Christian heritage        
Fr Bernard McGrath

Christianity works well for the greater good of society despite some doubters. It benefits millions by the moral improvements due to the churches, schools, hospitals and institutions it runs.

Three of the greatest commandments of our Judeo-Christian heritage form the very bulwark of our civilisation: the sacredness of human life, the purity of marriage and the right to private property. Without these laws, many unwanted or allegedly useless lives are killed for convenience: the unborn, the defective, and the aged. And without these laws increasing numbers cannot be trusted to be honest in their dealings regarding property, and the fair time, money and effort needed for work and social affairs. Fewer seem to care anymore and the trend is tragic.

Even 4,000 years ago Hammurabi of Babylon had the wisdom to discern six of the ten commandments for the peace and prosperity of his people, recognising the natural laws of good behaviour/morality. But unique to our Judeo-Christian heritage are the commandments against polytheism, idolatry, and evil thoughts. These are ennobling rules and are hard to account for without a revelation of God as a loving creator, law-giver and saviour giving us the necessary reason and strength to be self-sacrificing, when required, for the sake of others, and the truth.

Churches preach, teach and practise persuasively against hate in thought, speech and deed whereas mere civil laws on such are easily used to suppress free speech and religion by those who claim to be offended "victims" of others' beliefs.

Democracy works best when most people, most of the time, are virtuous and can be trusted. Few laws are then needed: "He governs best who governs least". A South-Sea Islander once reproved a soldier for using the thin pages of a Bible to roll his cigarettes: "If it weren't for the Bible, you'd be in my cooking pot!", he said.

What will stop the present mad rush into lawlessness and the slaughter of the innocents?

What the gods (devil) wish to destroy they first make mad. How mad is it when evil becomes a free choice?

Bendigo, Vic

          Genesis: More and Less, Or, What I Didn’t Learn in Sunday School        
As I am preparing to teach the “Christianity and Judaism” segment of my upcoming Humanities course, I’ve returned to some of the Biblical stories that I haven’t thought about for many years. With adult eyes, training in literary and feminist theory, and quite a bit of distance from my evangelical Christian upbringing, I am discovering that many of these stories are quite different than I remember. Indeed, they are both more and less than how they were presented to me in Sunday School: more in that together they demonstrate the beautifully complex human construction of a religious tradition, a way of making sense of and being in an unpredictable and often brutal world, and less because, by way of uncompromising misogyny and an assumption of “racial” superiority, they exclude most of humanity from the chosen people. For me, these stories represent a certain literary greatness, but I don’t find them particularly helpful in guiding my own spiritual growth. In this post, I point out some discrepancies between the ways that these stories are typically taught in Christian settings to children in their spiritually formative years and how they are actually presented in Biblical verse.

For the sake of brevity, I’ll just stick with one book, the foundational book of Genesis. And, as a disclaimer, I am no theologian, so my claims may not bear out against those of Biblical experts. All the same, my interpretations represent the careful, reasoned responses of a layperson to the incidents recounted in Genesis.

Here are some things about Genesis mythology that in my day were—and likely still are—glossed over, misrepresented, or simply ignored in Christian Sunday School:

1. Genesis is clearly not a linear, singularly-composed narrative, and nor even are its individual “stories.” There are in fact two renditions of human creation, for example, and, what’s more, they contradict each other. In the first one, God creates man and woman at the same time. In the second one, God creates man and then woman out of man’s rib. It is this second story which also includes the legend of “the fall.” Indeed, there is no indication that “the fall” portion of the tale is connected in any way to the first story of human creation, which comes to a full stop before the second one is introduced with the concluding statement: “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created” (Gen. 2:4). One could easily read these two versions of the story—one in which men and women are created as equals and God sees them as “very good” (Gen. 1:31) and the other in which God positions man as superior to a female being who ultimately brings about the onset of human suffering—as indicative of the changing status of women as ancient cultures moved from hunting and gathering to agriculture and, therefore, became more male-centered and militaristic over time. In any case, these are two different stories of creation, probably circulated orally in different eras and/or among different Hebrew sub-sets and likely recorded at a much later date as alternative versions of the same mythology. Other stories also repeat or overlap, such as the conception and birth of Seth, in Gen. 4:25 and again in Gen. 5:3. These repetitions of stories, of course, calls into question the belief, so relied upon in contemporary Christian churches, that the Bible is more than a book of stories, that it is in fact a divinely inspired narrative of the development of the one true religion.

2. In contrast to this belief in the singular “truth” of the Christian doctrine, Genesis presents the God of the Hebrews as not all that different from other gods of the ancient world. Indeed, the mythology surrounding this God is fairly unexceptional compared to that surrounding the gods of Mesopotamia, Greece, and Rome. Although most historians and theologians understand a monotheistic belief system as unique to the Hebrews, the assumed monotheism of this group is at least questionable. In one place in Genesis, for instance, God calls himself “us” (Gen. 3:22). Most Biblical scholars argue that he is here referring to himself and his host of heavenly beings, namely the angels. This is problematic because it implies that he does indeed share power with other superior beings. Certainly, the angels interact physically with the characters of these Biblical stories, not unlike Athena in The Odyssey or Cupid in The Aeneid. Furthermore, in a couple of scenes at least, the narrator(s) refer(s) to an angel as “Lord,” the same name that he also calls God (Gen. 16:11-12 and Gen. 19:2). Is it not likely that the angels are Hebraic representations of Zeus’s or Jupiter’s host of less powerful gods? It seems also significant that the narrator(s) implicitly compare(s) God to other higher beings by repeatedly referring to him as the “Most High” (Gen. 14:17-20). Clearly, God is the supreme protector and ruler of the Hebrews, but this doesn’t foreclose the possibility that the people depicted in the Biblical stories believe in other opposing gods of surrounding peoples, just as the people of Uruk, for example, saw Inanna as their protectress from the powers of other Mesopotamian deities. It is certainly possible that the Hebrews perceived monotheism in very different terms than we perceive it now, in terms that allowed for the presence of “lords” in heaven and gods of other lands.

3. The mention of temple prostitution in Genesis also seems to imply a tolerance for other gods. In one scene, Judah has intercourse with a woman whom he assumes is a temple prostitute (Gen. 38). This scene is of course interesting in many ways. In that Judah is a married man, this story’s inclusion in the book of Genesis might imply an early acceptance that male “needs” sometimes exceed legitimate female accessibility. Even more shocking, this anecdote might also indicate that the Hebrews did indeed worship gods other than God. Temple prostitutes were revered in ancient Mesopotamian culture as physical conduits to fertility gods and goddesses. Was Judah’s casual copulation with a woman he thought was a temple prostitute simply his way of getting the action he is denied at home, or is it an act of worship?

4. Whether or not he is the only god whom the Hebrews worshiped or believed in, the God of Genesis certainly behaves in ways similar to the polytheistic gods mentioned above. He engages in very human activities and acts upon very human emotions, for instance. In a seeming assertion of his superiority over man, for example, he wrestles with Jacob and, after much struggle, manages to land a final injurious blow to Jacob’s thigh (an incident that inexplicably leads to the declaration that Hebrews should consequently refuse thigh meat) (Gen. 33:22-32). God is also fickle, “opening and closing the wombs” of Jacob’s wives with seeming caprice, for instance, transferring allegiance from Leah to Rachel and then back again as the two wives vie for the title of giving Jacob the most sons (Gen. 30). Finally, like other polytheistic gods, God requires sacrifice as a way of giving thanks and ensuring his continued good favor. I think that we can all agree that, as an institution, sacrifice makes no logical sense. Why would God need human food? Why would he require his people to give up their precious sustenance? Like all of the gods of the ancient world, though, God wants his choice cuts of meat. (In Exodus, in fact, it appears that his choice cuts of meat include first born sons [Ex. 22:29], but that is a topic for another day.) God’s similarities to other gods clearly points to the development of the Judeo-Christian tradition out of the religious beliefs of other ancient cultures.

5. Again like other religious groups of the ancient world, the Hebrews of Genesis had no conception of hell, and instead seem to have believed in a shadowy underworld, a place that they called “Sheol.” Pretty much everyone in Genesis goes to Sheol when they die, except for a few named exceptions in Gen. 5, who are chosen by God to join him in heaven. The fact that hell becomes part and parcel of Christian doctrine but does not exist in Genesis shows, of course, the fine-tuning of the Judeo-Christian belief system over time.

6. It is also important to note that, in Genesis, deceit is acceptable under certain circumstances. Both Abraham and Isaac, during times of famine or journey, lie in order to earn the favor of rulers in surrounding areas (Gen. 12, Gen. 20, and Gen. 26). Both, in fact, present their wives as sisters in order to allow the inclusion of these women into the royal harems of Egypt and then Gerar and to secure the aid of those in power. (In this way, of course, arranged prostitution seems also acceptable under certain circumstances; more on that later.) To name another example, Rachel’s theft of her father’s “household gods” (the existence of which also call into question the monotheism of the Hebrews) and her false insistence on being in “the way of women” in order to disallow the search of her person for these items also show that it is okay to lie (Gen. 31). Whether Rachel took the idols because she wanted to deny her father access to their power or because she wanted to worship them herself, the implication seems to be that her quick thinking here aids in her husband’s successful escape of his overbearing father-in-law, and, more importantly, Isaac’s return to his people and fulfilling of his important in God’s plan for the Hebrews.

7. This brings me to a crucial point, perhaps especially for all of those female Sunday School teachers out there: with the possible exception of the woman in the first creation story, women in the book of Genesis exist only as tools through which men fulfill God’s plan for the Hebrew nation. Women bear sons and, in this way, further the lineage of God’s chosen people (read: chosen men). Now, this fact can become obscured by the rhetoric of the portions of Genesis that name both mothers and fathers as ancestors of important Hebrew figures. It would appear that, in this way, female lineage is as important as male lineage. Just as in other ancient cultures, though, it seems most likely that female lineage is presented as significant in this way only because it represents the joining of two male-headed households. Isaac, for instance, enjoins his son to find a wife among the daughters of Laban, his wife’s brother (Gen. 28:1-4). Decrying other possible wives of the “Canaanite women,” Isaac thus works to ensure the pure Hebrew lineage of God’s chosen people, Jacob’s sons who later become the heads of the tribes of Israel. Because women are important only in helping men to fulfill their covenants with God, it makes sense that they should be sacrificed sexually for the Hebrew cause when necessary. If Sarah or Rebekah must be prostituted for the patriarchs to avoid starvation or death, as I mentioned above, the stories in Genesis imply, then so be it.

8. Indeed, female sexuality is quite frequently presented as an invaluable bartering chip. To name another instance of male trading of women’s sexuality, Lot is willing to hand over two likely adolescent daughters to a band of angry “sodomites” in order to preserve the purity of his male guests, saying, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Look, I have two daughters who have not known a man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof” (Gen. 19:7-8). As in The Odyssey, then, hospitality it tied to male honor, and women are sacrificed to preserve the ties between men.

9. As outrageous as it seems, the narrator(s) of Genesis present(s) women as taking pride in their purposes as embodied representations of the ties between men and as reproductive units. In order to ensure the continuation of their father’s male lineage, for instance, Lot’s daughters are, in a later scene, willing to deceive him into copulating with them—presumably multiple times—until both are pregnant with male heirs (Gen. 19:32-36). These nameless women are then venerated as the mothers of the male ancestors of the Moabites and the Ammonites (Gen. 19:37-38). When Sarah, Rachel, and Leah experience periods of barrenness (due to God’s inexplicable “closing of their wombs”), they are ashamed and, in seeming atonement, offer their slave women to their husbands for the procurement of male children (Gen. 16 and Gen. 30). These incidents clearly show that women in Genesis are in fact rendered heroically when they prostitute themselves and other women for the future of Israel!

10. Now for a word about slavery: simply put, the early Hebrews were for it, and God never disallows it. (Even after their captivity in Egypt, not incidentally, the Hebrews functioned under codes and laws, passed directly from God to Moses, regarding the proper treatment of slaves, but that gets into Exodus.) What I am most interested in, though, is not slavery in and of itself—because obviously it was a bad thing—but the relationships between wifehood, concubinage, prostitution, and female slavery. All of these are mentioned in Genesis, and they seem to overlap in significant ways. As I have already demonstrated, wives and daughters are sometimes nearly prostituted (in each of the cases that I’ve mentioned, the “foreign” men who are offered the Hebrew women in trade reject these offers), and slaves seem to be routinely prostituted. Also, it appears that many of the patriarchs of Genesis held multiple wives, concubines, and female slaves and seemed to use them somewhat interchangeably. There is a definite slippage between these classes of women, and one passage demonstrates this point most succinctly. It picks up after Abraham has already had Ishmael by Hagar, Sarah’s slave, and Isaac by Sarah. After Sarah’s death, “Abraham took another wife, whose name was Keturah. She bore him [six sons who went on to sire a total of ten more sons]. All of these were the children of Keturah. Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, while he was still living, and he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country” (Gen. 25:1-6). In this passage, Keturah is given the title of “wife,” but she is clearly classed with Abraham’s other “concubines” when Abraham sends all of his sons away except for Isaac, whom God has chosen as a leader of the Hebrew people. Hagar is presumably also considered a “concubine” in this instance, as Ishmael is grouped in with all of the other sons who are sent away. In sum, it seems that there is little difference for a man of God in Genesis between a wife, a prostitute, a concubine, and a female slave. They each exist for the sole purpose of producing male heirs in the Hebrew line and aiding in male endeavors to fulfill pacts with God.

