11 responses to “COMMON LIFE THEORIES IN PHILOSOPHY”

1. While studying Soviet foreign policy under Prof. Dunning at Texas A&M, I developed a theory of Trotsky’s “Permanent Revolution” as a mechanism for dismantling the ethical containment force of a civilization. This theory helped explain why Stalin, in 1939, invited Hitler to attack the USSR, enabling the Nazi military to mass troops along Soviet borders without triggering a Soviet mobilization. Stalin, fearing the precedent of WWI—where a prolonged war catalyzed the collapse of the Czarist regime—believed such a shock invasion could be politically survivable if it avoided prolonged internal dissent.

   The Bolsheviks based their theory of revolution upon the French revolution where the King and the Church destroyed. The Bolsheviks destroyed both the Czar and the Greek Orthodox Church. The collapse of the Shah of Iran witnessed the overthrow of both the Shah and Western culture. Hitler did the same in Germany, he destroyed the post WWI Parliament and the Church.

   Vladimir Lenin’s approach to revolution built around a tight knit and concealed cabal of revolutionaries. This idea separated from the Menshevik theories which embraced anarchist theories of revolution. Lenin rejected the anarchist and decentralist leanings of the Mensheviks, establishing a covert revolutionary elite to seize power. Trotsky, by contrast, remained more loyal to the original soviet model: workers’ councils governing through direct delegation. Lenin Marxist ideology emphasized the role of the proletariat in overthrowing capitalism and establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat. Whereas Troskii, being at heart a Menshevik supported “All Power to the Soviets” way to achieve political power and rule of government – at least till he sat as the Head of State. Lenin and Troskii used specific strategies, such as forming alliances with other revolutionary groups and leveraging the discontent of soldiers and workers, to successfully overthrow the Provisional Government. Stalin would employ intra-Bolshevik alliances to expel Troskii as the heir of Lenin.

   The simplistic narrative of the Gospels – a story of Santa Claus coming to town lies told to children. Religious belief systems, no different than Stalin’s and Hitler’s propaganda lies told to their Party “believers”. The church persecution of “Xtian heretics” — no different than Stalin’s show trials of Bolshevik leaders whose opinions threatened the stability of Stalin’s One Man dictatorship.

   Or Hitler’s, the “Night of the Long Knives,” purge which executed several leaders of the Sturmabteilung (SA), also known as the Brown Shirts, as well as other political adversaries. The SA, led by Ernst Röhm, instrumental in Hitler’s rise to power, but by 1934, their increasing power and Röhm’s ambitions posed a threat to Hitler and the more conservative elements of the Nazi Party, including the military (Reichswehr) and the SS (Schutzstaffel).

   Hitler used a purge to consolidate his power, eliminate rivals, and gain the support of the military, which viewed the SA as a potential threat. The event resulted in the deaths of many SA leaders and other political opponents, solidifying Hitler’s control over the Nazi Party and the German state. The Night of the Long Knives, often seen as a turning point in the establishment of Hitler’s dictatorship.

   During the Middle Ages the Pope instituted similar purges of all heretic gnostic and Protestant believers which challenged the dominance of the church monopoly over how to understand and interpret the NT\gospels. For example all church leaders have denounced to this very day the revelation of the Oral Torah as explained through the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s four part פרדס logic format.

   Peter Lombard (c. 1100-1160), a significant figure in medieval theology, best known for his work “Sentences” (Sententiae), which became a cornerstone of Scholastic thought. His “Sentences” – a compilation of theological opinions and teachings from earlier Church Fathers and theologians, structured in a way that facilitated debate and discussion among scholars. The “Sentences” addressed various topics, including the nature of God, the sacraments, and the virtues. It provided a systematic approach to theology that encouraged critical thinking and analysis.

   Gratian, who lived around 1140, a prominent medieval scholar and jurist, best known for his work in canon law. He often referred to by many catholics as the “Father of Canon Law”, due to his significant contributions to the development of ecclesiastical legal systems in the Catholic church. His most notable work – the “Decretum Gratiani.” A comprehensive compilation of canon law that organized and harmonized the various legal texts and decrees which accumulated over the years. This work, pivotal in establishing a systematic approach to canon law and served as a foundational text for later legal scholars and the development of church law.

   Gratian’s “Decretum” addressed various topics, including the authority of the church, the nature of sin, and the administration of sacraments. Gratian’s ‘Decretum’ shaped the Church’s legal framework and remained a foundational text in canon law and theology for centuries. His work laid the groundwork for subsequent developments in both canon law and civil law.

   Saint Albert the Great, another significant figure in the development of medieval philosophy and science. Albertus Magnus, a mentor to Thomas Aquinas at the University of Paris. His influence on Aquinas helped shape the latter’s integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology. He played a crucial role in reintroducing Aristotelian philosophy to the Xtian intellectual tradition.

   Albertus sought to reconcile Aristotle’s ideas with Xtian doctrine, emphasizing the compatibility of faith and reason. Often regarded as one of the first to systematically study the natural world. His integration of Aristotelian philosophy with Xtian theology influenced not only his students, like Aquinas, but also the broader development of Western philosophy and science. His work in biology, mineralogy, and metaphysics, all of which were deeply empirical for the time viewed as a bridge between the ancient philosophy and the rediscovered ancient Greek logic philosophies in the 10th Century.

   Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274): Perhaps the most famous Scholastic philosopher and theologian, Aquinas – best known for his works “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles.” He sought to reconcile faith and reason, drawing heavily on Aristotelian philosophy.

   This is Aquinas’s most famous work, structured as a comprehensive guide to theology. It addresses various theological questions, including the existence of God, the nature of man, and moral principles. The work is notable for its systematic approach and use of Aristotelian logic.

   Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas defends the Xtian faith against non-Xtian philosophies, particularly those of Islam and Judaism. It emphasizes the rational basis of faith and aims to demonstrate the compatibility of reason and revelation. Its failure to address the 4 part inductive reasoning logic of Oral Torah ultimately proves the propaganda half truths of church theology.

   Aquinas, by stark contrast drew heavily on the works of Aristotle rather than rabbi Akiva. The latter views the Talmud compared to the warp/weft threads of a loom. Where דרוש ופשט interpret T’NaCH prophetic mussar and interpret the kvanna of Aggadic stories. While רמז וסוד conceal as the foundation of time oriented commandments express through both Torah commandments and Talmudic halachot. Aquinas consciously chose and integrated Aristotelian philosophy within the fabric of Xtian doctrine. He introduced concepts such as the “Five Ways” to demonstrate the existence of God, arguments based on observation and reason based upon Greek philosophy. And the Xtian Muslim dogma of Universal monotheism.

   Aristotle’s static logic, ideal for constructing bridges. Hence Aquinas prioritized ancient Greek logic as ideal to support catholic dogmatism and Papal Bulls. Fluid\dynamic inductive reasoning/law where opposing prosecutor and defense lawyers rely exclusively upon previous judicial precedents to support pro & con opinions, hardly served the interests of a Vatican bible dictatorship. All three—Church, Stalin, Hitler—feared epistemological rivals: alternative systems of truth and authority. Like Stalinist “confessions” under torture, medieval inquisitions produced fabricated heresies to maintain a monopoly over “truth.”

   Aquinas, known for his development of the concept of ancient Greek ‘natural law’. Which posits that moral principles best understood through human reason and inherent in the nature of human beings. His method involved posing Socratic-Plato questions, presenting objections, and then providing answers, which became a hallmark of Scholastic methodology.

   Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian substitute theology doctrine included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system “replaced” by Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic. The latter shaped the church narrative. Logos (Greek abstraction) vs. Dibur or Torah SheB’al Peh (Oath alliance active remembrance of the oaths sworn by Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov.), which the church fathers violently denounce. In 1242 the Pope ordered the public burning of all Talmudic manuscripts within the whole of France.

   The church defined heresy as beliefs or practices that deviated from established doctrine dogma and Vatican Bulls. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, and of course Jews, labeled as cursed heretics for their stubborn stiff-necked alternative interpretations of Xtianity; Jews who viewed the NT as a Roman fraud, utterly despised by being impoverished through taxation without representation and thrown into ghetto gulags for multiple Centuries – פרדס inductive reasoning, compares to mentioning aloud the name of Lord Voldemort.

   Established in the 12th century, the Inquisition formalized systematic oppression into a Nazi-like system – wherein the catholic thought police identified, prosecuted and slaughtered “heretics”. It involved pre-decided judicial investigations, trials, employed to conceal satanic human torture. The most infamous of these the notorious war-crimes: Spanish Inquisition. Begun in 1478, targeting Jews, Muslims, and Protestant reformers.

   Suppression of heretical beliefs and movements that challenged Vatican authority and interpretation of Xtian doctrine, specifically included church denial of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev. Which also laid the foundation for Stalin’s later show trials in the 1930s.

   Rabbi Akiva’s 4 part inductive logic system, Xtian replacement theology” prioritized and emphasized both Paul’s ‘original sin’ theology and later Aristotle’s 3 part syllogism of deductive logic, and denounced Jewish Oral Torah as non existent. This proverbial ostrich burying head in sand cowardice, such tuma pusillanimity shapes the church narratives to this very day.

