other words. No free thought can be allowed if the risk is to be totally negated. These people, these bankers imperfectly control, in large part, the so called Western world and somewhat more perfectly control the state of Israel. They need an increasingly police/fascist state in the West and the crushing and control of every country in the world presently outside their influence. The principle ones are Iran, Russia and China. This is the goal. All their efforts have and will be building towards this including, and especially, the creation and expansion of Israel. They need a place from which to rule. A place that is totally under their control and a place that holds significance and authority in the minds of people (including Muslims). What better place than Jerusalem?

So given all the above, I see further wars (but not their outcome) as inevitable in an attempt to hide the truth. Truth is their enemy and for good reason.
Another compelling reason (for them) to wage ever more wars is that these people have committed many many crimes. To survive prosecution and, indeed, to survive at all, they need to keep up the level of fear and preoccupation with survival for everyone else. Nothing does this better than ever more wars and terror.

So, we have two malevolent forces intent on war and both driven by power over others and both focusing on Jerusalem. One force are the adherents of a genocidal god who makes appearences throughout the Old Testament which was written some 2500 to 3000 years ago. Many of these adherents sit in churches and synagogues around the world. The other force is a financial elite of international bankers who first made their appearance on earth some 300 years ago. Both forces are being driven by the same people, the bankers, and they have launched a rollercoaster they are mentally incapable of stopping. We must put the brakes on by withdrawing our silent support.

Would we be more powerful and successful against this evil (and more at peace with ourselves) if we rejected violence and the notions of retaliation and punishment and promoted instead truth, inclusiveness, compassion and mercy as our weapons? If we acted this out by refusing employment that furthered warfare especially military service? If we helped others avoid having to do military service or manufacture weapons through poverty or the threat of poverty? By noncompliance in every form we can think of; by speaking truth at every opportunity? How else do you break this spell, that a violent God can be good, that has afflicted so many Christians and Jews alike?

If we challenged every Christian or Jew who utters exclusive, racist and violent things and asked instead, “Is this what you think your Creator God wants of you? The God who created us all?”

Or perhaps, “Why would your God want you to destroy someone he created; someone he could kill himself if he wanted to and spare you the blood on your hands and its attendant trauma?”

The Creator God cannot be violent without doing violence to himself, without splitting, as argued before. If we are made in God's image, do we then do violence to ourselves when we do violence to others? (By “violence” in this context, I mean that measure of physical force that in any way goes beyond that minimum necessary to restrain the violent from harming us.)

Can we bring violence to an end by refusing to participate in it; by refusing to support it wherever we find it being taught be it in our church, our synagogue, our club, our employment, our government?

In this essay, which needs to be relatively short, I have tried to simplify things without being simplistic. There is much else going on, of course, but I wanted to focus on something that is fundamental to this apocalyptic world situation that is not getting much attention. And also focus on where we might start to undo this situation without running the risk of exacerbating it through further violence.

Syndicate content