Culturally, historically, and literarily, the Biblical stories in Genesis are extraordinary. But their being taught to children in Christian settings as morality tales and as evidence of a coherent religious tradition is perplexing to me. The morality here is shady at best, and the tradition is almost certainly both composite and constructed to promote the solidarity and empowerment of an exclusive class of Hebrew men.
          10 Commandment flap        
By Allan Sloan
Newsweek July 11 issue

You may think that the Supreme Court ruled last week that
the state of Texas could continue to display a Ten Commandments monolith on
its capitol grounds in Austin. But you'd be wrong. Look at the monolith?you
can find it at 10lg.htm?and you'll
notice that it doesn't contain 10 commandments. It has 11. And if you count
"I am the Lord thy God" as a commandment, which Jews do but Christians
don't, the Supreme Court has approved a Twelve Commandments monolith,
rather than the traditional Decalogue.

This monolith, sponsored by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, was part of a PR
campaign for "The Ten Commandments," Cecil B. DeMille's 1956 Biblical epic
starring Charlton Heston. Yes, the Supreme Court was ruling on the legality
of a Hollywood promotion. The Eagles' grand secretary, Bob Wahls, explained
to me last week that the text is a compromise drawn up by Jewish and
Christian clergy to respect everyone's beliefs. So rather than bearing Ten
Commandments that are the Word of God, the monolith bears 11 or 12
commandments that are the Word of a Committee.

This may all sound like hairsplitting and mockery, but it's not. Regardless
of whether you believe in the literal truth of the Bible (or, as most call
it, the Old Testament), the Ten Commandments are a vital underpinning of
Judeo-Christian culture. But while it's one thing to be in favor of ethics
and morality in public life, it's a whole different thing to think?as I
suspect most Americans do?that there is one single Decalogue. The complex
textual history of the Commandments suggests that the more you study the
Bible, the less certain you become of your ability to divine the precise
Word of God. That's a useful lesson in this divided time.

Most public displays of the Ten Commandments, including the ones in Texas
and Kentucky that the Supreme Court dealt with, are based on Exodus 20,
verses 2-14, where God speaks directly to the Israelites. But if you grew
up as I did, studying the Bible in its original Hebrew, you know that
there's a second, equally valid version in Deuteronomy 5:6-18. And the two
versions differ. In Exodus, God says to remember the Sabbath because he
created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. In Deuteronomy,
Moses recounts that God told the Israelites to observe the Sabbath because
the Lord liberated them from Egyptian bondage. So which is it? The
traditional Jewish answer is that God uttered both versions simultaneously,
but fallible human ears heard it two separate ways. So how can you post one
version or the other and declare it the Ineffable Word of God? You can't.

Then there's the numbering problem?which is how the Eagles ended up with
more than 10 commandments. During the Monica Lewinsky uproar, Bill Clinton
said he hadn't violated the Sixth Commandment. But whose Sixth Commandment?
To Roman Catholics and Lutherans, it's the no-adultery commandment. But to
Jews and members of Orthodox and Reformed churches, Clinton was saying he
hadn't murdered or killed, respectively.

The rules of the game require all religions to end up with 10 commandments
(or "utterances," to use the literal Hebrew translation) because that's the
Bible's number. (See Exodus 34:28 and Deuteronomy 4:13 and 10:4.) Jews
count "I am the Lord thy God" as the First Commandment, while Christians
consider it part of "You shall have no other gods before me," which Jews
count as No. 2. Some Christians split "don't covet" into two commandments;
others split up the prohibitions on having other gods and making graven
images. We won't even get into translations: whether God is speaking
against murder and swearing false oaths (the Jewish version) or killing and
taking the Lord's name in vain (the Christian one).

So rather than fighting about the Ten Commandments, perhaps we should turn
to Micah 6:8. The Lord, says the prophet, requires us "only to do justly,
and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." To which all of us can
say, amen.

          The gops privatization policies that         
When it comes to the commanding officer of the single world, I want my voice heard by the politician and the get-together that I make up one's mind. However, I agnize that politically, I don't be there.Now, I'll flat with you... as far as intrinsical get-together attitude go, I am much than indubitable that everybody would point me into the Democratic family. After all, I understand in tax rearrange in kindness for the innermost class, more than programs - whether university or otherwise - set up to guarantee that the less good luck can get out of their prevalent situations and I am an desirous fan of broad-spectrum health care.So what's the problem?Post ads:spy instant messages / 1 call private detectives / cheating spouse kids / how do i find out if my boyfriend is cheating on me / digital voice recorder editing software / how to deal with cheating husband while pregnant / big brother surveillance technologyWell, I am what I like to bring up to as a Conservative Democrat, which consequently, doesn't look to fashion by a long chalk undergo these life. With all of the Blue candidates and their ultra-liberal attitudes toward well-bred unions and rift of Christianity from governmental decision-making, it tends to stereotype everybody with my Judeo-Christian values and predilection for society of the less tax bracket in an abnormal buoyant.
          Ssh! Don't mention the revolution        

Chatam House

Putin is whitewashing history to paint himself as the Tsar, writes Konstantin von Eggert

In early July the chairman of the Russian Historical Society addressed a gathering on how the country should mark the centenary of the revolutions of 1917 which toppled the Romanov dynasty and then brought the Bolsheviks to power. The Russian people, he said, should avoid ‘radical’ assessments of the events of 1917 and rather find in them ‘a source of national unity’. ‘Radicalism is generally harmful,’ he said,  adding that ‘such momentous events [as those of 1917] cannot be painted in black and white’.

The Russian Historical Society is officially an umbrella organization for Russian historians as in any other country, but in fact it exists to deliver government talking points on ideological matters. Bizarrely, its chairman is not a professional historian but none other than Sergey Naryshkin, director of the SVR, the Russian foreign intelligence service.

The key word ‘radicalism’, uttered by the country’s top spy, reveals the depth of unease with which the Kremlin greets the anniversary. Russia’s rulers – Soviet people through and through as far as their upbringing, views, tastes and political perceptions are concerned – are deeply worried because 1917 was the year of revolution ... and revolution is something that the Kremlin fears.

Ten years ago, when the country marked the 90th anniversary of ‘the year of two revolutions’ there were more TV programmes, conferences and books on the subject. There are visibly fewer such activities today. One project that attracted a lot of attention is ‘1917: Free History’, created by journalist Mikhail Zygar. It paints a vast panorama of political, military, cultural and societal events of the revolutionary year with diary entries and letters by hundreds of the era’s protagonists presented in the form of imaginary social network posts. Apart from this project – not much.  

Paradoxically, the Kremlin’s reticence regarding the anniversary of the 1917 February and October revolutions stands as indirect proof of the dates’ lasting importance today.

Vladimir Putin’s Russia is a country in which history plays a pivotal role in maintaining the legitimacy of the political regime. Putin sees himself as a leader that has given the Russians back their sense of pride. Ever since becoming president in 2000 he has been hard at work at whitewashing the Soviet period of Russian history and creating an uninterrupted narrative linking the Romanov Empire, the USSR and modern Russia. Not unlike the official French version of history, Putin’s Russian story is all about greatness – but with a twist. While France with all its respect for l’etat still sees itself as the cradle of human rights and dignity, Putin’s version of Russian history is all about the glory of the state and the people’s perennial readiness to sacrifice themselves for it.

For such a narrative, 1917 is a particularly tricky moment. On the one hand, older people, those who remember the Soviet Union, still see it as ‘their’ state. For them, 1917 is a date when this state came into being. These people also happen to be the bedrock of Putin’s support. They tend to see Vladimir Lenin in a positive light. But for most of these citizens, the revolution is rather a part of their Soviet nostalgia than a call to arms. For a significant minority – mostly the electorate of the Communist Party of Russia – it is still a shining example of social justice at a time when Russia, according to a 2015 report by Credit Suisse, is the most unequal among the world’s major economies with the richest 10 per cent owning 87 per cent of all the country’s wealth.  

On the other hand, the Russian Orthodox Church, quite justifiably, sees 1917 as the year militant atheism triumphed and nearly destroyed religious life in Russia. At the same time its condemnation of the Communist regime that ruled in Russia for the best half of the 20th century is not wholehearted. Patriarch Kirill regularly calls on the Russians to recognize the ‘positive sides’ of the Soviet period of history. Despite state atheism, the moral foundations of Soviet society remained rooted in Christianity, he told a visiting delegation of Orthodox clerics from the US in May. The patriarch compared the USSR favourably with the current state of affairs in the West, which in his words is ‘losing its Judeo-Christian foundations’.

The Russian church has a particularly delicate balancing act to perform – a significant part of its faithful and clergy consider the events of 1917 a ‘Jewish-Masonic plot’ to destroy ‘Holy Rus’. These people see Lenin and the early revolutionaries as agents of this conspiracy while treating Josef Stalin as a man who reversed the trend, eliminated the Leninist ‘old guard’ and recreated the Russian empire under a new name.

In 1943, at the height of the battles to beat back German armies in the Second World War, Stalin allowed a few Russian bishops who were lucky enough to survive the purges of the 1920s and 1930s to elect a patriarch and rebuild some church structures under tight government control. This gives an additional boost to his popularity among many Orthodox church-goers who see the Soviet dictator as a ‘saviour of Orthodoxy’. Patriarch Kirill, the first in history to be born in and raised in the USSR, cannot ignore this trend in his own church.

As if to complicate things even more, memory of the White movement, which stood up to the Bolsheviks and was defeated by them in 1922, is also controversial. The majority of Russians today are descendants of peasants and workers for whom the revolution undoubtedly provided unprecedented social advancement – if at a great cost. But ‘the Whites’ – aristocrats, merchants, intelligentsia, rich farmers – are also a vital link to more than a thousand years of Russian history with its cultural richness, military glory and the pomp and ceremony of the Romanov Empire. This makes them also indispensable to the Kremlin.

In the early 2000s Vladimir Putin personally supervised the reunification process of the Russian Orthodox Church and Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, founded in the 1920s by emigre bishops. Putin cultivates descendants of White Russian émigré families, including the Romanovs.

The authorities have repatriated to Russia for reburial the remains of those who were forced to spend their lives in emigration – White Russian commander general Anton Denikin, monarchist philosopher Ivan Ilyin, and the writer Ivan Shmelyov, known equally for his idyllic recreations of life under the Tsars in a childhood memoir The Year of Our Lord and hair-raising descriptions of the Red Terror in The Sun of the Dead.

Putin enjoys seeing himself as an inheritor of the Tsarist legacy. He could not hide his satisfaction when during a pilgrimage last year to the Russian monastery on Mount Athos he was seated on the throne reserved for the emperor. This strategy has partially paid off, with many scions of prominent Russian families supporting the 2014 annexation of the Crimea as a return of Russia’s imperial greatness and ‘an act of historical justice’.

Adding to the Kremlin’s difficulties is a minority – no more than 10 per cent of the population – that refuses to see the 1917 events in a cool and detached way, as the country’s spy chief advises. They view it as Russia’s greatest tragedy that cost the country tens of millions of victims of the civil war, famine, the Gulag and military adventurism. It may seem strange but this minority gives Putin his biggest headache, because one thing that he studiously avoids is any attempt at moral judgment in history and politics.

To paraphrase Lenin, for the Russian president anything is moral that serves the interests of the Russian state – and his own. Those who condemn the Communist regime as immoral tread on true revolutionary ground. By refusing to accept any equivalence between good and evil, they undermine the Kremlin’s cynical narrative of the state interest always trumping the individual to achieve some higher goal – modernize the country, win the war, conquer space.

It is not for nothing that Putin during his 17 years at the top of the power pyramid has denied political representation to this 10 per cent. They are the democratic parties that the Kremlin banned, took over and denied publicity and financing most. No doubt that Putin dislikes leftist and nationalist radicals as well. His attitude to them fluctuates between toleration and sporadic, selective repressions. However, they have one thing in common with the president’s world view – they share his worship of the state. The disorganized and dispirited Russian democrats do not. And this makes them especially dangerous in the eyes of the Kremlin.

What could have been the year of an honest national conversation about overcoming the tragic past and charting a course towards the future turned into 12 months of tepid enforcement of an imaginary national unity by the leadership that fears historical truth and likes to construct historical myths.

The year of two revolutions remains contentious and unexplained to the public at large. And as long as it does, the Russian civil war is not over.



Konstantin von Eggert is a commentator and host for TV Dozhd, Russia’s independent television station. He was Moscow Bureau Chief for the BBC Russian Service in 2002-2009

          RUSSIA: Babushkas rule        

Russia will be reshaped not by revolution but by urbanization and a life expectancy gap between men and women, writes Ekaterina Schulmann

Historical parallels are a curse of our time because they prevent rational analysis of social and political processes. Once you hear that 2014 is 1914 all over again, or that a certain regime is heading towards a new Nazism, this is a clear signal to stop listening, as clear as when you are advised to read Dostoevsky to gain insight into the ‘Russian soul’.

It is time to stop taking Karl Marx’s joke at face value: history does not repeat itself, either as tragedy, or as farce. Since there is an infinite supply of historical facts, it is likely that striking similarities between past and present events are based either on the magic of numbers – 1914/2014 – or on highlighting some facts while ignoring others.

The main sin of parallelism is that it negates progress. It is stuck in the Middle Ages, when the wheel of fortune decreed that nothing changed.

The same type of thinking that denies the passage of time, however, makes a fetish of space and turns geography into destiny.

People who balk at a comparison between the Russian and Venezuelan political systems are happy to compare modern Russia with the Russia of Ivan the Terrible, Nicholas II or Stalin, periods that have nothing to do with our time economically, culturally or socially.

So what are we to make of this year’s centenary of the revolutions that ended the Russian Empire, and the fashionable search for clues to the future of today’s Russia? To unpick the parallels, it is worth exploring the basic composition of Russian society then and now through demographic trends − while understanding that demography influences, but does not determine, political processes.

Looking at the demographic data of Russia for 2016 and for the Russian regions of the Empire by 1917, we see two major trends that shaped the 20th century: ageing and urbanization.

The median age of a Russian citizen of today is 39 years. In 1917, the average age of a resident of Petrograd was 19. In 1885, there were 11.6 million city dwellers in Russia, a figure that doubled within 30 years to 23.2 million in 1914. In 1940 the urban population of the USSR was 60.6 million people and in 1956, 87 million. Within 40 years, 54 million people had moved from village to town. By the late 1950s, the urban population equalled the peasantry.