   The church classically defined heresy, prior to the French Revolution, as beliefs or practices that deviated and challenged the church dictate. Groups such as the Cathars and Waldensians, labeled as heretics for their alternative interpretations of both bible & Xtianity. Many groups other than these specific particulars utterly rejected the church Vatican monopoly – authority and power – to solely interpret the intent of both bible and church dogma. The Inquisition prosecution of heretics involved quasi-investigations, trials, and often torture punishments, resulting in execution.

   The Gospel of John, written in Greek. The earliest known manuscripts of the Gospel of john include fragments such as the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to around 125 CE. This fragment, the oldest known manuscript of any part of the New Testament and contains a few verses from John 18. Other significant manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, date from the 4th century CE and include the entire text of the Gospel.

   The early Church Fathers, who were primarily Greek and Latin speakers, recognized the Greek text as the authoritative version. They often cited it in their writings, which supports the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, and contributes to the perception that the john gospel was originally composed in Greek. During this period of the Roman empire Greek served as the lingua franca – the medium of communication between peoples of different languages.

   The Hellenistic themes of pre-existent divinity and hypostatic union present significant theological challenges when compared to the foundational principles of revelation as outlined in the Torah, particularly the events at Sinai. Pre-Existent Divinity, this concept suggests that certain divine beings or aspects of divinity existed before the creation of the world. In Hellenistic thought, this often refers to the idea of a divine Logos or intermediary that existed alongside God before the creation of the universe. In Xtian theology, this Greek concept, reflected in the belief in the pre-existence of Christ, seen as the divine Word (Logos) that was with God and was God (John 1:1).

   While some early Church Fathers, like Papias, mentioned a possible ‘Hebrew Gospel’, they did not specifically attribute this to john. The notion of a Hebrew Gospel has been discussed in the context of the early Christian community’s use of different languages and texts. However, there no manuscript exists that definitively supports this revisionist history narrative. Most of the early references to such texts, compare to church blood libel slanders – indirect and often speculative. The lack of concrete manuscript evidence has led many scholars to view the idea of a Hebrew Gospel of John as most base revisionist history. The Greek Gospel of John, with no reliable Hebrew precedent, confirms the Roman-Hellenistic theological trajectory—not an indigenous Semitic prophecy.

   The absence of a Hebrew manuscript or even substantial references to it in early Christian writings further proves this as just another blood libel lie. The theological themes in the Gospel of John, such as the Logos (Word) and the divinity of Christ, align more closely with Hellenistic thought than Hebrew thought which totally repudiate it. Attempts by Xtians in this Century to declare that Logos means “ben” or “JeZeus” amounts to creating their own ‘Oral Torah way’ to interpret the NT, while denying the existence of the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.

   The church’s persecution of heresy did not merely target political dissent—it waged wars against competing systems of legal and judicial reasoning vs. legislative statute law dictates made by tyrants or non elected bureaucrats. The Jewish Oral Torah, whose revelatory authority at Horev, rooted in inductive logic and oaths precedent active remembrance of the Avot; this judicial common law fundamentally threatened the Vatican’s imposed monopoly over its Pravda – truth. Replacing Rabbi Akiva’s פרדס framework with Aristotle’s deductive syllogism, the Church attempted to implode T’NaCH and Talmudic common law judicial legalism. That actively shapes and influences the cultures and customs which defines Jewish identity as a people of the chosen Cohen nation.

   The battle over heresy, never merely about doctrine—rather, a battle over interpretive sovereignty. The church’s erasure of the Oral Torah, its violent rejection of the פרדס legal judicial legislative review, and its dogmatic substitution of Greek metaphysics, all point to a broader imperial strategy: the silencing of Sinai. Just as Stalin erased rivals and Hitler purged the SA, the Vatican constructed a theological police state—burning the Talmud, ghettoizing Jews, and replacing the oath alliance conscious remembrance of the Avot through the tefillah from the Torah kre’a shma, the church intentionally sought to implode Horev replaced by the empire of Rome. That war on revelation still echoes in every attempt to retranslate the Gospel into Hebrew, to resurrect ‘Logos’ as ‘Ben,’ and to pass fiction as prophecy.”

   The Torah commandment to uproot Canaanite cultures reflects not cruelty but covenantal mercy (מידת רחום)—a national immunization against cultural apostasy and idolatry. The second commandment warns against assimilating into societies that reject the Horev revelation, whether ancient Canaanites or modern ideological empires like Rome and Mecca. Failure to uproot the ancient Canaanites directly threatened the 2nd Sinai commandment not to follow the cultures and customs of peoples who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. The peoples of both Xtianity and Islam reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai and Horev. Hence the church sought to implode and cause the People of Israel to forget the Oral Torah just as did the assimilated Tzeddukim who sought to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis.

   Reply

2. The mitzva of observing Torah commandments לשמה within the borders of the oath sworn brit lands, the inheritance of the Chosen Cohen people.

   [[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? I[[[ Within the covenantal framework that you so powerfully defend, how do you see the role of individual conscience? Not as a competing system, but as a faculty formed by oath remembrance and living Torah? In a world saturated with propaganda and revisionism, what disciplines shape that conscience to remain true to Sinai? ]]]

   The Books of שמות וויקרא concentrate on the avodat HaShem of dedicating korbanot. This “service” does not exist as offering up a barbeque unto Heaven. The mitzva of the פרט case of Moshiach learns from the כלל of korbanot services of the House of Aaron.

   Another בנין אב-precedent, the כלל for faith: צדק צדק תרדוף. Still another פרט-בנין אב precedent: the court case of Hebrew slaves vs. the State of Par’o – beating slaves for their rebellion to meet their brick production quota consequent to Par’o withholding the required straw.

   One other בנין אב-precedent learns from the כלל that all ברכות require שם ומלכות.

   Just as a korban requires a dedication to achieve a specific specified purpose, so too the mitzva of Moshiach. Specifically in the mitzva case dedication of Moshiach, this dedicated “king” sanctified לשמה to rule the land with Judicial justice, working through the common law lateral Sanhedrin courtrooms. Based upon the Torah Constitutional mandate that the Sanhedrin courts operate through משנה תורה-Legislative Review of any and all statute laws or bureaucratic regulations imposed by the Monarchy and/or his government.

   The often repeated rebuke which the Book of Shmuel makes upon the House of David as Moshiach, the injustice shown to the husband of Bat Sheva. This פרט-specific defines the כלל dedication of the mitzva dedication of Moshiach. No such dedication for the mitzva of Moshiach to become a substitute theology which has some mythical theologically based messiah to replace the chosen Cohen People.

   The opening word of the Torah בראשית, through the aggadic stories of the Creation, teaches the k’vanna of tohor time-oriented commandments; as the Av of the תולדות secondary source positive and negative commandments located specifically in the Books of שמות ויקרא ובמדבר. Hence just as the Book of בראשית introduces the Avot Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov, this opening first Book of the Torah introduces Av tohor time-oriented commandments which the rest of the Books of the Torah come to clarify.

   For example: what separates tohor spirits from tumah spirits? Avodat HaShem in the Mishkan, only served in the state of tohor middot. For a Cohen to serve within the Mishkan in a condition of tumah middot – this Av transgression carries the din of כרת. Cutting off that person and his children from the oath brit wherein HaShem and the Avot mutually swore to create the chosen Cohen people יש מאין. This latter בראשית most essential idea shares nothing with tuma middot which promote racial or genetic inheritance of the Jewish race – as the Xtian church and Nazis promote – examples of tumah middot.

   Hence to swear a Torah oath requires שם ומלכות like as do all ברכות from the Torah. The sin of the Golden Calf – a substitute theology which replaces the revelation of the 1st Sinai commandment revelation of the Spirit Divine Presence Name unto other word-Gods. Avoda zara by definition worships other Word-gods. The sin of the Golden Calf serves as the defining פרט for the 2nd Sinai Commandment כלל not to worship other Gods.

   Therefore all Torah oath britot require שם ומלכות. The Name clearly directly links to the Spirit Divine Presence Name revealed in the first Sinai commandment. The term מלך refers to the כלל mitzva of the dedication of the spirit of משיח as expressed through all tohor time oriented Av commandments … the righteous pursuit of justice to achieve shalom among the chosen Cohen people throughout the generations in all Ages and times while Jews rule our ancient homelands.

   מלכות understood as the dedication of defined tohor middot. אל remembrance of the Sin of the Golden Calf. רחום the inference which turns pity upon its head. Obliterating the Canaanites, the killing of the minor stubborn and rebellious child, the war against Amalek (Jewish assimilation to foreign cultures and customs of peoples who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. And intermarriage with such Goyim). The middah of רחום a Jew dedicates how he shall socially interact with both his people and Goyim in the future; specifically through the dedication of defined tohor middot. חנון the general dedication to dedicate all future behavioral patterns with family friends, people, and even Goyim by and through the future born tohor middot that a person dedicates whenever that Jews does Torah or Talmudic mitzvot/halachot.

   Both Xtianity and Islam worship other Word-gods. Therefore both religions do not define faith as the pursuit of justice, but rather belief in the theologies about these Word-gods.