Urbanization was a feature of the era that transformed agrarian societies into modern industrial ones. The grimmer appendages of this process were global wars of the type unknown to previous ages, combining the genocidal intent of Genghis Khan with new weapons capable of wiping out millions of lives. The young people wanting to climb up the social ladder by moving from the countryside to the cities could play two roles: as the drivers of progress or the cogs in great totalitarian machines of repression, as happened in Russia and China.

There are gaps in the Russian demographic pyramid that we see repeated roughly every 20 to 25 years. These are the traces of the horror that was the Russian 20th century – mostly the human loss of the Second World War, but also of the civil war, collectivization, numerous waves of genocide and organized hunger. If you compare the modern demographic pyramids of the former Soviet republics, you will see a picture resembling the Russian pyramid, but with the edges somewhat smoothed.

Today 74.4 per cent of the citizens of Russia live in cities, according to Rosstat, the Russian statistics service. Agrarian Russia, the Russia of the peasantry, is now the stuff of folklore. Given the state of the transport and road infrastructure, it is reasonable to assert that Russia today consists of 15 cities and their agglomerations, with more or less empty space in between.

There are two exceptions: the agricultural regions of Southern Russia and the national republics of the North Caucasus. Remarkably, these are also the regions with distinct political cultures and electoral behaviour differing from that of central, northern or Siberian Russia.

Ethnically, if we compare the results of the censuses of 1991 in the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, as the territory of the Russian Federation was defined in Soviet times, and the last census of 2010, we see a gradual consolidation of the ethnically Russian population. Non-Russian Judeo-Christian ethnic groups are declining or disappearing: Jews, Germans, even Ukrainians and Belarusians are markedly less numerous in 2010 than in 1991. The sole exception is the Armenians.

At the same time, there is quite significant growth of those ethnic groups that can be described as Muslim: the Azeris, the Tartars, and the Caucasian nations. Very roughly put, in the Russia of today we see two groups of unequal size, but also with unequal demographic dynamics: the generalized Russian and the generalized Muslim nations.

Having said this, it is important to remember that these are not actual ‘communities’ or even ‘ethnic groups’: there is not so much in common between the Kazan Tatars and the Chechens, while the ‘Russian’ Russians are extremely diverse.

These statistics, of course, can be readily used for all kinds of political catastrophism. They can be turned to support nationalistic propaganda of the ‘let’s declare a mono-national state before it’s too late’ type, or the ‘Russians are all dying out and being replaced by people from the Caucasus’.

In fact, Russia is not dying out in any perceivable way, the birth rates being moderately low, but on a par with the general level of countries of comparable economic status and social composition.

Looking at the demographic pyramid of 2016, we see not just an old, but an ageing population, with the predominance of women growing with each rise up the age scale. This is due to the difference in average life expectancy between the genders: men die sooner, and the more pronounced gender inequality starts after 55 years. Life expectancy has been slowly growing for the past 15 years yet according to data for 2016 it is still a shockingly low 66.5 years for males and an almost decent 77 years for females.

The real Russian demographic problem is not low birth rate, but early mortality, especially male mortality, which is almost totally due to preventable social causes: alcoholism, driving accidents, violent crime, high prison population and treatable diseases, most importantly cardiovascular.

There is a total absence of what demographers call a ‘youth bulge’ − a disproportionately high number of 15 to 25-year-olds in the population pyramid. Such a youth bulge was very visible in the population pyramid of Germany in 1933, the year Hitler was appointed Chancellor, and − in a milder form − in Russia in 1927.

Today we have instead what might be termed a youth gap − a visible failure below 25 to 29 years caused by the relatively small generation born during the first half of the 90s. The following 15 to 19 stratum is even smaller − a continuation of the low fertility of the second half of the 90s and early 2000s.

Since 2002, the birth rate has been gradually increasing, and at the base of our pyramid we see two decent-sized ‘bricks’ −Russians aged 10 years or less. Their participation in the political process is yet to come.

What does this demographic picture mean for a country’s political development? Always keeping in mind that demography affects but does not determine political processes, it is possible to discern some tendencies.

With women aged 45 and older becoming the predominant social group in Russia, this creates the impetus to shift the policy agenda towards social issues − healthcare, education, a comfortable living environment. This is in marked contrast to official budget priorities, focused on security, the military and costly foreign adventures.

The decision-makers of the ruling bureaucracy are largely males aged 60-plus, with military, secret service and law-enforcement backgrounds. Their values and interests may be not as aligned with those of the Russian majority as they would like to think.

Demography is an important factor that affects a country’s likelihood of edging towards authoritarianism. Poor demography isn’t a death sentence; however, the existence of a ‘youth bulge’ correlates with a society’s proneness to violence.

When the majority of the population in a country is over 40, protests are more likely to be peaceful and legal. At the same time, an older population has no effect on the probability of a military coup, the other bane of semi-autocracies that don’t have a politically valid mechanism for the transfer of power.

While young people go to demonstrations, older people go to elections. By casting their ballots, the old deliver the results required by the authorities and also agree to accept them as legitimate.

The latter is an important factor in a political system that relies heavily on falsifications and the use of the ‘administrative resource’ to boost turnout and achieve desirable voting outcomes. If younger Russians neither vote nor take an interest in election campaigns and their results, it erodes the election’s legitimacy, making protest activity a more attractive option.

The next generation gap, stemming from the relatively small generation born in the 1990s and early 2000s which is now entering its fertility age, will ensure a continuing need to replace the shortfall with migrant workers. This, inevitably, will form the basis of continuing political tensions for the next 15 to 20 years.

In a longer perspective, we have the continuing ultra-urbanization process that will draw Russia closer and closer to the picture of ‘15 great cities with empty spaces in between’. These are: Moscow, St Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan, Chelyabinsk, Omsk, Samara, Rostov-on-Don, Ufa, Krasnoyarsk, Perm, Voronezh and Volgograd. Close behind are Krasnodar, Saratov and Tyumen.

The cities of industrial Siberia − Tyumen, Krasnoyarsk, Tomsk, Novosibirsk − and Southern Russia and the North Caucasus − Makhachkala, Krasnodar, Rostov-on-Don − demonstrate the most stable population growth in recent years, both due to natural birth increase and migration.

These 15 to 18 cities and the surrounding territories serving them will inevitably strive to become both sources and centres of political power. This is in direct opposition to the current political system that has all-but abolished direct mayoral elections, crushed the freedoms and financial independence of municipalities and strives to uphold at least the appearance of a ‘vertical of power’ by heavy dependence on regional authorities − which, in their turn, are kept under control by a centralized budgeting system and the threat of criminal prosecution.

Both varying demographic dynamics and migration rates will widen the differences in ethnic composition between different regions and between the smaller towns and the megapolises. The core Russian territories are growing more and more uniformly Russian (and its towns are experiencing population decline), while the bigger cities present a globally familiar picture of ethnic and religious diversity.

Today even Moscow is, by international standards, almost a mono-ethnic and certainly a mono-racial city as compared with New York or London, but this will change in the coming decades. Already today the mayor of Moscow is from the Far North and the deputy mayor is from Tatarstan, a cause of some political discontent. In future we are likely to see people from Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and other parts of Central Asia who want administrative and political careers in the capital.

Today’s social tensions are often created by the average Russian’s suspicious attitude towards both working migrants in the cities and non-Russians in the administration, the courts and the police.

In the foreseeable future the ethnic shifts described above will dangerously increase those tensions, if they are not absorbed and co-opted by working political institutions, competitive public politics and pluralistic media − not exacerbated or exploited by the state-run media’s short-sighted propaganda and a monopolistic ruling elite which makes little room for the generations below them who are keen for their turn at power.



Ekaterina Schulmann is an Associate Professor in the School of Public Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration

          1/22/07 - "Horror Movies 101: The Slut Gets it First."        
I'm writing an English paper about the role of the classic theme of Death and the Maiden in Joyce Carol Oates' short story, 'Where Are You Going, Where Have You Been?" The premise of the argument (and, arguably, the theme) is that a loss of sexual purity equals death. That's right, folks: you give it up, and then you get your slutty ass murdered. Let this be a lesson to all you fornicators out there; don't say nobody warned you.

In less absurd news, Beth, the other cashier/admin girl at work (who was our third replacement for me when I got promoted, and the only one who was both good with customers and understood the concept of alphanumeric filing), is leaving to go work at Red Robin. Which means we have to find a new girl, and I have to train her. Which means I'll have to be down there working with customers for more than just a few hours in the morning and her lunch break in the afternoon. Which means my allotted web-surfing hours during the day will be greatly reduced. Weaksauce. Hopefully whatever new girl we dredge up will be moderately competent, and I'll be able to leave her alone after a couple weeks. Hopefully she's cool and doesn't put pictures of cats and Bible quotes all over the front desk. Hopefully Beth takes her cat pictures and Bible quotes with her when she leaves.

That's all for now. I need to get back to my paper, as it's due tonight at 6pm. We'll see if the prof buys it; I'm phrasing it very theoretically in a Judeo-Christian context, being sure not to capitalize my g's in "god," and setting it up as a scholarly interpretation based on the morals inherent in the theme, and not as a judgment from the author, as I don't think that's how she meant it. It's more pulpy, in the vein of a morality tale that only sells because of its exploitation of immorality.
          Christ-Actualized IS Self-Actualized        
Maslow states that, “The need for self-actualization is satisfied when we identify our true self and reach our full potential…what a man can be, he must be. He must be true to his own nature” (Burger, 2011, p. 287). Consequently defining what humanity’s ‘full potential’ looks like is crucial. Even though the defining of ‘full potential’ is wide-open for various worldviews and speculations, this paper’s definition will be grounded in a presupposed theistic and protestant worldview. This paper will show that true self-actualization is maintained and perpetuated by Christ-actualization and that both terms are ultimately complimentary if not the same.

The Puritan Catechism which underlines the core fundamentals of protestant faith states that the chief end of man is, “To glorify God and enjoy Him forever” (2011). Consequently the defining of what ‘glorifying God’ is becomes crucial. The prophet Micah answers this inquiry by stating that, “[God] has told you, O Man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8, ESV). These elements of glorifying God through practicing justice and kindness are echoed in the New Testament by Jesus’ summarizing of the entire law through the two actions of loving God with all your might and loving your neighbor as yourself (Matt. 22:36-40, ESV).

Modern psychology is beginning to echo this same sentiment – in essence discovering that altruistic behavior is one of the surest means to a life of purpose, joy, and fulfillment – i.e. self-actualization. This has especially been underlined by the research and work of Dr. Martin Seligman (2011) of the University of Pennsylvania. He states that, “… other people are the best antidote to the downs of life and the single most reliable up” (p. 20). He goes further to propose that looking through a psychological lens of altruism can bolster the heaviest hearts and bring an undeniable sense of fulfillment and peace with oneself.

Interestingly enough the four supporting ‘needs’ (i.e. physiological, safety, affiliation, and esteem) leading up to Maslow’s self-actualization pinnacle can be paralleled with what Christianity offers individuals. The biblical parallel is uncanny:

1. Matthew 6:31-33 “Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’…your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.” Maslow’s ‘Physiological Needs.’

2. Matthew 11:28 “Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” – Maslow’s ‘Safety Needs.’

3. John 6:37 “…and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.” Maslow’s ‘Social Needs.’

4. Proverbs 22:4 “The reward for humility and fear of the Lord is riches and honor and life.” Maslow’s ‘Esteem Needs.’

5. Romans 12:2 “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind.” Maslow’s ‘Self-actualization Needs.’

Here we see Judeo-Christian principles dealing with the five necessities that Maslow underlines as being the basic needs for human beings. Maslow goes further to state that, “self-actualized people tend to accept themselves for what they are. They admit their weaknesses, and they work to improve themselves… they aren’t perfect, but they respect and feel good about themselves for what they are” (Burger, 2011, p. 289). Self-actualization depends solely on the four preceding needs being met securely. Christianity and/or Christ-actualization by its inherent nature provides for these needs securely - subsequently providing individuals with the opportunity to reach their ‘full-potential’ while also being Christ-like (Christ-actualized), since their ultimate end is the glorification of God.


Burger, J.M. (2011). Personality. 8th Ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Seligman, M. (2011). Flourish. New York, NY: Free Press.

Spurgeon, C. H. (2011). The Puritan Catechism. Retrieved February 1, 2012 from:
          Altruism Beats Narcissism to the Punch!        
The greatest meaning in life can be found by individuals discovering that the greatest happiness and purpose springs from a life given to and for others – i.e. altruistic and/or servant-leadership. This has most recently been underlined by the research and work of Dr. Seligman (2011) from the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Seligman has been on the cutting-edge of creating a psychology which is dually proactive as well as reactive. Consequently, a greater life of happiness can be achieved by training our minds to operate and think in patterns which ultimately enrich our perspective rather than taint them.

Furthermore, at the root of this proactive or ‘positive psychology’ is the necessity of putting other people ahead of yourself. Seligman (2011) states, “When asked what, in two words or fewer, positive psychology is about, Christopher Peterson, one of its founders, replied, ‘other people’… other people are the best antidote to the downs of life and the single most reliable up” (p. 20). Consequently, teaching and/or learning servant-leadership is maintain the cutting-edge on what modern psychology is telling us about our psychological make-up – we were wired to altruistic… to have a higher purpose than ourselves alone.

With this understanding, Poon’s (2006) work on the dynamics and importance of mentor/mentoree relationships is underlined, since both depend upon the other creating an environment which ultimately reciprocates personal growth – i.e. an action of service to the other. Frankl underlines this himself by stating that, “personal meaning always points, and is directed, to something, someone, other than itself – be it a meaning to fulfill or another human being to encounter” (Poon, 2006, p. 6).

Furthermore, it isn’t any wonder that this type of behavior is rooted in love – a perfect love in its purest form. A love which does not insist on its own way but rather concerns itself for the wellbeing and fairness of the others involved. Turner states, “I have found that servant leadership organizations attract…. people who are motivated by the enduring power of love. In decision making, the first question any servant leader should make is, ‘what is the loving thing to do?’” (Poon, 2006, p. 6).

Quinn (2004) discusses this ‘love’ dynamic as well. He states, “Authentic engagement [a precursor to authentic leadership] means being engaged in the world of action with love for what we are doing. That love usually comes from increased integrity. To increase integrity is to live a more principled life, to be more virtuous, to be a more authentic or real person” (p. 113). Even though the love he first mentions is directed towards the ‘work’ – it is no coincidence that this ‘love’ is ultimately found in the very characteristics which represent love towards others (i.e. being virtuous & authenticity). This research rings with the sentiments of the golden rule and furthermore is quickly recognized as representing the Judeo-Christian philosophy of ‘loving your neighbor as yourself.’

For the practicing Christian or Jew, it is clearly seen that the core biblical principles of individual’s being representative of God’s love towards man is uncanny. This is exactly the effect that this reading has had on me –it has solidified my understanding and responsibility to serve my fellow man from a heart of love – a love which pushes all of us on to a greater excellence.


Poon, Randy. (2006). A Model for Servant-Leadership, Self-Efficacy, and Mentorship. Retrieved November 25, 2011 from:

Quinn, Robert E. (2004). Building the Bridge as You Walk on It. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Seligman, Martin E.P. (2011). Flourish. New York, NY: Free Press.

          Masculino / Masculino. El hombre desnudo en el arte de 1800 hasta la actualidad.        

Masculino / Masculino

Jacques Louis DavidDibujo academia de hombre, llamado Patroclo© Cherbourg, musée Thomas-Henry

¿Por qué no se ha dedicado nunca ninguna exposición al desnudo masculino hasta Nackte Männer, en el Leopold Museum de Viena, el pasado año? Para responder a esta pregunta la exposición confronta obras, mediante las épocas y las técnicas, en torno a grandes temas que han forjado la representación del cuerpo masculino, durante más de dos siglos. 
Ante todo cabe distinguir la desnudez del desnudo: un simple cuerpo sin ropa, que genera la molestia, debido a la falta de pudor, difiere de la visión realizada de un cuerpo remodelado e idealizado por el artista. Aunque se pueda matizar esta distinción, pone de relieve el valor positivo y sin tapujos del desnudo, en el arte occidental, desde el periodo clásico. 

Emile-Edmond PeynotTorso del Belveder© Beaux-Arts de Paris, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / image Beaux-arts de Paris
Para nuestra época, el desnudo evoca esencialmente un cuerpo femenino, herencia de un siglo XIX que lo erigía en absoluto y en objeto de un deseo viril asumido. Anteriormente sin embargo, el cuerpo femenino estaba menos valorizado que su homólogo masculino, más estructurado y musculoso. Al menos desde el Renacimiento, el desnudo masculino se había beneficiado de la primacía: el hombre como ser universal se confundía en el Hombre y su cuerpo se erigía en norma del género humano, como ya era el caso en el arte grecorromano. El fondo cultural judeocristiano occidental abunda en este sentido: Adán preexiste a Eva que no es más que su copia, origen del pecado. 
En su gran mayoría hombres, los artistas encuentran, en el desnudo masculino, un “yo ideal”, espejo magnificado y narcisista de ellos mismos. Hasta mitades del siglo XX, el órgano sexual es sin embargo el objeto de un cierto pudor, ya sea atrofiado o bien disimulado bajo cualquier drapeado, correa o funda de espada, sutilmente colocados. 

El Ideal clásico

Jean-Baptiste Frédéric DesmaraisEl Pastor Paris© Photo © MBAC

A partir del siglo XVII se implementan formaciones de excelencia, para los artistas más privilegiados. En el ámbito de la escultura y de la pintura de historia, la finalidad de estas enseñanzas es el dominio de la ejecución de un desnudo masculino: ocupa un lugar central en el proceso de la creación, los estudios de desnudos preparatorios teniendo por objetivo plasmar, lo mejor posible, la articulación de los cuerpos, vestidos o no, en la posición definitiva. 

En Francia, los alumnos se forman en la Academia real y posteriormente en la Academia de Bellas Artes, a partir de dibujos y de grabados, a partir del “bulto” y a partir del modelo natural vivo. Hasta una fecha bastante avanzada del siglo XX, esos modelos son solo masculinos, por motivos morales, pero también porque se considera al hombre como el arquetipo del canon humano. Para ser noble y digno de una representación artística, este cuerpo, por el que todos optan, solo puede ser el de un hombre del día a día: por lo que surge la necesidad de diluir las particularidades individuales del modelo, para elevar su sujeto. 

Más que nadie, los artistas de la Antigüedad y del Renacimiento están considerados como habiendo establecido una síntesis ideal del cuerpo humano, sin perderse en los meandros de la individualidad. Para Winckelmann, esteta alemán del siglo XVIII, la belleza ideal de las estatuas griegas solo se puede encarnar en el desnudo masculino. Aunque inspire a numerosos artistas, la “noble sencillez y calma grandeza” de los dioses winckelmannianos se pone en tela de juicio en otras lecturas del arte de la Antigüedad: el tormento del Laocoonte de la Antigüedad tardía es perceptible en el danés Abildgaard, mientras que David preconiza una virilidad más romana. 
Aunque trastornado, reinterpretado y renovado por las vanguardias del siglo XX, el desnudo masculino clásico, y su cargante herencia, sigue siendo el objeto de fascinación, hasta entre ambas guerras y la actualidad.

El Desnudo heroico

George Hoyningen-HueneHorst P. Horst, Photographie© Droits réservés

El concepto e incluso la palabra de héroe son una herencia de la Grecia antigua: medio dios o simple mortal que trasciende su condición humana para convertirse en un exemplum virtutis, encarna un ideal. La admiración por el arte y la cultura de la Antigüedad explica la omnipresencia del héroe en los círculos académicos, en particular en cuanto a los temas obligatorios para los candidatos al premio de Roma: la gran pintura de historia se nutre de las proezas de los súper hombres, con el más perfecto aspecto corpóreo. 

Vínculo de valores nobles e universales, esta correspondencia entre la anatomía y la virtud del héroe hace referencia al concepto neoplatonista que asocia la belleza y el bien. La desnudez del héroe parece tan obvia que el “desnudo heroico” es el objeto de un debate recurrente para la representación de grandes hombres, ya sea del pasado como contemporáneos, tan incongruente como pueda parecer el resultado. 
El heroísmo no es un estado. Es una forma de ser reveladora de una fuerza de carácter fuera de lo común: aunque la fuerza de Hércules sea indisociable de sus proezas, la astucia de David le permite vencer al poderoso Goliat. En ambos casos, poseen una fuerza guerrera particularmente valorizada por un siglo XIX sediento de virilidad y de afirmación patriótica: más que nunca, representa el ideal por alcanzar. 

Cabe esperar la crisis de la masculinidad en el siglo XX, para asistir a la renovación del estatuto del héroe, cada vez más contemporáneo, y a la diversificación de sus características físicas. 
Sin embargo, ya sea una estrella o un creador como Yves Saint-Laurent, o también hombres jóvenes de las calles de Harlem, pintados por el americano Kehinde Wiley, el poder evocador de la desnudez sigue presente. 

Los Dioses del estadio

Pierre y Gilles (nacidos respectivamente en 1950 y en 1953)Viva Francia© Pierre et Gilles

A lo largo del siglo XIX se inicia una nueva mirada hacia el cuerpo, más médica e higienista, cuya incidencia sobre el concepto del desnudo artístico es considerable. Se multiplican los movimientos de educación física y los gimnasios. El “deportista” fascina y, como por ejemplo del pintor Eugene Jansson, se acude para admirar y codiciar el poder viril de su cuerpo en los lugares donde se exhibe. 
Esta concepción halla su realización en el culturismo, admiración narcisista de un cuerpo convertido en objeto que se puede labrar como si se tratase de una obra. El hombre moderno de morfología atlética se convierte en un nuevo ideal potencial: encarna una belleza que da pie, sin lugar a dudas, a la comparación con el arte grecorromano. 

Vinculado con la afirmación de una identidad nacional, el atleta llega a personificar la fuerza bruta de la nación y una capacidad para defender al país, en tiempos de guerra. En Estados Unidos en la década de 1930, es el objeto de un desarrollo particular, con la valorización del hombre simple que combina fuerza física y valentía. 
Los regímenes totalitarios pervierten, por su parte, el culto del atleta al servicio de su ideología: Alemania lo asocia de forma demiúrgica a la mera invención que representa el hombre “ario”, mientras que el Gobierno de Mussolini erige los ídolos de mármol, en el Stadio dei Marmi.

Que duro es ser un héroe

Jean-Bernard DuseigneurOrlando furioso© Musée du Louvre, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Thierry Ollivier

Transgrediendo el orden establecido, el héroe mitológico se expone a la ira de los dioses y a la envidia de los hombres. Aunque tenga las pasiones del hombre, sus fallos morales y a veces su fragilidad, posee sin duda de los dioses su perfección plástica: el artista y el espectador encuentran en él, de este modo, la emanación de un yo sublimado. 
Los grandes destinos dramáticos proporcionan pues carácter a las composiciones y permiten traducir toda una gama de emociones, desde la resolución hasta la desesperación, de la hosquedad al reposo eterno. 

Aunque sea un tópico decir que el rostro es lo que mejor transcribe la expresión los sentimientos – teorizados e institucionalizados, desde los dibujos de Le Brun hasta el concurso de la “cabeza de expresión” de la Escuela de Bellas Artes –, no se debe infravalorar el papel ineludible del cuerpo y de la anatomía como vector emocional: algunas elecciones formales pasan a ser incluso convenciones admitidas de forma común. 
La mitología y la epopeya homérica presentan abundantes destinos fatales y las pasiones destructoras del héroe cuya desnudez se legitimiza mediante el arraigo al mundo helenístico antiguo: Corta exposición del cuerpo desmembrado del infortunado Hipólito, premonición de la transposición en el universo clásico del Caído por la patriade Lecomte du Nouÿ. 

Nuda Veritas

Auguste Rodin  (1840-1917)  L'Age d'airain [La edad de bronce]  Entre 1877 y 1880  Estatua de bronce  Alt. 178; Anch. 59; P. 61,5 cm.  París, museo de Orsay
Auguste RodinLa edad de bronce© RMN-Grand Palais (Musée d'Orsay) / Thierry Ollivier

La estética realista que se ampara del arte occidental, durante el siglo XIX, trastorna la representación de la desnudez masculina. El cuerpo, tal y como está representado en toda la veracidad de la naturaleza, ahora ya no dispone de la distanciación, acorde con la urbanidad que caracterizaba la idealización, objetivo del ejercicio del desnudo académico. 
En este contexto en el que desvelar un cuerpo vulnera el pudor – el hombre desnudo parece todavía más obsceno y chocante que la mujer, en la sociedad del siglo XIX en la que reina la dominación masculina – el desnudo masculino pasa a ser gradualmente todavía más escaso, al proliferar las figuras femeninas. 

Esta inversión de tendencia no implica, sin embargo, que desaparezcan los hombres desnudos: su estudio científico, mediante nuevas técnicas, como la descomposición del movimiento con series de fotografías tomadas en ráfaga – la cronofotografía –, hace progresar los conocimientos anatómicos y transforma la enseñanza dispensada a los artistas. 
A partir de entonces, se trata menos, para los artistas más vanguardistas, de alcanzar un canon de belleza heredado del pasado, que un cuerpo cuya armonía siga siendo fiel a las características del modelo. 

El poder evocador del desnudo inspira a artistas como el austriaco Schiele, autorretratos desnudos que revelan los tormentos existenciales del artista. Otorgándole a veces una dimensión crística, representaciones así superan el realismo, para acceder a una introspección, alcanzando una gran posteridad hasta el siglo XXI, en particular en fotografía.

Sin complacencia

La fascinación por lo real que se impone en los círculos artísticos de mitades del siglo XIX, origina una profunda renovación en la pintura religiosa. Aunque el recurso a la idealización de la Antigüedad en los cuerpos pareciese acorde con el dogma religioso, artistas como Bonnat le proporcionan un nuevo aliento, al representar personajes bíblicos en la cruel verdad de su condición física.
William BouguereauIgualdad ante la muerte© Musée d'Orsay, dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Patrice Schmidt

Este principio ya se había implementado en Igualdad ante la muerte de Bouguereau quien, en sus comienzos, adoptó, en el contexto de los últimos coletazos del romanticismo, la fuerza de la imagen de un cadáver ordinario. Lejos de embellecer al novelista que se le pide homenajear, Rodin pretende plasmar el tipo físico corpulento de Balzac, con una implacable fidelidad, sin restarle sin embargo su magnificencia. 

Se plantea entonces la cuestión de la relación del arte con la realidad, a la que Ron Mueck se dedica en su obra. Y la extrañeza generada por una modificación de escala, proporciona una intensidad al cuerpo muerto de su padre que entra en resonancia con el difunto de Bouguereau. 

Im Natur

Frédéric BazilleEl pescador y el gavilán© © Lylho / Leemage

La inscripción del cuerpo desnudo en un paisaje no es un nuevo reto, para los artistas del siglo XIX. En muchos respectos, se trata incluso de un elemento recurrente de la gran pintura de historia y de un ejercicio plásticamente exigente, prisma mediante el que se juzga el dominio técnico de los artistas.
Se trata en efecto de alcanzar la mayor precisión en las correspondencias de proporción, de profundidad y de enfoque, entre el cuerpo desnudo y su entorno. Aunque El pescador y el gavilán de Bazille sea uno de los intentos más logrados – en un contexto contemporáneo– de la inscripción de un hombre desnudo en la luz atmosférica que se convierte en aquella de los impresionistas, no olvida sin embargo los principios de la construcción académica. 