   [[[ Also, when you speak of the erasure of Jewish self-determination through revisionist Palestinian narratives, I hear both an intellectual rebuttal and a deep historical wound. Is your critique aimed primarily at the political manipulation of language and borders—or also at the erasure of Jewish covenantal memory from the land itself? ]]]

   Unlike the Xtian and Muslims theologies which promote some pie in the sky Universal Monotheism God, the revelation of the Torah at Sinai revealed the local tribal God of Israel. When David fled from king Shaul he declared as he entered g’lut lands: “I have been forced to abandon God”. Just as the Great and Small Sanhedrin courts only have jurisdiction within the borders of the Jewish state so too the local God of Israel. Herein the answer given to the Holocaust survivor who said to me: “I was in Auschwitz, Where was God?” When I lived in the US and Xtian people asked me if I was a religious Jew? I responded with: I am an atheist praise God. But even living within the borders of the oath sworn brit alliance lands I habitually respond to Goyim with “I am an atheist – praise God”. Meaning, I do not believe in any theological/creed construct of Word-gods – praise God. LOL Torah, its deep and requires a sense of humor.

   The curse of g’lut-exile of my people almost immediately caused Jews to lose the wisdom how to do mitzvot לשמה. G’lut Jewry does not understand how to employ and work our Yatrir HaTov within our hearts. The בנין אב-precedent of blowing the shofer serves as a פרט to define the כלל of Yatzir HaTov. Meaning, to blow a shofar requires air from the lungs. But to blow a spirit from the Yatzir HaTov within the heart requires the k’vanna, (all time-oriented commandments require k’vanna) the dedication of defined tohor middot spirits. This כללי-general idea of tohor middot, it defines the dedication of the middah of חנון.

   Herein a definition of 3 of the 13 tohor middot which a person dedicates through Yatzir Tov k’vannot from within their hearts. Jews uprooted from our homelands by both the Babylonians and Romans caused the g’lut cursed survivors to lose this kabbalah wisdom which defines how to do mitzvot לשמה.

   Reply

   • You write with weight, and I respect your disciplined fidelity to Torah—not just as text, but as law, land, and covenant.

     As I understand it:

     Faith isn’t metaphysics; it’s legal allegiance to Sinai—halakhah, tohor middot, national courts, Torah life in the land. Exile fractured that, birthing foreign theologies. Conscience, apart from Torah, is idolatry.

     Where I differ:

     You’ve preserved the form but lost the fire.
     You reduce Sinai’s Voice to a tribal administrator and treat conscience—not as rebellion—but as a liability.

     But conscience, as I mean it, is nishma—the inward hearing that accompanies the doing.
     It doesn’t compete with Torah—it answers it.
     Without that, Torah becomes mechanical.
     Without conscience, covenant becomes compliance.

     You flatten רחום into erasure and חנון into policy.
     You treat the middot as purity codes for national survival, but they’re postures of the heart before God.

     Moshiach, in your frame, is a legal functionary—not healer, not shepherd, not the One who restores both the people and the Torah they forgot how to carry.

     I don’t oppose justice.
     I don’t exalt conscience.
     I bind them together.

     Because Sinai wasn’t just tablets. It was fire.
     And that fire still speaks—in exile-born hearts, in trembling souls who never stood at the mountain but still hear its echo.

     The Voice never stayed behind the walls men built.

   • [[[ You’ve preserved the form but lost the fire. You reduce Sinai’s Voice to a tribal administrator and treat conscience—not as rebellion—but as a liability. ]]] The Divine soul name dedicated on Yom Tov Rosh HaShanna – Neshama/אל. Every 3rd day of the week a person remembers יום הזכרון by dedicating the Yatzir HaTov Neshama called אל within his heart.

     Torah a blessing/curse bi-polar responsibility. Classic Torah commandments which serve to interpret the k’vanna of the tohor midda of רחום: the commandments to war against Amalek, Canaan, and to destroy the stubborn and rebellious child. Why? The Torah precedents which define the k’vanna of the 2nd Sinai commandment: do not follow the cultures and customs of Goyim who reject the revelation of the Torah at Sinai, and do not marry Goyim.

     רחום prevents placing a stubbling block before the blind Yatzir Ha’Rah which brings Torah curses upon the nation like the plagues which cursed Par’o and Egypt. Permitting the Canaanites to live in the land, not making eternal war against Amelek/anti-semitism, and taking pity on the stubborn and rebellious child results in violation of the 2nd Sinai commandment.

     The Oral Torah mitzva of Moshiach learns from the commandment to pursue righteous judicial justice; Par’o and his courtroom which tortured Israelite slaves for their failure to meet their quota tale of brick production while lacking straw, a precedent for judicial oppression. The Torah refers to Penchas as Moshiach Milchama – Messiah anointed for war. Moshe anointed Aaron and his House as Moshiach. The dedication of all korbanot require Moshiach. No moshiach without a k’vanna dedication of k’vanna. The Book of the prophet Shmuel specifies the specific of the lack of justice king David ruled over the husband of Bat Sheva. This identifying particular defines the general case of the dedication of the mitzva of Moshiach that the prophet Shmuel dedicated both Shaul of Benyomin and David of Yechuda as moshiach. The mitzva of Moshiach like shabbat applicable to all Jews in every generation; the k’vanna of Moshiach: צדק צדק תרדוף-justice justice pursue.

     בראשית contains אש ברית. The fire of a brit alliance … the sworn oath. Just as a korban requires swearing a Torah oath. Making a Torah blessing requires שם ומלכות b/c a blessing exists as the offspring of a Torah oath. G’lut Jews live under the Torah curse that they lose the wisdom how to do Torah commandments לשמה – the first Sinai commandment … the greatest Commandment of the Torah.

   • Two Classic Examples of how Xtianity remains a dead religion on par with the Gods of Mt. Olympus.

     Jim Zwinglius Redivivus
     Jim·zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com

     Remembering Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker
     Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker died on Friday, July 23, 2021. You can read his obituary here. If you aren’t familiar with him, he was a scholar of the Reformation. And a very, very goo…
     _____________________________________
     _____________________________________

     Theological Complicity in State Violence

     Calvinism and Lutheranism Compared: Prof. Dr. Willem van ‘t Spijker (1926–2021), a leading Dutch Calvinist theologian, made substantial contributions to church history, ecclesiastical law, and the development of Reformed theology. Yet his work conspicuously failed to grapple with one of the most catastrophic consequences of the Protestant Reformation: The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648).

     At the heart of Reformed theology lies the doctrine of predestination—the belief that God has foreordained all events, including salvation and damnation. This framework fostered a militant providentialism: war was interpreted as a divine tool, victory as confirmation of righteousness, and suffering as sanctification; terror Islam sanctifies its martyrs this very day. Such logic fueled the religious zealotry of Protestant-Catholic conflicts in early modern Europe and sacralized political violence. Calvinist theologians, including van ‘t Spijker, largely failed to confront the theological and moral implications of their tradition’s role in igniting and escalating such brutal barbaric bloodshed.

     This blind spot extended far beyond the Reformation. A similar theological detachment reemerged during the Nazi era, when much of Protestant Europe—especially the Lutheran Church in Germany—collapsed morally in the face of totalitarianism and genocide. The result was catastrophic: 75% of Western European Jewry and 63% of European and Russian Jews were annihilated. Churches failed to resist—and in many cases collaborated with—Nazism, cloaking their cowardice or complicity in theological rationalizations of “obedience” and “providence.”

     Van ‘t Spijker’s silence on these historical-theological intersections utterly emblematic of a much broader failure within Reformed scholarship: the inability to reckon with how doctrinal systems, when left unchallenged, enable state violence. Without such critical introspection, the Reformed tradition risks perpetuating a theology disconnected from its own ethical consequences.

     Both Calvinist and Lutheran systems share foundational errors that—when unchecked—open the door to theological barbarism. In Calvinist thought, God’s sovereign will is absolute; every event, from salvation to catastrophe, is predetermined. During the Thirty Years’ War, this led to a dangerous fusion of theology and politics: military victory was seen as a sign of divine favor, while political violence became a “righteous” necessity. Calvinist churches, despite their strong synodal structures, proved unable—or unwilling—to restrain theological alliances with princely power. This alignment justified widespread bloodshed, famine, and forced displacement as sacred duty.

     Martin Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” doctrine separated the spiritual and political realms, teaching that secular rulers are divinely appointed and must not be resisted. By the 20th century, this was transformed into an ideological bludgeon by the German Christian movement, which fused Lutheranism with Nazism. Clergy upheld obedience even as the state descended into genocide. Though the Barmen Declaration (1934), led by Karl Barth, attempted to resist this theological capitulation, the Confessing Church remained a marginalized minority. The institutional Lutheran Church stood largely silent—or worse, supportive—as the Nazis murdered millions, including the overwhelming majority of European Jewry.

     Calvinism, with its emphasis on God’s glory and man’s depravity, lacked a theology of inherent human dignity. Jews, Catholics, and heretics were viewed as reprobates—predestined for damnation, beyond grace, justice, or mercy. This theological posture helped normalize righteous violence against those outside the “elect.”

     Lutheran theology was even more explicit. Luther’s own antisemitic writings—On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)—called for synagogue burnings and expulsion. These ideas laid the groundwork for Christian racial antisemitism. The Nazi vision of the Jew drew directly from centuries of Lutheran contempt and theological supersessionism: the idea that Christianity had replaced Israel as God’s chosen; where Jesus as the son of God replace the oath brit sworn to Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people.

     Therefore, in both cases, the churches failed to resist tyranny not only because of fear—but because their theological systems lacked a mechanism to challenge it from within. In the end, the failure of both Reformed traditions was not merely a failure of courage—but a failure of theological architecture. Their systems lacked internal mechanisms—legal, moral, or interpretive—to challenge tyranny from within. When state violence aligned itself with religious rhetoric, these traditions were intellectually disarmed.

     Whereas Jewish tradition sustains a culture of legal argumentation, known as משנה תורה/Legislative Review; grounded in the courtroom common law which stands upon prior judical precedent courtroom rulings. European courts lack the power to overrule the State. A critical flaw that NT theology, in all its many forms or formats, has totally failed to address. Neither Christianity nor Islam has the cultural tradition of judicial “prophets”.

     Both “daughter religions” define prophesy as – foretelling the future. The Torah views this interpretation as Av tuma witchcraft. According to the Torah prophets command mussar. How does mussar define prophesy? Mussar applies equally across the board to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Only the chosen Cohen people received and accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev.

     Both Christian and Muslim theological creed belief systems emphatically embrace a theology of Monotheism. Alas monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the God of the chosen Cohen people a local tribal God and not a Universal God as Christian and Islamic theology dictates to its believers.

     In the end, the failure of both Reformed and Lutheran traditions was not merely a lack of courage, but a failure of theological design. These systems lacked the internal instruments—legal, prophetic, interpretive—needed to resist tyranny when it arose cloaked in religious language.

   • Two Classic Examples of how Xtianity remains a dead religion on par with the Gods of Mt. Olympus.

     Jim Zwinglius Redivivus
     Jim·zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com

     Remembering Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker
     Prof. dr. W. van ’t Spijker died on Friday, July 23, 2021. You can read his obituary here. If you aren’t familiar with him, he was a scholar of the Reformation. And a very, very goo…
     _____________________________________
     _____________________________________

     Theological Complicity in State Violence

     Calvinism and Lutheranism Compared: Prof. Dr. Willem van ‘t Spijker (1926–2021), a leading Dutch Calvinist theologian, made substantial contributions to church history, ecclesiastical law, and the development of Reformed theology. Yet his work conspicuously failed to grapple with one of the most catastrophic consequences of the Protestant Reformation: The Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648).

     At the heart of Reformed theology lies the doctrine of predestination—the belief that God has foreordained all events, including salvation and damnation. This framework fostered a militant providentialism: war was interpreted as a divine tool, victory as confirmation of righteousness, and suffering as sanctification; terror Islam sanctifies its martyrs this very day. Such logic fueled the religious zealotry of Protestant-Catholic conflicts in early modern Europe and sacralized political violence. Calvinist theologians, including van ‘t Spijker, largely failed to confront the theological and moral implications of their tradition’s role in igniting and escalating such brutal barbaric bloodshed.

     This blind spot extended far beyond the Reformation. A similar theological detachment reemerged during the Nazi era, when much of Protestant Europe—especially the Lutheran Church in Germany—collapsed morally in the face of totalitarianism and genocide. The result was catastrophic: 75% of Western European Jewry and 63% of European and Russian Jews were annihilated. Churches failed to resist—and in many cases collaborated with—Nazism, cloaking their cowardice or complicity in theological rationalizations of “obedience” and “providence.”

     Van ‘t Spijker’s silence on these historical-theological intersections utterly emblematic of a much broader failure within Reformed scholarship: the inability to reckon with how doctrinal systems, when left unchallenged, enable state violence. Without such critical introspection, the Reformed tradition risks perpetuating a theology disconnected from its own ethical consequences.

     Both Calvinist and Lutheran systems share foundational errors that—when unchecked—open the door to theological barbarism. In Calvinist thought, God’s sovereign will is absolute; every event, from salvation to catastrophe, is predetermined. During the Thirty Years’ War, this led to a dangerous fusion of theology and politics: military victory was seen as a sign of divine favor, while political violence became a “righteous” necessity. Calvinist churches, despite their strong synodal structures, proved unable—or unwilling—to restrain theological alliances with princely power. This alignment justified widespread bloodshed, famine, and forced displacement as sacred duty.

     Martin Luther’s “Two Kingdoms” doctrine separated the spiritual and political realms, teaching that secular rulers are divinely appointed and must not be resisted. By the 20th century, this was transformed into an ideological bludgeon by the German Christian movement, which fused Lutheranism with Nazism. Clergy upheld obedience even as the state descended into genocide. Though the Barmen Declaration (1934), led by Karl Barth, attempted to resist this theological capitulation, the Confessing Church remained a marginalized minority. The institutional Lutheran Church stood largely silent—or worse, supportive—as the Nazis murdered millions, including the overwhelming majority of European Jewry.

     Calvinism, with its emphasis on God’s glory and man’s depravity, lacked a theology of inherent human dignity. Jews, Catholics, and heretics were viewed as reprobates—predestined for damnation, beyond grace, justice, or mercy. This theological posture helped normalize righteous violence against those outside the “elect.”

     Lutheran theology was even more explicit. Luther’s own antisemitic writings—On the Jews and Their Lies (1543)—called for synagogue burnings and expulsion. These ideas laid the groundwork for Christian racial antisemitism. The Nazi vision of the Jew drew directly from centuries of Lutheran contempt and theological supersessionism: the idea that Christianity had replaced Israel as God’s chosen; where Jesus as the son of God replace the oath brit sworn to Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov that they would father the chosen Cohen people.

     Therefore, in both cases, the churches failed to resist tyranny not only because of fear—but because their theological systems lacked a mechanism to challenge it from within. In the end, the failure of both Reformed traditions was not merely a failure of courage—but a failure of theological architecture. Their systems lacked internal mechanisms—legal, moral, or interpretive—to challenge tyranny from within. When state violence aligned itself with religious rhetoric, these traditions were intellectually disarmed.

     Whereas Jewish tradition sustains a culture of legal argumentation, known as משנה תורה/Legislative Review; grounded in the courtroom common law which stands upon prior judical precedent courtroom rulings. European courts lack the power to overrule the State. A critical flaw that NT theology, in all its many forms or formats, has totally failed to address. Neither Christianity nor Islam has the cultural tradition of judicial “prophets”.

     Both “daughter religions” define prophesy as – foretelling the future. The Torah views this interpretation as Av tuma witchcraft. According to the Torah prophets command mussar. How does mussar define prophesy? Mussar applies equally across the board to all generations of the chosen Cohen people. Only the chosen Cohen people received and accepted the Torah revelation at Sinai and Horev.

     Both Christian and Muslim theological creed belief systems emphatically embrace a theology of Monotheism. Alas monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai commandment. Only Israel accepted the Torah at Sinai. Therefore the God of the chosen Cohen people a local tribal God and not a Universal God as Christian and Islamic theology dictates to its believers.

     In the end, the failure of both Reformed and Lutheran traditions was not merely a lack of courage, but a failure of theological design. These systems lacked the internal instruments—legal, prophetic, interpretive—needed to resist tyranny when it arose cloaked in religious language.

     An interesting discussion on this topic with Frank Hubeny. His opinion I would like to share with you. Frank Hubeny writes:

     Frank Hubeny

     2m agoPoetry, Short Prose and Walking

     I agree with much of the criticism of Calvinism in your comment associated with Jim Zwinglius Redivivus. Indeed, one can look at this from a higher perspective. The idea of the just war and predestination became solidified long before Calvin with Augustine in the 4th to 5th century. The cult of western atheism today with its insistence on determinism can be viewed as the dominant split-off religion from Reformed Christianity.

     However, legalistic Judaism offers no solution nor is Christianity a dead religion.

     As I mentioned to you earlier, Akiva in the 1st to 2nd century did severe damage to both Judaism, and indirectly Christianity, by permitting, if not planning, the reduction in the Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies. This reduced Judaism to rabbinic legalism which puffed up the rabbis. It discredited the Bible (Tanach) as history.

     Recover your history. Take it seriously. Stop proclaiming your dead legalism as something of value. It is little more than another sub-cult of western atheism.

     And I responded with:

     mosckerr
     July 24, 2025 at 3:01 pm Edit
     Legalistic Judaism King David undermined, according to the opinions raised within the Yerushalmi Talmud which argue that after David conquered Damascus – that he failed to establish a City of Refuge ie small Sanhedrin courtroom therein. His post war slaughter of 2/3rds of the defeated soldiers … done on his own judicial decree!

     Then came his son Shlomo – what a disaster. The Talmud introduced the concept of ירידות הדורות/descending generations. This abstract term has two major branches of interpretation.

     Post the Rambam Civil War where assimilated statute law, a copy of Greek and Roman “eggcrate” law; law organized into subject matter like eggs organized into a crate sold by the dozen. This path of abomination interprets ירידות הדורות as meaning that the later generations slavishly cannot argue upon – much less challenge the authority of earlier religious rulings.

     Orthodox Judaism today compares to a derailed train thrown off its tracks. Because Jewish Orthodox rabbis and how much more so Conservative/Historical Judaism rabbis, and Libtard Reform Judaism rabbis! Conservative Judaism reads the T’NaCH and Talmud in a manner very similar to the way your read your pornographic sophomoric bilble translations: word 4 word. You “believe” the God created the world in 6 days and rested on Sunday. LOL Conservative rabbis suffer from this delusion as well. Many of them, very nice people like yourself. Perhaps the comparison of Democrap ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’, viewed from this perspective makes sense. Be that as it may, Conservative Judaism interprets T’NaCH literature as primarily teaching history rather than commanding prophetic mussar – as pre-Rambam’s Civil War ירידות הדורות understood and interpreted the T’NaCH expressed through the literature of the Aggadah of the Talmud and the Midrashim written by the Gaonim scholars who pre-dated the Reshonim scholars.