La desnudez masculina en la naturaleza toma otro significado conforme se va transformando la sociedad, con el progreso técnico y la urbanización. El hombre está entonces en busca de una comunión con la naturaleza, que le pueda reconciliar con los excesos y el desarraigo, generados por el mundo moderno, a la vez que se conforma a las teorías higienistas que recomiendan el ejercicio físico y el aire libre. 

Hippolyte FlandrinJoven sentado a orillas del mar, estudio© Musée du Louvre, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Angèle Dequier
Esta dimensión filosófica que inspira a pintores como Hodler y Munch, ya se hacía sentir en El joven a orillas del mar de Flandrin, cuya perfección de las formas crea una armonía entre el cuerpo y la ribera. Este sentimiento de plenitud explica, sin duda, la fama de la imagen, en particular en los círculos homosexuales clandestinos de antes de la Primera Guerra Mundial, que inspira ya a Gloeden, en fotografías en las que los cuerpos desnudos entran en fusión con la luz mediterránea de Sicilia.

En el dolor

Los desvíos que se autorizan los artistas, respecto a las normas clásicas, les abren nuevas perspectivas para una representación más expresiva del cuerpo, ya sea en el tormento o el sufrimiento. El declive del desnudo académico y de la temperancia clásica explica una predilección por los suplicios, como el de Ixión, condenado por Zeus a mantenerse atado a una rueda en llamas, en una rotación infinita.
Las contorsiones del cuerpo también pueden expresar tormentos más psicológicos. El dolor del cuerpo masculino contribuye naturalmente a los retos de poder entre el hombre y la mujer, en el periodo contemporáneo: el cuerpo desnudo puede ser envilecedor y, en determinadas condiciones, de índole a poner en tela de juicio la virilidad y la dominación masculina. No es inocente, en este particular, que Louise Bourgeois haya elegido una figura masculina para su Arch of Hysteria.
David LaChapelleWould-Be Martyr and 72 virgins© Courtesy Galerie Daniel Templon, Paris. © David LaChapelle

Sin embargo, el martirio no genera composiciones torturadas: la muerte de Abel, asesinado por su hermano Caín en el Libro del Génesis, parece al contrario nutrir una pose de última relajación, característica de un cuerpo a punto de expirar. Este abandono no deja de ser, no obstante, ambivalente, lo que los artistas destacan con determinación: el cuerpo, a menudo magnificado y en una cierta éxtasis mórbida se ofrece, en efecto, al deleite del espectador.
En estas condiciones, el sufrimiento no es más que un artificio, para justificar una nueva fetichización del cuerpo. De forma opuesta a la seducción, fotógrafos realizan experimentos, para descuartizar el cuerpo, en una perspectiva estética, o incluso lúdica.

El Cuerpo glorioso

François-Xavier FabreSan Sebastián expirando© Musée Fabre de Montpellier Agglomération - cliché Frédéric Jaulmes

La cultura judeocristiana influencia innegablemente la representación del hombre desnudo, a partir del arte del periodo moderno. Sin embargo, la concepción católica del cuerpo entra en contradicción con desvelarlo, desde la era paleocristiana: tan solo sería un mero envoltorio carnal, del que se libera el alma del cristiano al morir. 
Bajo la influencia de los teólogos que recomiendan la alianza de lo sensible y de lo espiritual, la desnudez se impone no obstante paulatinamente, para figuras de mayor relevancia como las de Cristo y de San Sebastián. Su cuerpo martirizado, trascendido por un sufrimiento, soportado gracias a la fe, permite así mismo, paradójicamente al alma humana, acercarse a Dios. 

Para la iglesia católica, la vulnerabilidad del cuerpo de Cristo sometido a los sufrimientos y portador de los estigmas proclama su humanidad, mientras que su rostro inspirado y su cuerpo obviamente idealizado, heredados de cánones clásicos subyacentes, muestran su divinidad. 

La figura de San Sebastián es particularmente compleja: este santo popular, parangón del mártir que sobrevive a su primer suplicio, encarna la victoria de la vida sobre la muerte. Este impulso vital no es sin duda ajeno a su belleza juvenil y desvelar su cuerpo, ambos aspectos adquiridos ya por el siglo XVII. 

Por consecuencia, su representación se aleja insensiblemente del dogma católico, para adquirir una autonomía propia y una libertad sin precedentes: la sensualidad del santo pretende estar cada vez más presente, mientras que su sufrimiento a veces es imperceptible. En esta búsqueda de voluptuosidad, solo sigue estando prohibido hasta el siglo XX, desvelar el sexo. 

La Tentación del macho

Paul CadmusEl Baño (The Bath)© Whitney Museum of American Art, NY - Art © Jon F. Anderson, Estate of Paul Cadmus / ADAGP, Paris 2013

A partir de mitades del siglo XX, una mirada que asume el deseo por el cuerpo del hombre y la liberación de las costumbres, dan lugar a obras atrevidas. Así mismo, Paul Cadmus no duda, en la sin embargo puritana América posterior a la Segunda Guerra Mundial, en tomar por tema una escena de ligue entre hombres, en un Finistère muy improbable. 

Aunque el atractivo físico de los cuerpos se haya mantenido durante mucho tiempo en el secreto de los interiores privados, aparece cada vez más a la luz del día, en círculos de sociabilidad exclusivamente masculinos, como la ducha colectiva, o también bajo el pretexto de la reconstitución de una Antigüedad platónica.

El erotismo pasa a ser incluso muy crudo en Cocteau, cuya influencia es segura en Warhol, en sus años de juventud. La belleza y la seducción se deshacen entonces del ideal transmitido por las referencias del pasado, para arraigarse a las peculiaridades de las prácticas y de la cultura contemporánea, que supo interpretar tan acertadamente Hockney en su pintura.

El Objeto del deseo

Anne-Louis GirodetEl sueño de Endimión© Cliché J. Faujour/musée Girodet, Montargis

Durante mucho tiempo, el cuerpo masculino en el arte ha sido el objeto de una “objetivación”: la admiración sin límites por la perfección de los desnudos grecorromanos, pura reconstrucción intelectual de un cuerpo convertido en canon, ha hecho que su lectura sea acorde con los buenos modales, incluso aquella de Winckelmann, que conlleva sin embargo una fuerte carga erótica. 
Aunque los círculos academicistas fomentasen naturalmente el desnudo en la gran pintura de historia, algunos temas no ocultaban sin embargo toda la sensualidad y ambigüedad. En el giro del siglo XIX, las reflexiones sobre los caracteres propios a cada sexo y sus fronteras nutren un interés por los amores bisexuales de Júpiter o de Apolo, y la fórmula de un joven héroe muriendo en los brazos de su amante tiene particularmente éxito. 

En Girodet, Endimión adopta los rasgos de un efebo con el cuerpo sensualmente acariciado por los rayos de la diosa luna, que ha inspirado numerosas interpretaciones homo eróticas. En los simbolistas, como en Gustave Moreau, la diferencia entre los sexos se consuma en detrimento de un hombre vulnerable, bajo el imperio de una fuerza fatal y destructora, identificada como femenina.

En el lado opuesto, sin embargo, y en base a un modo menos dramático, Hodler representa el nacimiento de un amor adolescente entre un hombre joven ensimismado y una muchacha joven dominada por su encanto.

A lo largo del siglo XIX, la sensualidad y la erotización asumida, consideradas como propias del cuerpo femenino, afectan seriamente la virilidad tradicional del desnudo masculino: este golpe sin embargo no es fatal, ya que el desnudo masculino está muy lejos de desaparecer en el siglo XX.

La liberación de las prácticas sexuales afirma alto y claro una cierta voluptuosidad y envuelve de una carga sexual el cuerpo masculino, a menudo con pocas reservas. El modelo está generalmente identificado, señal de una afirmación de la individualidad de la obra, como en Pierre y Gilles que mezclan mitología y retrato contemporáneo.


¿Qué tan rápido es usted echando culpas? ¿No le parece sospechoso lo fácil que es culpar al gobierno federal o a un pobre hombre encumbrado con el cargo de presidente de lo sucedido en un casino de Monterrey? ¿No le da desconfianza que podamos culpar tan rápido al vecino por un embotellamiento?

No me mal entienda, no quiero decir, ni siquiera insinuar, que Tarski me guarde, que usted o yo o todos no tengamos razón cuando repartimos culpas. Sócrates sabe que nosotros somos juiciosos, prejuiciosos y prontos a las interpretaciones desinformadas pero bien razonadas.

Igual que usted, yo creo que soy especial, que soy mejor que los demás, al menos un poco, un poquito nomás. También sé que soy uno de los pocos que no se compran la realidad predigerida de los medios, que soy parte de una minoría inocente que si a cuentas nos ponemos parece más bien una mayoría aplastante. Pero no, usted y yo lo sabemos y lo tenemos claro: somos de esos poquísimos que son muchísimos.

Pero incluso así, con todo y que sé que soy de los que leen y que presumo que leo los periódicos aunque lo haga sólo cada tercer día y por encimita, con todo y mi seguridad de rebelde; me da desconfianza la culpa, no me gusta, me da asquito. No me gusta endilgarla ni que me la enfunden. Dirá usted que esto es más bien un exceso de conciencia judeocristianoburguesa, también podrá usted pensar que me pagó el gobierno, pero yo sigo incómodo con eso de presumir culpables por presumibles que sean.

¿Quién tiene la culpa de los muertos? ¿De verdad usted lo sabe? ¿Ya pensó bien en la pregunta? Yo no. No tengo ni la más mocha y puta idea. Igual que usted desconfío del discurso oficial, pero desconfío mucho más del discurso fácil del ciudadano común y corriente. Para ser más claro, no sé ni cuál es el problema, no lo alcanzo a entender porque nadie parece querer explicármelo y yo no he conseguido explicármelo solito. Sin el problema, aventurar una respuesta me parece una animalada, cómo sé yo que se trata de descubrir al culpable, o de corregir el rumbo del país con un par de buenas consignas.

¿El problema son los muertos? ¿Estamos seguros? ¿El problema es buscar al culpable de los muertos? ¿Estamos seguros? Yo no. Que los muertos son un problema parece que nadie lo cuestiona, pero los muertos pueden ser o no muchos problemas, depende, como dicen los economistas. Pero ser uno o muchos problemas no los convierte en El problema.

No tengo nada más que decirle. No hay una conclusión inteligente a todo esto. No hay ni una conclusión idiota si a esas vamos, quizá usted sí la tenga, yo no.

Algo sí sabemos, los muertos parecen menos importantes que las culpas. Pero eso, eso no es el problema ¿o sí?

          Â¿Es Donald Trump un nuevo Hitler?        
Es una pregunta que cada vez más gente se hace, pero para empezar comencemos con lo primero.

¿Podrá terminar Trump su primer periodo cómo presidente de los EEUU?

Pues tal como se ven las cosas está de dudarse. Su arribo a la Casa Blanca no fue bienvenido por muchos; pero ya una vez instalado en la oficina oval se ha encargado de encontrar nuevos enemigos, aparte de los que ya traía arrastrando desde que inició su campaña electoral, emitiendo decretos a diestra y siniestra que afectan directamente a intereses muy poderosos.

Hacer un resumen de todas sus acciones de gobierno controvertidas sería un poco largo, así que sólo mencionarélas más importantes.

La primera fue sacar a los EEUU del Acuerdo Transpacífico de Cooperación Económica, TPP, situación que afectó gravemente a las corporaciones industriales y de comercio globales.

La segunda fue decretar la renegociación del tratado de libre comercio de América del norte, TLCAN, acción quéafecta directamente a importantes conglomerados industriales estadounidenses, amén de a la economía mexicana.

La tercera es colocar al ultra derechista, racista y supremacista blanco, Steven Bannon, cómo estratega en jefe de la geopolítica estadounidense; así es, lo ha puesto al frente del consejo de seguridad nacional. Éste sujeto es el gurú de Trump y su mano derecha. Es la mente "maestra" detrás del programa de gobierno de Trump, pero es un tipo bastante peligroso por su extremismo.

Cuando Trump fue a visitar la sede de la CIA inmediatamente después de ser investido cómo presidente, fue a advertirles que Bannon sería su jefe, pues el consejo de seguridad nacional es el órgano ejecutivo que está por encima de todos ellos, inclusive sobre el pentágono. Así que en realidad fue a enfrentarlos por su agresividad mostrada hacia su persona, aunque la nota de prensa dijera que sólo fue una reunión amistosa.

Recuerdo que cuando la polémica llamada telefónica de Trump a Peña Nieto, estaban ahí presentes, "asesorando" al presidente yankee, precisamente este sujeto, Steven Bannon, y el yerno de Trump, el judío Jared Kushner.

La cuarta es acusar a China de practicar un comercio desleal con los EEUU a través de mantener artificialmente depreciado el Yuan con respecto al Dólar, situación que lo ha llevado a considerar seriamente la devaluación de la moneda estadounidense por considerar que, "su valor elevado es un obstáculo que está llevando a la ruina a los EEUU", según sus propias palabras.

También el estratega en jefe de Trump, Steven Bannon, habría declarado que en 5 o 10 años los EEUU entrarían en guerra militar contra China e Irán; guerra cuyo objetivo sería mantener la supremacía del imperio yankee en el mundo.

Dentro de los EEUU estaría llevando a cabo reformas fundamentales como derogar el obamacare, así como el 70% de los demás decretos de su predecesor, incluyendo el acuerdo nuclear con Irán. También estaría limpiando los altos mandos de los órganos de poder cómo la CIA, el FBI y el pentágono.

También estaría quitando la financiación estatal a las clínicas que practican abortos, así como a los programas del gobierno anterior que promovían la agenda gay o LGTB y, estaría prohibiendo las ONG'S que promueven tales prácticas. Llegando al extremo de pedir a los funcionarios de gobierno del sexo femenino vestirse como mujeres.