     Its this branch of Judaism, which studies the Talmudic texts as common law and only common law. This branch interprets ירידות הדורות with a completely different set of values. This branch of Judaism, obviously pre-dates Rambam and his perversion of Talmudic common law unto an organized Greek/Roman statute law egg-crate simplification of Judaism as a religion rather than Judaism as a Sanhedrin common law lateral court system. Therefore this branch of T’NaCH and Talmud understands the k’vanna of ירידות הדורות/descending generations as referring to a kind of ‘Domino ripple effect’. Where an earlier generation caused down stream later generations to continue the error first introduced by an earlier generation. Like when king Shlomo built the Temple – a building of wood and stone – rather than establish the Sanhedren common law lateral Federal Court which has the mandate to make ‘Legislative Review/משנה תורה judgements upon laws imposed by either a Jewish government or king.

     Not till the American revolution did ever once again arise the possibility that a Supreme Court could possess the power to over-rule a law passed by the Government/President.

     Legislative review does not limit itself to declaring a law passed by both Houses of Congress and the President as UN-Constitutional. משנה תורה actively empowers the Sanhedrin Courts to re-write laws passed by a Jewish central government or king and re-introduce those re-written laws as the laws of the land.

     Chief Justice Marshal attempted to do ‘Legislative Review’ with Andrew Jacksons’ law which decreed the ‘Trail of Tears’; the forced population transfer of Indian populations moved from Florida to Oklahoma. Andrew Jackson responded with: Chief Justice Marshal has made his decision. Now let me see him enforce it!

     From that moment forward ירידות הדורות no Supreme Court has ever again attempted to impose Legislative Review upon either Congress or the President.

     Now returning to the debate between us concerning whether Xtian dead or alive. You say this stinking rotting corpse breaths. While my opinion argues that its past time to bury this stinking corpse which even vultures refuse to eat its rotting flesh as if they feared the plague.

     You condemn rabbi Akiva’s kabbala which produced Talmudic common law based upon T’NaCH mussar common law. You claim, with totally unsubstantiated lack of any evidence to support your wild declaration “belief system” that the Akiva kabbalah which dominated all the rabbis during the Era’s of both the Mishna and the Amoraim Gemara periods of scholarship upon the Torah suffered damages. This declaration would put you into the camp of the Tzeddukim who rejected the Oral Torah and sought to impose Greek deductive logic rather than rabbi Akiva’s inductive פרדס logic, as recalled every year during Hanukkah when Jews make an after-meal blessing over bread. There, in that specific after-meal blessing, contained the remembrance that the Tzeddukim, referred to as רשעים sought to cause Israel to forget the Oral Torah.

     Now you as a Goy declare that rabbi Akiva’s פרדס kabbalah of inductive logic damaged Judaism and Xtianity. Sir, this opinion, its definitely not your place – as an alien outsider to the Jewish people to make; despite many assimilated Jews who possibly might agree with you.

     Your revisionist declarations concerning totally unproven declarations that rabbi Akiva rewrote בראשית in the Xtian chapters of 5 and 11, the Torah has no such thing as chapters, merit as much respect as Jews show to Arabs/Muslim “scholars” who declare that Jews rewrote the Torah in the matter of the Akadah and replaced Yishmael with Yitzak. Utter bunk and total narishkeit bull shit.

     A list of genealogies as taught in the Torah masoret, serves as the continuation of the Central Theme within the entire Torah of Avraham, Yitzak, and Yaacov fathering the chosen Cohen people. Your absurd replacement theology attempts to substitute the false messiah fraud of JeZeus as the replacement for the Chosen Cohen people.

     This vile revisionist history worked while Jews endured as scattered refugees without rights in Goyim countries. Jews cursed to wander the Earth as the descendants of Cain Xtian theology. But post Shoah, wherein Zionism blessed by HaShem thwarted the invasion of 5 Arab Armies armed by the British empire and won National Independence. Sir, thereafter the shoe of exile now all Xtian societies forced to wear. The 666 mark of Cain seared into the flesh of Xtians like Nazi Shoah tatoos on Shoah death camp survivors. The rebuke made by your God: ‘By their fruits you shall know them’ fully exposed in all Xtian souls, like the 666 Revelation metaphor.

     My generation, we strive to restore the Torah as the Written Constitution of our Republic of 12 Tribes/States. We strive equally to lean upon the Talmud as the working model to restore lateral Sanhedrin common law courtrooms mandated with the power of Legislative Review over all Central Governments in Jerusalem and all Tribal/State governments across the Republic.

   • The false messiah Obozo–Santa Claus — is going to stand trial. Its Obozo and Clinton’s turn to take a police mug shot and sit inside a courtroom accused of treason. The question: did Obozo, Clinton, Pelosi, Schiff and other democraps attempt to make a coup following the 2016 elections

     Perhaps the greatest political scandal in all American history …

     It’s CHECKMATE: Trump’s Brilliant Move Just ENDED the Deep State’s Game! – YouTube
     Tulsi Gabbard Exposes the Russia Hoax | Victor Davis Hanson
     Tulsi Gabbard Speaks On Russia Hoax From The White House – YouTube

   • Av Tuma Temple worship avoda zara replacement theology, duplicates the sin of the Golden Calf – replacement theology – where ערב רב רשעים בני עמלק attempted to substitute for the 1st Commandment שם השם לשמה with the word translation – אלהים. Therefore the Torah commands the mitzva to uproot the memory of עמלק from the world; this commandment of the tohor middah of רחום, refers to the weak and morally exhausted ערב רב, whom עמלק attacked – which originally came out of Egyptian bondage in the days of Moshe and Aaron – as a people who have no fear of אלהים.

     The sin of the Golden Calf, this Av tuma substitute theology, defines all other Av tuma avoda zara as the definition of the prohibition which the 2nd Sinai commandment commands. Avoda zara, it most essentially spins around the central axis of assimilated and intermarried Jews, throughout the generations. Its this “exact” ערב רב, which has no fear of אלהים — the name that the original ערב רב, that that generation named the Av tuma golden calf abomination — אלו אלהים שיצאו ‘וכו. This curse of Av tuma avoda zarah explains the mitza: to war against Amalek/antisemitism, caused by Jewish assimilation and intermarriage throughout all the generation which the Jewish walk the face of this Earth.

     The first, but most definitely not the last; the original “replacement theology” where ערב רב רשעים בני עמלק assimilated and intermarried Jews attempt again and again and again and again etc., to substitute for the 1st Commandment שם השם לשמה with the word אלהים, or Jesus or Allah god substitute Word-names. Therefore the Torah in the specific mitzva to uproot the memory of עמלק from the world, its k’vanna to do this tohor time-oriented positive commandment, refers to the weak ערב רב assimilated and intermarried Jews whom עמלק originally attacked when Moshe and Aaron first brought Israel out of Egyptian bondage – its this ערב רב which – as a people – has no fear of אלהים.

     The sin of the Golden Calf, the substitute theology of this Av tuma definition of all avoda zarah prohibitions as defined and framed by the 2nd Sinai commandment mandate, which spins around the central axis of assimilated and intermarried Jews, throughout the generations, that this ערב רב, has no fear of אלהים — the name they originally named their Av tuma Golden Calf abomination — אלו אלהים שיצאו ‘וכו. This Torah curse, this Av tuma avoda zarah – it explains the mitza: to war against Amalek/antisemitism, caused by Jewish assimilation and intermarriage –throughout all the generations that Jews walk the face of this Earth.

     YAHRZEITS — JULY, 2025

     RAM’S HORN POLICY FOR LISTING YAHRZEIT MEMORIALS:!
     Yahrzeit memorials are listed by consecutive Gregorian month, date, and year, if known

     Rejoicing in the month of Av. The burning and destruction of the two Av tuma avoda zarah Temples responsible for the ירידות הדורות ripple – domino effect – upon all down stream generations. Closing in on Chag ט באב. Hey Yea the witch is dead! Kick the רשע king Shlomo in his Head; together with Herod’s Temple abomination that too and likewise offered barbeques unto Heaven. Rather than judicial Sanhedrin common law courtroom justice or ‘Legislative Review’/משנה תורה as the meaning and definition of the k’vanna of the commandment of king David which commanded as his last will and testament for his son Shlomo — the fool, which the Book of מלכים satires by referring to him as the ‘wisest of all men’ tongue in cheek mockery, to build the בית המקדש.

     The Aitz Chaim Ram’s Horn

     Joy Breslauer·aitzchaim.com·16m ago

     YAHRZEITS — JULY, 2025

     RAM’S HORN POLICY FOR LISTING YAHRZEIT MEMORIALS:!
     Yahrzeit memorials are listed by consecutive Gregorian month, date, and year, if known

     Rejoicing in the month of Av. The burning and destruction of the two Av tuma avoda zarah Temples responsible for the ירידות הדורות ripple – domino effect upon all down stream generations. Closing in on Chag ט באב. Whooooooooooooooooooooooooop. Dance and sing and cast stones upon the graves of king Shlomo and the Rambam! The latter too and likewise triggered an Av tuma ירידות הדורות ‘ripple-domino effect’ upon down stream generations of Yiddishkeit when his switch N’ bait exchanged T’NaCH mussar & Talmudic halacha common law legal systems with Greek & Roman culture/styles of Statute law which organizes law into subject matter, much like a dozon of eggs sold in cardboard egg-crates! This רשע imposed Greek logic the 3 part Aristotle syllogism model of deductive logic in the place of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס four part inductive reasoning process.

     The Talmud breaks down into a warp/weft Halachic\Aggadic loom like “fabric” which shapes and determines the culture and customs of the chosen Cohen people of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov. The ירידות הדורות ripple-domino effect of the Rambam Civil War, remember Hanukkah and the Civil War between the Tzeddukim against the P’rushim, blew out the Hanukkah Lights! An eternal ט’ באב אב טומא עבודה זרה abomination. Greek deductive logic not the same as the kabbalah taught by Rabbi Akiva who fought the Romans and died לשמה with the oath of the Avot the tefillah דאורייתא of kre’a shma – his dying spirit.

     Rambam, both his statute law assimilated code and his Guide for the Perplexed which expressly and openly promoted Greek logic over the kabbalah taught by rabbi Akiva through both the Mishna and the Gemara which make up the Talmud Bavli and Yerushalmi; together with the Midrash commentary to the Aggada composed by the Gaonim scholars which pre-dated the Reshonim! Rabbeinu Tam’s commentary on the Talmud criticized the Rashi commentary for its lack of emphasis upon the priority of learning the Talmud as common law. Learning off the dof to a different Mesechta of Gemara compares to reading a blue print based upon a different perspective of the same exact blue-print which has no less than 3 primary perspectives. The Talmud has 70 faces to the Torah!

     The term משנה תורה which the Rambam code converted to a Catholic priest, means common law — not statute law! Just as Rabbeinu Tam criticized the error made by Rashi of not prioritizing the critical and essential importance of studying Talmud – together with T’NaCH prophetic mussar through Aggadic & Midrashic common law precedents – so too the commentary made by the Baali Tosofot, specifically Rabbeinu Tam, failed to prioritize making a משנה תורה upon the language of the Mishna itself; the Baali Tosafot commentary limited its משנה תורה/Legislative Review only to reviewing the sugya of Gemara viewed from an off the dof different perspective of the גזר שוה. But dismally failed to likewise make a משנה תורה re-interpretation of the k’vanna of the language of the Mishna – viewed from a completely different perspective.

     All the Reshonim scholars open to honest criticism. The B’HaG, Rif and Rosh common law codes failed to emphasize employing halacha from the Gemara as a משנה תורה בנין אב to re-investigate the intent of the language of the Mishna based upon the different halachic different perspectives! The wisdom of reading a Blue Print requires the integration of Top/Side\Top viewpoints to grasp the 3 dimensional Big Picture idea. So too both T’NaCH and Talmudic common law equally requires a similar type of wisdom. Rote reading of words on the page, does not learn T’NaCH and Talmudic prophetic mussar and halachic common law.

     The study of T’NaCH and Talmud and Midrashim as common law legalism, this scholarship seeks to learn mitzvot commandments not only as positive and negative commandments as the Rambam Sefer HaMitzvot, together with his lackey followers – dictates! These complete fools “believe” that later generations cannot dispute with earlier generations as the meaning of the Talmudic term ירידות הדורות. Bunk, a critical error of Torah scholarship based upon cowardice.

     Rather the study of T’NaCH and Talmudic/Midrashim common law seeks to make an Av tohor הבדלה which separates Shabbat from Chol; which distinguishes Av tohor Time-Oriented commanments from תולדות secondary קום ועשה ושב ולא תעשה commandments which do not require k’vanna. Rote learning limits the Torah to two-dimensional box-thinking wherein Torah mitzvot done robotically and mechanically without any k’vanna what so ever. K’vanna defined in this rebuke as meaning “Prophetic mussar learned from the T’NaCH by means of Aggadic and Midrashic common law sources”! No Yeshiva, post the Rambam Civil War abomination which blew out the Hanukkah Lights and negated the victory of the P’rushim teachers of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס kabbalah of the Oral Torah revelation at Horev … and substituted the Tzeddukim faithlessness which rejects the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev.

     During the 9 Days Jews have either the choice to mourn the loss of buildings made of wood and stone – comparable to idols. Or absolutely rejoice at the uprooting and total destruction of Av tuma avoda zara ripped from the Yatzir Ha’Rah within the hearts of the chosen Cohen people who worship HaShem through doing tohor Time-oriented mitzvot from both the Torah and the Talmud, like as taught by the B’HaG! It seems to me, especially with Israeli National Independence consequence to the vision of political Zionism of Herzl that the time has come to cast away the black mourning garments of g’lut. And rejoice at the prospect of restoring the Written Torah as the Constitution of our Republic of Tribes/States. Where we make the Talmud serve as the model to restore Federal Sanhedrin common law court rooms which impose Capital Crimes Courts to judge cases of murder, in the primary border-land cities like king David conquering Damascus, stands the obligation to establish a City of Refuge with a Small Sanhedrin Capital Crime common law courtroom. A blessing upon the generations of Israel that we might achieve the destiny of the chosen Cohen people; the seed of Avraham Yitzak and Yaacov as defined by the Torah oath brit alliance.

   • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTJURY INSTRUCTION: THE PEOPLE v. OBAMA, CLINTON, BIDEN

     Indictment: Treachery Against the Republic

     I. TO THE JURY WHO STANDS BETWEEN CIVILIZATION AND COLLAPSE

     You did not arrive here to listen.
     You stand to judge, strike, condemn, and defend the nation’s breath.
     The accused did not misstep.
     They plotted, manipulated, shoved the Republic to its knees, and rammed a legal dagger between its ribs.
     They shredded oath.
     They gutted law.
     They muzzled voters and spit in the face of the Constitution.
     You do not cradle justice gently.
     You slam it like an axe through rotten wood.

     II. COUNT ONE: CONSPIRACY TO SHATTER THE UNITED STATES

     Barack Obama hatched, Hillary Clinton injected, and Joe Biden peddled a nationwide scheme to cripple Donald Trump, paralyze the presidency, and kidnap the federal apparatus.
     They fabricated evidence, dangled lies like bait, and jammed fraudulent reports into courtrooms like crowbars.
     They unleashed the CIA, twisted the FBI into a political blade, and forced innocent men through false investigations.
     They nailed disinformation to public walls, then danced on truth’s corpse.
     This crew didn’t govern.
     They hijacked, blackmailed, and torched public trust for a seat at the throne.

     III. COUNT TWO: OBSTRUCTION THROUGH SABOTAGE

     Joe Biden’s lawyers didn’t defend legality.
     They drowned it.
     They buried evidence, not beneath procedure, but under intentional rot.
     They strangled laptops, froze investigations, and scraped every thread of accountability from the federal map.
     They choked whistleblowers, chased down dissenters, and set fire to transparency.
     They didn’t delay justice—they gutted it with garden shears and fed the scraps to political dogs.

     IV. COUNT THREE: ELECTION INTERFERENCE BY JUDICIAL ASSAULT

     They didn’t trust the ballot box, so they ambushed it.
     They smeared Trump with indictments, pinned courtrooms to his chest like explosives, and rushed trial after trial like a firing squad with gavels.
     They pressured secretaries of state, erased his name from ballots, and dragged him through lawfare swamps during election season.
     They flooded headlines with venom, lobbed charges to generate chaos, and faked neutrality with the dead eyes of bureaucratic wolves.
     This wasn’t politics.
     This reeked of coup.

     V. COUNT FOUR: IMPOSTER PRESIDENCY

     Joe Biden didn’t lead—his handlers propped him like a scarecrow, then whispered policy through his dentures.
     They fed him pills, rigged teleprompters, and marionetted his limbs through briefings.
     They hollowed the executive branch, trapped it in dementia, and plastered the facade with “normalcy” while reality burned.
     They cloaked regime control in elder abuse, then pushed the corpse forward like a battering ram of plausible deniability.
     This wasn’t governance.
     This stitched Frankenstein from election fraud and cognitive decline, then forced Americans to salute it.

     VI. COUNT FIVE: DOMESTIC INSURRECTION DISGUISED AS DEMOCRACY

     This cabal did not defend democracy—they smashed its skull on the marble floor of the Capitol, then wore its skin like a costume.
     They commandeered intelligence agencies, converted watchdogs into lapdogs, and launched war against half the country.
     They recruited news anchors as propaganda mouthpieces, muzzled dissent, and rigged every lever of federal power to silence Trump.
     They slashed the throat of separation of powers, crucified truth, and pissed on the ashes of constitutional restraint.
     These weren’t mishaps.
     These exploded from deliberate, cold-blooded betrayal.

     VII. THE VERDICT NOW BELONGS TO YOU

     You don’t weigh feelings.
     You grind facts like bone under molars.
     You don’t interpret law like scholars.
     You swing it like a mace against corruption.
     If you believe the accused:
     Strangled elections,
     Rigged courts,
     Sabotaged justice,
     Hijacked power by deceit and cognitive puppetry,
     Then you must deliver the only verdict that protects this Union from permanent decay:
     GUILTY
     On every count
     Without remorse
     Without delay

     CLOSING

     History does not whisper here.
     It screams.
     Speak your verdict with the roar of the republic reclaiming its spine.