Ésta última medida ya raya en el fanatismo religioso, recordándome a los fanáticos extremistas musulmanes takfirís que quieren imponer la sharía a todos.

Otra de sus medidas controvertidas es el rechazo a la teoría del cambio climático provocado por la actividad humana y, por consiguiente, el rechazo a los protocolos de Kyoto, así como a los acuerdos alcanzados en la reciente cumbre sobre cambio climático celebrada en París. Para muchos ésta medida de Trump representa el apocalipsis climático, poniendo en peligro la supervivencia de la especie humana.

Como verán, Trump representa lo que muchos teóricos de la conspiración desearon ver en un líder, pero también representa una amenaza para muchos otros.

Y esos muchos otros eventualmente buscarán como eliminar a Donald Trump.

Esa es una percepción que comparte mucha gente, no solo los de la élite que se ve perjudicada por las acciones de Donald Trump, pues, como en el caso de los mexicanos, sus medidas afectarán directamente a millones de ellos.

Trump encarna el moderno nacionalismo, pero no un nacionalismo sano, al menos no lo parece así en muchas de sus acciones de gobierno que ha emprendido, como la discriminación a algunos sectores de la sociedad estadounidense y a determinados grupos de extranjeros, como los inmigrantes musulmanes de los países a los que ellos han invadido y destruido, a excepción de los aliados de Israel como Arabia Saudita y Egipto.

Otro hecho delicado es la petición de Trump a los empleados de gobierno de sexo femenino a vestirse como mujeres. Y es preocupante porque eso ya es meterse con la vida privada de la gente, además, ¿Quién tiene el derecho a decidir que es vestirse como hombre o mujer?; eso es algo subjetivo. De ahí a prohibir determinada religión, tradición o costumbre, solo por el hecho de que a él no le guste, sólo le separa un paso.

Y así lo han entendido algunas comunidades indígenas autóctonas estadounidenses al advertir que Donald Trump las quiere exterminar.

Así empezó Hitler, discriminando a ciertos sectores de la sociedad alemana como los gitanos, los comunistas, los gays y los judíos. Pero antes de ellos, comenzó a discriminar a los propios alemanes que padeciesen alguna discapacidad; incluso con ellos empezó a ensayar sus métodos de exterminio en masa como lo fueron las cámaras de gases.

Cuando Hitler comenzó a amenazar a sus vecinos nadie hizo nada, pues pensaron: no somos nosotros, a nosotros no nos pasará. Así que cuando Hitler invadió Checoslovaquia el mundo no reaccionó, y cuando atacó Lituania tampoco actuó, y cuando invadió Polonia tampoco hicieron nada. Solo hasta que vieron afectados directamente sus intereses fue cuando se movilizaron.

Pues así está el día de hoy el mundo respecto a Donald Trump; no digo que Trump sea un nuevo Hitler, pero el perfil lo cubre, al menos en algunos aspectos. Y lo afirmo por lo anteriormente expuesto, y porque así como Hitler empezóa amenazar a sus vecinos, así lo está haciendo Donald Trump.

Hitler decía que los demás se habían aprovechado de Alemania y hacia reclamaciones territoriales a sus vecinos porque presuntamente los alemanes tenían derecho sobre esas tierras al haber una importante comunidad germana allí. Es así como invadió a sus vecinos y se anexó parte de su territorio.

Así está Trump, dice que los mexicanos nos hemos aprovechado de los estadounidenses y ha amenazado con enviar fuerzas militares a México para “combatir el narcotráfico”, porque según él, “no permitirá que sigan destruyendo sus ciudades”, toda una retórica falaz y tendenciosa, encaminada a lograr una ocupación militar de México y su posterior desmembramiento. Claro, el gobierno mexicano salió a decir que era falsa la noticia, pero la duda quedó ahí.

Sumando ésto a los reclamos de Donald Trump hacia China y Alemania a los que ha acusado de aprovecharse de los EEUU, la similitud entre ambos casos toma más fuerza.

A china le ha recriminado la supuesta devaluación artificial del Yuan para darle una ventaja competitiva a las manufacturas chinas; a Alemania la ha acusado de algo similar, pues según Trump Alemania utiliza el Euro para darle una ventaja competitiva a sus productos, pues según él, Alemania mantiene artificialmente bajo el precio del Euro respecto al Dólar, es decir, lo mantiene por debajo de su valor real.

Por estas razones estamos ante una incógnita, pues aunque Trump ha venido a cumplir muchos de los deseos de los conspiracionistas (entre ellos yo), es decir, ha hecho posible la anulación del TTP, la eliminación de la agenda LGTB, ha acabado con la promoción y financiación estatal del aborto, parece promover los valores judeo-cristianos, ha deslegitimado la hipótesis del cambio climático provocado por la actividad humana (en ésto no estoy del todo de acuerdo pues creo el factor humano es clave) etcétera; también ha tomado medidas que van en el sentido contrario, como las que ya comenté.

Algunos dicen que Hitler fue el resultado de una profunda crisis económica que vivía Alemania por causa de las sanciones económicas impuestas por las naciones vencedoras de la primera guerra mundial, y que Trump es el resultado de la crisis económica que padece Estados Unidos, pero en realidad casi nada tiene que ver una cosa con la otra, a excepción de la personalidad de ambos personajes, pues la crisis estadounidense no se compara en nada a lo que vivía la Alemania pre-nazi; aquello si era verdaderamente desastroso, con un marco alemán sufriendo una devaluación descomunal, todo lo contrario al Dólar actual; también los problemas económicos germanos eran consecuencia directa de las sanciones económicas internacionales, en cambio la crisis económica estadounidense es consecuencia directa de la mala administración de sus autoridades, específicamente de la pésima política monetaria de la FED, y no por sanciones internacionales o como consecuencia de medidas tomadas por terceros.

Por todo lo anterior se vale preguntarnos: ¿es Donald Trump la reencarnación de Hitler? Pues no hay una respuesta hasta el momento, pero lo podría ser; pero de lo que no hay duda es que su reinado marcará un punto de inflexión en la historia humana reciente; ya lo estamos viendo.

           The Transgender Endgame is Transhumanism        
The 'Gay' Agenda is Not Finished 

The goal of transhumanism is to 
use technology to release mankind 
from the "confines" of nature. It sounds
good but, really, it is re-engineering humanity
to be slaves. 
Scott Lively relates the history of 
the homosexual agenda and explains that 
the goal of transgenderism is 
to break the natural mold. 

Scott Lively is the co-author with Kevin Abrams of The Pink Swastika, (1995) the definitive account of role of homosexuality in the Nazi Party. 

by Dr. Scott Lively

The ultimate goal of the "gay" movement has always been the elimination of the restrictions on sexual "freedom" imposed by Judeo-Christian civilization.  

Others have desired this result, but homosexuals have always pursued it hardest because their sexual appetites deviate furthest from the Biblical "one flesh" norm of lifetime heterosexual monogamy.  For example, male homosexuality was a capital offence under the Mosaic Law, while a limited form of polygamy was discouraged but tolerated. In other words, "gays" have the most to lose under a Biblically-influenced legal and social system and thus the greatest motivation to overthrow it. 

The Marquis de Sade, for whom sadism is named, articulated the goal of the gay movement.  Sade's Philosophy in the Boudoir (1795) called for the decriminalization of sexual crimes, including specifically pederasty (man/boy sex) and sodomy, on the grounds that they were not actually "against nature" as the common law asserted. 

Sade was an extreme libertine whose sexual practices included torture and murder. He was sentenced to death (in absentia) in 1772 for sodomizing his manservant and for poisoning prostitutes.  In his time, he was considered a reprobate driven by insanity and/or demonic possession. But today his concept of "sexual freedom" thrives in popular culture throughout the west, thanks primarily to the "gay rights" movement. 


The LGBT movement was formally organized in the mid 1800s in Germany by Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, founder of the Scientific Humanitarian Committee with the stated goal of decriminalizing sodomy.  The term "homosexual" was coined at that time to cast sodomy as a medical condition rather than a moral weakness, and Ulrichs pioneered the "born that way" argument with his "Third Sex" theory of homosexuality.  

His successor, Magnus Hirschfeld, coined the term "transvestite."  "Gay rights" first went mainstream in Germany in the 1920s and 30s where it was championed by the Society for Human Rights (SHR) whose most notorious member was Ernst Roehm, head of the dreaded Nazi Sturmabteilung or "Storm Troopers."   

The earliest, but short-lived, American "gay rights" entity was a chapter of the SHR launched in Chicago in 1924 by a German-American soldier named Henry Gerber.  More instrumental to the cause was Herbert Marcuse of the Frankfort School (which birthed Cultural Marxism) and his strategy of defeating Judeo-Christian civilization by "elimination of the monogamic...and patriarchal family." 

From the US, the movement went global in the "sexual revolution" of the 1960s, the groundwork for which was laid in the late 1940s by the "Father of Gay Rights" Harry Hay, and in-the-closet "gay" activist Alfred Kinsey.  

In the Stonewall Riot of 1969, the movement abandoned its pretext of seeking only "tolerance" and began aggressively pursuing total political control.  Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, the "Father of Gay Cultural Supremacy," assured that outcome by writing all five of the majority opinions of the court that enshrined LGBT political goals in constitutional law.  

The fifth and final of these rulings, establishing "gay marriage" by judicial fiat in the Obergefell v Hodges case, has been perceived by many as the final blow to Biblical sexual values, with the transgender fight seen as simply a "mop-up" operation.  However, the order in which LGBT "rights" were championed gives a clue as to what comes next, and it is actually the biggest and most consequential fight in the so-called culture war.  

The fight to decriminalize sodomy was first and represented a challenge to notions of sexual conduct in law.  Concurrent with that effort was 1) the promotion of heterosexual promiscuity, and 2) a change in the legal definition of sodomy from it's common-law grounding in Leviticus 18:22-23 which forbids male homosexuality and sex with animals by either gender.  (Classically, sodomy thus has two forms: sex between two people of the same gender and sex with animals.) From that very specific relationship-focus, modern statutory law shifted to banning oral and anal sexual relations by either gender.  

This drew the increasingly promiscuous heterosexual population into the fight and ensured sodomy's eventual decriminalization.  To show just how contemporary that fight really is, consider that the 2012 repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the United States military first required the legalization of sex with animals, because sodomy was still defined according to the common law. 

Next came the battle for "gay marriage" which attacks the "one flesh" model for marriage and the natural family, the cornerstone of civilization.   

The supposedly "last" and current fight is over transgenderism which goes much deeper and attacks the very bedrock on which civilization's cornerstone rests.  It challenges what it means to be human by attacking the fundamental order of creation - the binary nature of gender - which is a reflection of the very image of God in humanity (Genesis 1:27). 

Ultimately, the "gay" agenda is simply a sub-plot of the larger Satanic agenda and now that LGBT goals appear nearly fully realized, the hidden hands behind them (both human and demonic) are coming into view.  The puppet-masters who have made "gay" supremacy possible have been working backward from the branch to the root to bring chaos out of order -- the ultimate satanic goal: first confusion of sexuality as conduct, then confusion of marriage and family, then confusion of gender, and next confusion of what the Bible calls "kinds."

 It is not just the deconstruction of civilization but the dissolution of all boundaries between human and animal and machine, to produce creatures that are a blend of all three.  

We are witnessing the end-game before our very eyes but few recognize what they are seeing. What is next in the LGBT agenda is transhumanism.  Satan is fashioning a final comprehensive counterfeit alternative to the creation over which Man finally assumes that he has accessed the Tree of Life and is persuaded that he is God, destroying himself and "goodness" itself in the process. 


          Misconceptions about Islam        
Misconception #1: Muslims worship a different God

First of all, there is only One God who created the Universe and all of mankind. Throughout history, people have created false gods in their minds and come up with false ideas about Almighty God, but regardless of this there is still only One True God - and He alone is worthy of worship. Unfortunately, some non-Muslims have come to incorrectly believe that Muslims worship a different God than Jews and Christians. This might be due to the fact that Muslims sometimes refer to God as "Allah", but also because over the centuries there have been many lies and distortions spread by the enemies of Islam. In actuality, Muslims worship the God of Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus --- the same God as Christians and Jews. The word "Allah" is simply the Arabic word for Almighty God and it is the same word that Arabic speaking Christians and Jews use to refer to God. If you pick up an Arabic translation of the Christian Bible, you will see the word "Allah" where "God" is used in English. For more information on the word "Allah", please read: Who is Allah? But even though Muslims, Jews and Christians believe in the same God, their concepts about Him differ quite a bit. For example, Muslims reject the idea of the Trinity or that God has become "incarnate" in the world. Also, the teachings of Islam do not rely on or appeal to "mystery" or "paradox" --- they are straightforward and clear. Islam teaches that God is Merciful, Loving and Compassionate and that He has no need to become man (nor do humans need for Him to). One of the unique aspects of Islam is that it teaches that man can have a personal and fulfilling relationship with Almighty God without compromising the transcendence of God. In Islam there is no ambiguity in Divinity --- God is God and man is man. Muslims believe that God is the "Most Merciful", and that he deals directly with human-beings without the need of any intermediary. Actually, the phrase "In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful" is one of the most repeated verses in the Holy Qur'an. Additionally, the pure and straightforward teachings of Islam demand that Almighty God be approached directly and without intermediaries. This is because Muslims believe that God is completely in control of everything and that He can bestow His Grace and Mercy on His creatures as He pleases - no Atonement, Incarnation or blood sacrifice is necessary. In summary, Islam calls people to submit to the One True God and to worship Him alone.

Misconception #2: Muslims worship Muhammad

According to Islamic belief, the Prophet Muhammad was the last Messenger of God. He, like all of God's prophets and messengers - such as Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus -- was only a human being. Christians came to the mistaken assumption that Muslims worship Muhammad by formulating an incorrect analogy - they worship Jesus so they assumed Muslims worship Muhammad. This is one of the reasons that they called Muslims by the incorrect name "Mohammedans" for so many years! Muhammad, like Jesus, never claimed divine status. He called people to worship only Almighty God, and he continually emphasized his humanity so that people would not fall into the same errors as Christians did in regards to Jesus. In order to prevent his deification, the Prophet Muhammad always said to refer to him as "the Messenger of God and His slave". Muhammad was chosen to be God's final messenger --- to communicate the message not only in words but to be a living example of the message. Muslims love and respect him because he was of the highest moral character and he brought the Truth from God - which is the Pure Monotheism of Islam. Even when Islam was in its very early stages, God revealed that Muhammad "was sent as a mercy to all of mankind" - thus informing us that the message of Islam would become very widespread. Muslims strive to follow the great example of Muhammad, peace be upon him, but they do not worship him in any way. Additionally, Islam teaches Muslims to respect all of God's prophets and messengers - but respecting and loving them does not mean worshipping them. All true Muslims realize that all worship and prayer must be directed to Almighty God alone. Suffice it to say that worshipping Muhammad --- or anyone else --- along with Almighty God is considered to be the worst sin in Islam. Even if a person claims to be Muslim, but they worship and pray to other than Almighty God, this cancels and nullifies their Islam. The Declaration of Faith of Islam makes it clear that Muslims are taught only to worship God. This declaration is as follows: "There is nothing divine or worthy of being worshipped except for Almighty God, and Muhammad is the Messenger and Servant of God".

Misconception #3: Islam is a religion only for Arabs

The fastest way to prove that this is completely false is to state the fact that only about 15% to 20% of the Muslims in the world are Arabs. There are more Indian Muslims than Arab Muslims, and more Indonesian Muslims than Indian Muslims! Believing that Islam is only a religion for Arabs is a myth that was spread by the enemies of Islam early in its history. This mistaken assumption is possibly based on the fact that most of the first generation of Muslims were Arabs, the Qur'an is in Arabic and the Prophet Muhammad was an Arab. However, both the teachings of Islam and the history of its spread show that the early Muslims made every effort to spread their message of Truth to all nations, races and peoples. Furthermore, it should be clarified that not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs. An Arab can be a Muslim, Christian, Jew, atheist - or of any other religion or ideology. Also, many countries that some people consider to be "Arab" are not "Arab" at all -- such as Turkey and Iran (Persia). The people who live in these countries speak languages other than Arabic as their native tongues and are of a different ethnic heritage than the Arabs. It is important to realize that from the very beginning of the mission of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, his followers came from a wide spectrum of individuals -- there was Bilal, the African slave; Suhaib, the Byzantine Roman; Ibn Salam, the Jewish Rabbi; and Salman, the Persian. Since religious truth is eternal and unchanging, and mankind is one universal brotherhood, Islam teaches that Almighty God's revelations to mankind have always been consistent, clear and universal. The Truth of Islam is meant for all people regardless of race, nationality or linguistic background. Taking a look at the Muslim World, from Nigeria to Bosnia and from Malaysia to Afghanistan is enough to prove that Islam is a Universal message for all of mankind --- not to mention the fact that significant numbers of Europeans and Americans of all races and ethnic backgrounds are coming into Islam.

Misconception #4: Islam degrades women

Even though many aspects of Islam are misunderstood by non-Muslims, the ignorance, misinformation and incorrect assumptions that are made in regards to Islam's treatment of women are probably the most severe. Numerous verses of the Qur'an make it clear that men and women are equal in the site of God. According to the teachings of Islam, the only thing that distinguishes people in the site of God is their level of God-consciousness. Due to this, many people are surprised to find out that Islamic Law guaranteed rights to women over 1400 years ago that women in the Europe and America only obtained recently. For example, Islam clearly teaches that a woman is a full-person under the law, and is the spiritual equal of a male. Also, according to Islamic Law, women have the right to own property, operate a business and receive equal pay for equal work. Women are allowed total control of their wealth, they cannot be married against their will and they are allowed to keep their own name when married. Additionally, they have the right to inherit property and to have their marriage dissolved in the case of neglect or mistreatment. Also, Islam does not consider woman an "evil temptress", and thus does not blame woman for the "original sin". Women in Islam participate in all forms of worship that men participate in. Actually, the rights that Islam gave to women over 1400 years ago were almost unheard of in the West until the 1900s. Less than fifty years ago in England and America, a woman could not buy a house or car without the co-signature of her father or husband! Additionally, Islam gives great respect to women and their role in society --- it gives them the right to own property, marry who they want and many other rights. Also, it should be mentioned that the Prophet Muhammad's mission stopped many of the horrible practices in regards to women that were present in the society of his time. For example, the Qur'an put an end to the pagan Arab practice of killing their baby daughters when they were born. Additionally, Islam put restrictions on the unrestricted polygamy of the Arabs of the time, and put many laws in place to protect the well-being of women. Today, most of the so-called reforms in the status of women came about after the West abandoned religion for secularism. Even those in the West who claim to follow the so-called "Judeo-Christian tradition" really follow the values of Western liberalism --- but just to a lesser degree than their more liberal countrymen. For more on this subject, please read: Women in Islam versus Women in the Judaeo-Christian Tradition --- The Myth and The Reality. If women in the Muslim World today don't have their rights, it is not because Islam did not give them to them. The problem is that in many places alien traditions have come to overshadow the teachings of Islam, either through ignorance or the impact of Colonialization.

Misconception #5: Muhammad wrote the Qur'an

In addressing this misconception, it is interesting to not that no other religious scripture claims to the direct word of Almighty in toto as clear and as often as the Holy Qur'an. As the Qur'an clearly says: "if had been written by man, you would have found many discrepancies therein". At the time the Qur'an was revealed, the Arabs recognized that the language of the Qur'an was unique and that it was distinctly different from the language normally used by the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The Arabs of that time, by the way, were known for their beautiful poetry and Muhammad was known to be an illiterate man! The Qur'an clearly says that Muhammad was unable to read and write, so if this wasn't true, certainly his contemporaries would have protested and rejected him. However, there are no reports of this. Certainly there were people who rejected Muhammad's message, just like other prophets were rejected, but none for this reason. On the contrary, Muhammad, peace be upon him, had thousands of loyal followers and the results of their efforts spread Islam from Spain to China in just over a century! It is also interesting to note that even though the Qur'an is not poetry, the Arabs more or less gave up writing poetry after it was revealed. It could be said that the Qur'an is the piece of Arabic literature par excellence - and Muhammad's contemporaries realized that they couldn't out do it. Additionally, it is easy to prove that Muhammad did not possess a great deal of the knowledge which is expounded in the Qur'an: such as knowledge of historical events, previous prophets and natural phenomenon. The Qur'an says in several places that Muhammad and his people did not know these things - so, again, if this wasn't true, certainly his contemporaries would have rejected his claims. Suffice it to say that not only is the Qur'an the most memorized and well preserved scripture on earth, it is also unequaled in eloquence, spiritual impact, clarity of message and the purity of its truth.

Misconception #6: Islam was spread by the sword

Many non-Muslims, when they think about Islam, picture religious fanatics on camels with a sword in one hand and a Qur'an in the other. This myth, which was made popular in Europe during the Crusades, is totally baseless. First of all, the Holy Qur'an clearly says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In addition to this, Islam teaches that a person's faith must be pure and sincere, so it is certainly not something that can be forced on someone. In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O' Leary wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islam at the Crossroads, London, 1923, p. 8.). It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire? Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realize that they were far too few to force people to be members of a religion against their will. Additionally, the great empire and civilization established by the Muslims had great staying power -- its citizens were proud to be part of it. The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses. This was especially true of the colonization of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert. It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered! Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims! Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced! The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword? How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?

Misconception #7: Muslims hate Jesus

Many non-Muslims are surprised to find out that according to Muslim belief, Jesus, the son of Mary, is one of the greatest messengers of God. Muslims are taught to love Jesus, and a person cannot be a Muslim without believing in the virgin birth and miracles of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. Muslims believe these things about Jesus not because of the Bible or any other religion, but simply because the Holy Qur'an says these things about him. However, Muslims always emphasize that the miracles of Jesus, and all other prophets, were by "God's permission". This having been said, many Christians feel to not believe that Jesus is the "Son of God", "God Incarnate" or the "Second Person" of the Trinity. This is because the Qur'an clearly says that Almighty God does not have a "Son" --- neither allegorically, physically, metaphorically or metaphysically. The Pure Monotheism of Islam rejects the notion of "defining" God (which is basically what the "Doctrine of the Trinity" does), saying that someone is "like" God or equal to him, or praying to someone else besides God. Also, Islam teaches that titles such as "Lord" and "Savior" are due to God alone. In order to avoid misunderstanding, it should be clarified that when Muslims criticize the Bible or the teachings of Christianity, they are not attacking "God's Word" or Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. From the Muslim point of view, they are defending Jesus and God's Word --- which they have in the form of the Qur'an. Muslim criticism is targeted at writings that some people claim are God's word, but Muslim's simply don't accept their claim that they are really God's word in toto. Additionally, Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the Atonement are criticized by Muslims precisely because they did not originate from Jesus, peace be upon him. In this way, Muslims are the true followers of Jesus, peace be upon him, because they defend him from the exaggerations of the Christians and teach the Pure Monotheism that Jesus himself followed.

Misconception #8: Islam is fatalistic

Most Muslims find it rather odd that their religion, which strikes a beautiful balance between faith and action, could be accused of being "fatalistic". Perhaps this misconception came about because Muslims are taught to say "Praise be to God!" whenever anything good or bad happens. This is because Muslims know that everything comes from Almighty God, who is the All-Knowing Sustainer of the Universe, and that since a Muslim should rely completely on God, whatever happened must have been for the better. However, this does not mean that Muslims are not taught to take action in life --- just the opposite is true. Islam requires not only faith, but action --- such as regular prayer, fasting and charity. To be more precise, in Islam actions are part of one's faith. Islam total rejects the extreme beliefs of some religions that teach that you shouldn't go to a doctor when sick, but only pray for God to heal you. Islam's outlook is very positive, since it teaches that human beings can take positive action in this life. This was certainly what was taught by Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, to his followers --- since they obviously took the action of spreading Islam from Spain to Morocco in a very short period of time. Even though Islam teaches that God knows what human beings will do before they do it, human beings still have free will. Certainly God, who is All-Knowing and All-Wise, knows what is going to happen to everyone before it happens -- to deny this would be a denial of God Himself. However, if human-beings did not have free will, it would be ridiculous and un-just for God to demand that they do certain things and believe certain things. Far from being "fatalistic", Islam teaches that a human-being's main purpose in life is to be God-conscious. Due to this, Muslims worry less about material matters and view their earthly life in a proper perspective. This is due to the fact that Islam clearly teaches that if people worship and depend on Almighty God alone, then they have nothing to worry about - since God wants what is best for them. True freedom, from the Islamic perspective, does not mean aimlessly following all of your human desires for food, drink, wealth and sex. On the contrary, freedom means being able to control one's base desires and fulfilling them in a proper and legal way. This brings one's desires in tune with what God wants for us --- only then is a person truly free!

Misconception #9: The Islamic Threat

In recent years, a great deal of attention in the media have been given to the threat of "Islamic Fundamentalism". Unfortunately, due to a twisted mixture of biased reporting in the Western media and the actions of some ignorant Muslims, the word "Islam" has become almost synonymous with "terrorism". However, when one analyzes the situation, the question that should come to mind is: Do the teachings of Islam encourage terrorism? The answer: Certainly not! Islam totally forbids the terrorist acts that are carried out by some misguided people. It should be remembered that all religions have cults and misguided followers, so it is their teachings that should be looked at, not the actions of a few individuals. Unfortunately, in the media, whenever a Muslim commits a heinous act, he is labeled a "Muslim terrorist". However, when Serbs murder and rape innocent women in Bosnia, they are not called "Christian terrorists", nor are the activities in Northern Ireland labeled "Christian terrorism". Also, when right-wing Christians in the U. S. bomb abortion clinics, they are not called "Christian terrorists". Reflecting on these facts, one could certainly conclude that there is a double-standard in the media! Although religious feelings play a significant role in the previously mentioned "Christian" conflicts, the media does not apply religious labels because they assume that such barbarous acts have nothing to do with the teachings of Christianity. However, when something happens involving a Muslim, they often try to put the blame on Islam itself -- and not the misguided individual. Certainly, Islamic Law allows war --- any religion or civilization that did not would never survive --- but it certainly does not condone attacks against innocent people, women or children. The Arabic word "jihad", which is often translated as "Holy War", simply means "to struggle". The word for "war" in Arabic is "harb", not "jihad". "Struggling", i.e. "making jihad", to defend Islam, Muslims or to liberate a land where Muslims are oppressed is certainly allowed (and even encouraged) in Islam. However, any such activities must be done according to the teachings of Islam. Islam also clearly forbids "taking the law into your own hands", which means that individual Muslims cannot go around deciding who they want to kill, punish or torture. Trial and punishment must be carried out by a lawful authority and a knowledgeable judge. Also, when looking at events in the Muslim World, it should be kept in mind that a long period of colonialism ended fairly recently in most Muslim countries. During this time, the peoples in this countries were culturally, materially and religiously exploited - mostly by the so-called "Christian" nations of the West. This painful period has not really come to an end in many Muslim countries, where people are still under the control of foreign powers or puppet regimes supported by foreign powers. Also, through the media, people in the West are made to believe that tyrants like Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moamar Qaddafi in Libya are "Islamic" leaders -- when just the opposite is true. Neither of these rulers even profess Islam as an ideology, but only use Islamic slogans to manipulate their powerless populations. They have about as much to do with Islam as Hitler had to do with Christianity! In reality, many Middle Eastern regimes which people think of as being "Islamic" oppress the practice of Islam in their countries. So suffice it to say that "terrorism" and killing innocent people directly contradicts the teachings of Islam.
          Do religion and science have separate responsibilities?        