   • Genocide, a profane taboo word, commonly raped pillaged and burned among people who abhor the Israeli response to the Oct 7th 2023 massacre. Genocide in this context, amounts to Holocaust denial. A word meant to prevent another Shoah has been weaponized to accuse Jews of committing the very crime inflicted upon them.

     Genocide — a word forged in the ashes of the Shoah — has become a profane taboo, violated, cheapened, and weaponized by those who abhor Israel’s response to the Oct. 7th 2023 massacre. In this context, the accusation is not merely false; it amounts to Holocaust denial. A term meant to prevent another genocide is now hurled against the Jewish state in a grotesque inversion of history: the victims accused of the crime that nearly annihilated them.

     This version of the Xtian Church infamous blood libel. Manufactured and disseminated by the UN, EU bureaucrats, Moscow, Beijing, and the media conglomerates that sell “genocide headlines” the way pornography sells clicks. Genocide sells. Justice does not. And so, the word violently and brutally raped and pillaged for political theatre rather than applied with legal integrity. Genocide occurs when those in power worship power itself, not justice. But no one dares question the motives of the institutions promoting this Blood Libel slander. Why? Because the same leaders, together with their institutions, have grown dependent on the “Jewish problem” narrative to justify their own existence.

     Never once has anyone questioned the agenda of an organization that promotes this “Blood Libel Slander” made against Israel. Israel did not sign the Rome Agreement which established the International Court of the Hague. In point of fact, NEVER AGAIN, as PM Begin expressly communicated to Jimmy Carter at Camp David, means that Israelis post the European “Final Solution” will ever again permit, specifically European Goyim States, to dictate their “SOLUTION” to “THE JEWISH PROPLEM”. Israel rejects the idea that: (1) Jews exist again a ward of Europe. (2) Jewish sovereignty pre-conditional to UN approval. (3) Jewish self-defense is subject to foreign veto. Thus, the ICC’s attempted jurisdiction is a political fiction—an extension of the pre-1948 mindset that Jews do not have independent standing among nations. The ICC’s claim of jurisdiction over Israel: a fiction built on an older fiction. This accusation of “genocide” guilt imposed by Press decree upon Israel, simply the old paternalism in a new legal wrapper of classic South African Apartheid racism.

     The accusation of “genocide” against Israel after Oct. 7, a form of modernized Holocaust denial — a mutation of the classic European blood libel — and the UN’s usage of the term reveals a long-standing imperial contempt for Jewish sovereignty. The UN never had moral universality. It functioned from birth as a colonial power-balancing instrument, and its treatment of Israel, merely the most concentrated exposure of its original design flaws. Where medieval Xtendom accused Jews of murdering Xtian children, the modern UN-Leftist coalition accuses Jews of murdering Palestinian children.

     The replacement theology converts the UN as the new Ersatz-Xtianity. The idea of a secularized form of Xtianity that rejects the theological trappings of the Gospel narrative, but retains dogmatic moral and ethical frameworks associated with Papal Rome. This concept often manifests in political contexts, where political ideologies adopt seemingly Xtian ethical principles, like for an example: a just war, without engaging theological ‘Good News’ yet promoting the new religion of democracy.

     The UN originally set up to prevent another Shoah. Clearly the UN has failed its mandate and MUST disband. What does the UN have to do with the Xtian “Genocide” in Nigeria? Or Pol Pot, or Idi[ot] Amin? The UN promotes platitudes rather than pursues justice. The UN today totally not recognizable to the UN of 1948. Pursuit of power and political coalitions of State international alliances has completely uprooted the founding Charter. The UN systematically ignores or minimizes actual genocide, mass slaughter, and mass enslavement when politically inconvenient. The UN protects authoritarian regimes with bloc voting. The Human Rights Council institutionalizes political scapegoating. UN Bloc voting by authoritarian states has turned this pie in the sky replacement of Wilson’s post WWI League of Nations into a political marketplace where justice get bought and sold on the illegal white women, and child-slave trade-markets.

     Franklin D. Roosevelt U.S. President; championed the idea of a global peace organization. Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairperson of the UN Commission on Human Rights; pivotal in drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Winston Churchill – British Prime Minister; advocated for collective security and cooperation. Joseph Stalin – Soviet Dictator primarily responsible for the Allied victory over the Nazis; boycotted the UN Chapter VII dictate to North Korea. Charles de Gaulle – not included at the Yalta Conference, French Resistance leader; crucial in representing defeated France’s interests post-WWII wherein France sat as a Permanent Member in the UN Security Council. De Gaulle as a statesman, succeeded in asserting France’s interests in the aftermath of World War II. Harry S. Truman, U.S. President after FDR; supported the formation and principles of the UN which negated the Constitutional Right of Congress to Declare War.

     The Yalta Conference, held in February 1945, was a pivotal meeting between Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin to discuss the post-war reorganization of Europe and the establishment of international cooperation through the United Nations. Their responses varied significantly, reflecting their distinct national interests and ideologies. Stalin showed a positive attitude towards Roosevelt’s proposal for a new international organization aimed at maintaining peace. He recognized the need for a framework to manage post-war tensions and prevent conflicts. These men who built the UN, represent colonial empires, racial hierarchies, colonial interests, and military blocs.

     Stalin insisted that the new organization must include mechanisms that recognized the Soviet Union’s status as a major power. He wanted assurances that Soviet interests and security concerns, particularly in Eastern Europe, would be addressed. While agreeing to the formation of the United Nations, Stalin was adamant about establishing Soviet influence in Eastern Europe, emphasizing a security buffer to protect the Soviet Union from future aggression. Clearly the Democratic Party leadership attempt to increase the NATO alliance to include these same Eastern European countries into the NATO alliance, specifically the Ukraine, no UN Resolution has ever condemned.

     Churchill was more cautious regarding Stalin’s intentions. He was supportive of the idea of a United Nations but harbored concerns about Soviet expansionism and the balance of power in Europe. Churchill advocated for a United Nations that emphasized democratic principles and human rights. He urged for a system that would prevent the imposition of totalitarian regimes, especially in nations liberated from Nazi occupation. Yet the UN promotes Arab dictatorships, specifically Palestinian Arab dictatorships, precisely following the Oct 7th 2023 massacre of Israelis. Churchill wrote the first White Paper, this man focused his interests over British domination upon any new balance of power political arrangement.

     Stalin’s enthusiasm for the concept of the United Nations demonstrated a strategic acknowledgment of the necessity for international governance. This was essential for managing tensions after the war. His insistence on recognizing the Soviet Union’s status as a major power was non-negotiable. The establishment of a security buffer in Eastern Europe was paramount for him, as it aligned with the Soviet doctrine of protecting its borders from perceived threats. Stalin’s strategy foreshadowed the post-war division of Europe. His desire for influence in Eastern Europe laid the groundwork for future Cold War dynamics, where conflicting ideologies and interests between the USSR and Western nations would lead to tension.

     Mali announced the expulsion of French troops, effectively ending an French economic or military domination. In similar fashion the governments of Burkina Faso, Niger, Chad, Senegal, & Côte d’Ivoire. The UN never once condemned French neocolonialism. The rise of alternative global partnerships, particularly with nations like China and Russia, has provided Sahelian countries with options to diversify their diplomatic and economic relationships. The UN never condemned Western neocolonial economic structured dominance which favored French interests over African development. Independent Sahelian countries, no thanks to the UN, have started to forge new alliances that prioritize their interests rather than continuing to rely on traditional colonial ties. African sovereignty and control over national resources the UN never recognized.

     Jan Christian Smuts, a prominent South African statesman and military leader, had a contentious and complex relationship with Mahatma Gandhi. While they both played influential roles in early 20th-century India and South Africa, their interactions were often marked by significant ideological differences and personal animosity. Smuts held a more conservative viewpoint, often prioritizing colonial interests and the maintenance of order within the British Empire.

     One major point of contention was the implementation of discriminatory pass laws targeting Indians in South Africa. Gandhi actively opposed these laws through protests, while Smuts supported the laws as a means of maintaining control. During discussions about Indian representation in South African politics, Smuts was seen as obstructive, further fueling Gandhi’s disdain for him.

     Reports suggest that Smuts had a personal dislike for Gandhi, viewing him as a radical undermining British authority in South Africa. This animosity was reflected in their public exchanges and political opposition. Despite their differences, Gandhi’s struggle for Indian rights in South Africa remains a significant historical contribution, overshadowing Smuts’ position at that time. Today, Smuts is often critiqued for his stances, which contributed to systemic discrimination, while Gandhi is celebrated for his non-violent approach to achieving social justice. The relationship between Jan Christian Smuts and Mahatma Gandhi exemplifies the broader tensions of colonial politics, with personal ideologies and ambitions clashing in a critical period of history. Their interactions serve as a lens through which the complexities of resistance against colonial rule can be understood.

     Jawaharlal Nehru, as India’s first Prime Minister played a significant role in the establishment of the United Nations (UN). Nehru was a strong proponent of internationalism and believed in the necessity of a global organization to foster peace and cooperation among nations. His vision was largely influenced by the horrors of World War II and the need to prevent future conflicts. Nehru actively participated in key discussions that shaped the UN’s formation. He was part of the Indian delegation at the San Francisco Conference in 1945, where the UN Charter was drafted.

     His contributions emphasized the importance of decolonization and civil rights. Nehru advocated for the inclusion of human rights in the UN framework. As a leader from a newly independent nation, he championed the cause of oppressed peoples, aiming for a UN that would not only prevent wars but also promote social justice. Nehru’s commitment to the UN and its principles laid a foundation for India’s active participation in UN affairs, which has continued to influence its foreign policy. His advocacy for peace, cooperation, and justice remains a part of India’s global identity today.

     In 1975 the United Nations Human Rights Commission condemned the Augusto Pinochet regime for its widespread human rights violations, including torture and political repression. The resolution called attention to reports of extrajudicial killings, disappearance of political opponents, and the overall lack of civil liberties in Chile under Pinochet’s dictatorship. The Augusto Pinochet regime immediately eclipsed the socialist influence of Hernán Santa Cruz.

     Alger Hiss, a high-ranking official in the U.S. State Department and a key figure in the founding meetings of the United Nations. In 1948, Whittaker Chambers, a former communist and journalist, accused Hiss of being a communist spy and of passing classified documents to the Soviet Union. In 1950, Hiss was tried for perjury and was convicted, serving several years in prison. While Hiss was involved in the establishment of the United Nations, serving as a crucial part of the U.S. delegation at the founding conference in 1945, his legacy became overshadowed by the espionage allegations. Historians often debate the extent of his guilt, with some arguing that he was falsely accused.

     The Weaponization of “Genocide”, the UN has perverted into a political cudgel, detached from its historical meaning. Its use against Israel, framed as a form of Holocaust denial and “blood libel.” Israel’s Sovereignty Post-Holocaust — “Never Again” means Israel will not allow external powers—especially European states—to dictate Jewish survival, our international borders or our Capital City. Israel’s refusal to sign the Rome Statute, presented as a rejection of foreign-imposed “solutions” which presume Israel remains a Protectorate Territory of the UN or post WWII European Courts of international law.

     The UN was created to prevent another Shoah, but instead it promotes platitudes and power politics. Examples: ignoring atrocities in Nigeria, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Idi Amin’s Uganda, and French neocolonialism in Africa. A UN which continually remains worse than simply silent about its founding premise: preventing unilateral security expansions that could trigger world conflict. A UN which “claims” to defend human rights, built partly by men who defend racially stratified empires.

     Selective Condemnations, the UN condemned Pinochet’s Chile but ignored French neocolonialism in Africa. UN resolutions often reflect political convenience rather than consistent justice. The Smuts vs. Gandhi conflict illistrates how the UN’s silence on neocolonial structures in Africa echoes the impact of Colonial legacies.

     Alger Hiss’s role in founding the UN is overshadowed by espionage accusations, symbolizing the organization’s compromised legacy, matched only by the grossly perverted number of UN condemnations made against Israel. The UN has always had compromised foundations, and those cracks have widened into fissures today.

     The UN never morally coherent. It stands exposed as a truce between competing empires wrapped in universal language. The same Human Rights Commission built by men like Smuts and Santa Cruz now functions as a propaganda bureau for authoritarian regimes. And the same UN founded with Alger Hiss — now shadowed by espionage accusations — continues to operate with layers of clandestine influence.

     The weaponization of “genocide”, an old psychological warfare guilt trip, on par with “He died for you”. It continues the old European narative: The Jew as the world’s chief problem. Where once Jews were accused of poisoning wells, today we are accused of poisoning Gaza. Where once Jews were accused of blood crimes, today we are accused of genocide. A system built on the ashes of the Holocaust now recycles Holocaust denial under the guise of human rights.

     Why Smuts? Why Gandhi? Why Pinochet? Why the Sahel? Why Nehru? These leaders and countries both tyrants and saints influenced the establishment of the UN, its the failed ‘dream vision’ which ignores the eternal conflict conducted between Power vs. Justice. All the prophets of the T’NaCH pitted justice against avoda zara – the Human worship of power as God.

     Israel never signed the Rome Statute. Therefore the ICC has no jurisdiction unless Israel consents which fundamentally profanes the post Shoah sworn oath “NEVER AGAIN”. The ICC’s maneuver relies on the fiction that “Palestine” is a state with standing. British Palestine, established by the League of Nations based upon the Balfour Declaration of 1917 ceased to exist when David Ben Gurion declared Jewish national independence and named the new country Israel in 1948.

     Only in 1964 did Egyptian born Yasser Arafat embrace the name of Palestine as central to his PLO Charter. That charter did not view Jordan’s West Bank or Egypt’s Gaza as occupied territory. It limited the phrase “Occupied Territory” only to ’48 Israel. UN Resolutions 242, 338, 446, 2334 etc all political blood libel frauds. UN Resolution 3379 – Zionism is Racism – rejects the Balfour Declaration which fathered the Palestine Mandate of 1921.

3. Tonight begins Hanukkah.

   The Total Darkness which Hanukkah Represents.

   “Bringing more light to the world”, totally misses the point. Hanukkah remembers the P’rushim Tzeddukim Civil War. Jews today have forgotten the meaning and purpose of t’shuva. The Tzeddukim רשעים sought to “convert” Jerusalem into a Greek polis/city state. Assimilated Jews, both Tzeddukim and the Reshonim rabbis of Spain – rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah at Horev. Which the kabbalah of rabbi Akiva’s פרדס defines through its unique 4 part inductive reasoning logical thought process. This system of logic specifically compares Judicial Case rulings to other similiar but different Judicial Case rulings.

   The Tzeddukim, sons of Aaron, had totally assimilated, no different from the rabbis of Spain during the early years of the Middle Ages when Muslim armies conquered Spain and discovered the concealed ancient Greek philosophies and mathematics which the church concealed after Constantine became emperor; hence the period known as the “Dark Ages”. Deductive syllogism logic relies upon plane geometry which limits reality to a fixed 3 dimensional world. Much like the scientific method popular among science today limits reality to empirical evidence.

   The fundamental difference between the victory of the P’rushim in Judea over the assimilated T’zeddukim, to the inverse victory of assimilated rabbis in Spain, specifically the Rambam Civil War, these assimilated and intermarried Spanish rabbis, they totally embraced Greek philosophy just like as did the Tzeddukim some 1000 years earlier. Specifically the 3 part syllogism logic of deductive reasoning, which assimilated and intermarried Jews of Spain abandoned and forgot the Oral Torah.

   How did these assimilated and intermarried Reshonim rabbis of Spain forget and abandon the Torah? They failed to learn inductive פרדס logic whose inductive reasoning closely resembles the dynamics of Calculus variables. Greek syllogism logic more approaches a fixed static reasoning. Something like the engineering of constructing a bridge to span a river. They perverted both T’NaCH & Talmudic judicial courtroom law into cult of personality “Legislative” statute law. Law established through courts completely different from Law established by Legislative decrees. No different from Greek and Roman statute law. This foreign alien legal system organized law into neat classifications, like as did the Rambam’s Yad Chazakah perversion of Talmudic halachot. Rather than upon Judicial Mishnaic Case/Rule courtroom rulings.

   How did this radically change both T’NaCH and Talmud? Notice that the statute law halachic codifications made by the Rambam, Tur, Beit Yosef/Shulkan Aruch – they cannot and do not assist a Talmudic scholar to learn a page of Gemara. Why? The Rambam failed to attach his halachic rulings affixed to a specific Mishna like as did the B’HaG, Rif, Rosh and Baali Tosafot common law halachic codes/commentaries.

   Hence by organizing Gemara halacha divorced from their most essential root Mishna – which the Gemara comments solely upon, the Rambams posok halacha – although straight from the pages of the Talmud – had no meaning as it related to a required specific root Mishna. The B’HaG, Rif and Rosh common law codifications almost ALWAYS open with the fundamentally required root Mishna upon which the Gemara halachot comment upon.

   In the Talmud those halachot serve their designated essential purpose as common law judicial precedents. The Gemara interprets or re-interpret the intent/כוונה language of the root Mishna, viewed from the fixed witness perspective that these Gemarah Halachic precedents “see or view” the root Mishna, based upon a limited and defined perspective. Much like the Front, Top, Side views of a blue-print that permits a קבלן to construct a building.

   Whereas the victorious P’rushim of Judea lit the lights of Chanukkah with the dedication to only interpret the intent of the Written Torah Constitution, and Sanhedrin Court common law justice system, limited only to פרדס inductive logic; the assimilated rabbis of Spain “forgot the Oral Torah” just like the blessing of Hanukkah in the midst of ברכת המזון depicts the Tzeddukim רשעים.

   Jews today for the most part do not have the least bit of a clue what distinguishes פרדס logic from Greek syllogism logic. The do not grasp the essential facts that just as a loom as its warp and weft threads, so too the Talmud has its halachic and aggadic “threads”. Jews today have forgotten the Torah and therefore blown out the Hanukkah lights. Just as likewise did the assimilated and intermarried Reshonim rabbis of Spain. This dark reality exposed the lights of Hannukah which repudiated the assimilated and intermarried Tzeddukim and later Karaim g’lut Jewry.

   The Rambam code caused a ירידות הדורות domino effect which permitted the Karaite rabbis to prevail over traditional common law judicial Judaism. The Karaites like their assimilated and intermarried Tzeddukim traitor fore fathers rejected the revelation of the Oral Torah on Yom Kippur at Horev 40 days after the sin of the Golden Calf. Blowing out the lights of Hanukkah worships the Golden Calf preferred religious belief systems over righteous Courtroom justice which strives to make fair compensation of damages inflicted. Hence Hanukkah today depict a reality of total darkness rather than light.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.