Human affairs, directly or indirectly, are affected by science in many ways. Firstly, by the technological aids enabled by science which have transformed the way people live all over the world so completely that it is difficult to imagine any other way of arranging our lives. Secondly, human life has been affected by the influence of science on the mind of man. We no longer believe in those superstitions that, from time to time in the long history of mankind, darkened the world.

What is the goal of science?

The goal of science is to discover rules which explain the relationship between particular events and aspects of events in the natural world which we usually refer to as ‘facts’. More specifically, the goal is to find the simplest rules, and thereby to understand the mastermind behind the wonderfully subtle design of our universe. Because understanding those rules enables a degree of predictive power, science can give us power over the forces of nature operative in the relationships we study. Unfortunately, science can teach us nothing else beyond how the facts are related and conditioned by each other. The aspiration towards such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which human reason is capable. Yet it is very clear that knowledge of what ‘is’ does not open the door directly to what ‘should be’ (Einstein, p.26). We can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what ‘is’, yet we are not able to deduce from that what the goal of our human aspiration should be. Objective knowledge provides us with very powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. No doubt, our existence and activities acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and corresponding values. ‘The knowledge of truth itself is very little capable of acting as a guide and it cannot prove even the justification and the value of aspiration towards that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limit of the purely rational concept of our existence’ (ibid., p.22).

Science without religion, religion without science

Throughout history, great scientists have puzzled over questions like—where the ethics of using science will come from, how we can decide what should be our goal or what way, ultimately, is the best way for all human beings to be. Great philosophers as well as great scientific geniuses have been bewildered by these questions. In the long search to answer them, some great scientists like Einstein have expressed their understanding memorably: ‘Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.’

On the basis of his own very rich experience, Einstein claimed that science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding. He clearly stated that the source of such feelings lies within the sphere of religion. He also advocated that kind of faith which says that the rules valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. Einstein could never conceive of a true scientist without this profound belief. On the other hand, in his famous essay Atomic War or Peace, Einstein captures the helplessness of the scientist to influence moral judgments:

The atomic scientists, I think, have become convinced that they cannot arouse the American people to the truth of the atomic era by logic alone. There must be added the deep power of emotion which is the basic ingredient of religion. (Einstein, p.22)

For more than three centuries, the world has gradually come to be dominated by Western culture, lifestyle and modes of thinking. At the present time, the world is, directly or indirectly, influenced so much by the West that the contribution of other cultures to the mainstream of world life is relatively negligible. So, when we talk about the modern approach to science we can, without hesitation, discuss the Western approach as the sole representative.

Does scientific knowledge need religion?

There is no doubt that scientific knowledge needs religion in order to become a blessing for mankind. Many times in history a number of scientists came to realize this but some of them were at a loss when they encountered a serious conflict between their faith and the results of their scientific investigations. The universal moral idea of a quest for objective knowledge owed its original psychological potency to the link with religion. Yet in another sense this close link was extremely fatal for moral ideas. The enormous growth of natural science had a great influence on the thought and practical life of man. Looking at what happened in the Western world, we see that the gradual increase in the cultivation of science resulted in a gradual decrease in the moral sentiment of people, in their attachment to religion. As a general phenomenon, this happened uniquely in the West although there had been a few, comparable individual incidents in the Islamic civilization also.

When Copernicus and Kepler had to face the moment of truth, they chose a road which apparently was not that of their religion. They felt that they had to state what appeared to be the real case, and that, on the whole, it would be more respectful of the Divine wisdom to act thus. By doing so, they served the intellectual integrity of mankind. Their standing against religion—at a time when the modern scientific spirit was still in its infancy in the West—in order to save the truth was a great blow to the dignity of Western religion. Since then, there has been an apparently irreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief, and most of the advanced minds were increasingly of the opinion that belief should be replaced by knowledge. Belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was considered superstitious. This mentality, no doubt, gave birth to a negative way of thinking about religion. But the problem was older than the rise of science. The root of Western belief was Judeo-Christianity and, long before the birth of science in the modern Western world, because of corruptions and interpolations in its Scriptures, the basic principles of Judeo-Christian belief had become so far removed from, so irrelevant to, the realities of nature and human affairs, that the religion lost the right to claim any authority over knowledge.

Barbarization of political and collective life

As there is, traditionally, a correlation between religion and morals, in the last few hundred years or so a serious weakening of moral thought and sentiment occurred. This has been the main cause of the barbarization of political and collective life in recent times. The barbarization, together with the terrifying efficiency of new technological means, has posed a fearful threat for human well-being.

In the beginning of the seventeenth century when the West started to study nature independently, religion started to lose its influence on society. There was some effort to separate off, to secularize, the whole domain of science, but in the long run, knowingly or unknowingly, science became an enemy of religion which lost its esteem among enlightened people. In time, great scientific geniuses arose without any knowledge of religion or moral values. Owing to the great many contradictions in the religious reasoning in the West, the subtle influence of religious sentiments started to dry up in the mind of great scientists. Too many contradictory theories tried to explain the world. This is how science became (in Einstein’s sense of the term) ‘blind’ in the West: all means prove but a blunt instrument if they have not behind them a living spirit.

The Western world has for long concentrated its intellectual energies upon the study of the quantitative aspect of things and thus developed a science of physical nature. The very obvious fruits of this study in the physical domain have won the greatest respect for it among people everywhere.

Most Western people identified science with technology and its application. They acquired the power of technology and used it to make life more comfortable and secure, to liberate themselves from the forces of nature, but science contributed hardly anything at all to the moral or spiritual improvement of Western people. But, as the very success of this science had helped people to dismiss religion as incapable of guiding rational thought, no authoritative source remained to guide people towards noble actions or aspirations. Thus, in the West, science and technology became tools with which to dominate the rest of mankind, to uproot the people of many lands, to humiliate or destroy local cultures and beliefs, to altogether replace long-established social and economic structures, with the result that many indigenous peoples were deprived of dignity, self-confidence and direction. The effects of these policies are visible everywhere.

Exploitation of humankind by a scientifically well-equipped minority

This century has witnessed the exploitation of the majority of human beings in the world by a scientifically well-equipped minority who believed that it is their hereditary right to control the whole world. This powerful minority was not without discord among its own members whose conflicts have caused unparalleled sufferings for all of the world’s inhabitants. Two world wars, aided by the most brilliant technological advances, not only destroyed millions of human lives, they also deepened cynicism and hastened the disappearance of traditional moral values in many parts of the world, not only in the West. It cannot be denied that the power of Western science is (whatever any individual scientist may think or wish) very definitely on the side of a monstrously uneven distribution of world assets. Scientists say that three times as many people as are living today could easily be fed if technology were generously distributed and used properly everywhere. But the real scene is frustratingly different—millions die of hunger, malnutrition or very simple diseases; millions remain uneducated and live in miserable poverty with very little reason to hope for or expect improvement.

People thought that boundless material prosperity is sure to bring heavenly ease on earth, but in fact it caused endless complexities and painful degradation of human life. Science gave us power to communicate over long distances, to see the once unseen, to go where no human being could ever go before. But it took away our ease of mind and heart, serenity, damaged the aesthetic sense, turning us more or less into trivialized emotionless, mechanized creatures embarrassed to aspire to more than transient worldly pleasure or glory.

Too many theories about life are around in modern times, many of them so contradictory that people no longer believe that there can be any stable or consistent account of what is good and true, upon which to base a code of conduct. Man questions everything related to life. But he does not know, from within his own finite abilities, what he can find out about and what he cannot. There are some questions that arise in the human mind in response to which nothing absolutely true can be said using only human reasoning. Only religion can tell us something, give us some guidance, on such questions.

Science can (and should) ascertain only what ‘is’ but not what ‘should be’

In the West, even those people who think that religion should be given a very esteemed position in society, are not ready to allow it to dominate all aspects of life. They think that science can (and should) ascertain only what ‘is’ but not what ‘should be’. Religion, on the other hand, can (and should) deal only with the moral evaluation of human thoughts and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts or relationships between facts. They suppose conflict to arise when a religious community insists on the literal or whole truthfulness of statements recorded in its Scriptures—in this case, the Bible. This is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrine of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often attempted to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific methods and they too made themselves severe opponents of formal religion (Einstein, p.22).

Islamic approach to science

We turn now to discuss the Islamic approach to science, to its understanding of the relationship between natural laws (the truths that modern science believes itself competent to inquire into) and the truths of religion which, in Islam, while mediated by Revelation, are nonetheless accessible to reason, intelligible.

In order to understand the essential spirit of Islam, an understanding of some of its fundamental principles, of its uniqueness, of the strong influence it has over Muslim hearts and minds, of its vision of the ultimate goals of human life in this world and the Hereafter, is extremely necessary. However, it must be admitted at the outset that it is difficult to express these ideas, strange to readers who are used to another way of thinking, in modern terms. To grasp the essential spirit of Islam, it is enough to recognize that God is One and that the Prophet, upon him be peace and blessings, the recipient and means of Revelation and a symbol of all creation, was sent by Him.

Islam may be said to have three levels of meaning. All beings in the universe are Muslim in the broadest sense, that is, they are surrendered (subject) to the Divine Will. Secondly, all men who will to accept the Revelation of the Qur’an and follow the teaching and example of the Prophet (Sunna) are Muslim in the formal sense that they surrender their will to the sacred law (Qur’an and Sunna). Then, thirdly, there is Islam of the level of pure knowledge and understanding. This is the contemplative level which has been recognized throughout Islamic history as the highest, most inclusive level of submission, when a Muslim completely surrenders to God and ‘reflects’ the Divine Intellect according to his or her own degree. Thus, it should be clear, in Islam, ‘knowledge’ and ‘science’ are conceived in a way basically different from the contemporary Western concept of outward curiosity about the outer world and analytical speculation to satisfy that curiosity.

The arts and sciences in Islam are based on the Unity which is at the heart of the Revelation

The arts and sciences in Islam are based on the Unity which is at the heart of the Revelation. Just as the great works of Islamic arts like the Alhambra or the mosques of Istanbul provide the patterns through which one can contemplate the Divine Unity manifesting itself in multiplicity, so do all Islamic sciences reveal the unity of nature (Nasr, 1964, p.35).

The aim of Islamic science as a whole, and more generally speaking of all the medieval and ancient cosmological sciences, is to show the unity and interrelatedness of all that exists, so that, in contemplating the unity of the cosmos man may be led to the Divine principle, of which that unity is the image.

The aim of Islamic science

Unlike Western science, Islamic science seeks ultimately to attain such knowledge as will contribute towards the spiritual perfection and deliverance of anyone capable of studying it, so its fruits are inward and hidden, its values are more difficult to discern. To understand it one is required to place oneself within its perspective and accept that it has different means from those of modern science. Although Islamic science did not bring about the degree (or, happily, the kind) of material prosperity and insatiable desire in society which modern science has brought about, its contributions in mathematics, physics, medicine, geology, geography, architecture, irrigation, medicine, or chemistry, are by no means negligible—more important, all were ultimately aiming to relate the corporeal world to its basic spiritual principles through knowledge.

The fundamental principles of Islamic science are also at variance with those of Western science in many other respects. Islam says that nature itself is a fabric of symbols which must be read and realized according to their meaning. The Qur’an is the counterpart of that text (nature) in human language. Both nature and Qur’an speak about the Power of the Almighty and Divine Unity. Understanding of His Power is very closely related with the profound understanding of His creation.

Unlike other religious Scriptures, the Qur’an encourages all Muslims to read and understand nature

Unlike other religious Scriptures, the Qur’an encourages all Muslims to read and understand nature. The Qur’an provides hints, discusses some basic concepts of science and claims all its verses to be absolutely true. The well-known writer, Maurice Bucaille, acknowledged that the Qur’an did not contain a single statement that was assailable from a modern scientific point of view. He declared: ‘The relationship between the Qur’an and science is a priori a surprise, especially as it turns out to be one of harmony and not of discord’ (Bucaille, 1975, p.110). In fact, this is the reason why no Muslim scientist ever faced, on account of his science, the kind of ‘crisis of faith’ or ‘moment of truth’ as Copernicus or Galileo did.

‘Believe in order to understand’

Islamic principles also say that science, human knowledge in general, is to be regarded as legitimate and noble only so long as it is subordinated to Divine Wisdom. Islamic scientists would agree with Saint Bonaventure’s axiom: ‘Believe in order to understand’. Like him, they insisted that science can truly exist only in conjunction with Divine Wisdom. So an independent and purely rationalist approach was never able to dominate the mainstream of Islamic scientific opinion. By contrast, the Western world, under the influence of increasing rationalism, went through a series of actions and reactions—the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation—such as never occurred in the Islamic world. Being free of any normative or spiritual value and cut off from Divine Wisdom, the West saw the rise of a new type philosophy and science profoundly different from their medieval antecedents. Europe in that period began to develop a science of nature that concerned itself only with the quantitative and material aspects of things.

We discussed the principles and general approach of Islam towards science, we turn now to the major sources of inspiration for the cultivation of science in the mind of a Muslim scientist. Dr Muhammad Aijazul Khalid of Damascus University says that, ‘In contrast to 250 verses which are legislative, some 750 verses of Holy Qur’an—almost one-eighth of the whole— exhort the believers to study nature, to reflect, to make the best use of reason and to make the scientific enterprise an integral part of the community’s life’. Here is one representative example of such verses:

You do not see in the creation of the All-Merciful any imperfection; return your gaze, do you see any flaw? Then return your gaze again and again. Your gaze comes back to you dazzled and weary. (67.3-4)

This in a sense is the faith of all scientists, the faith which most strongly inspires them. The deeper a man seeks, the more is his wonder excited, the more his gaze (perceptive and comprehending faculties) returns to him dazzled. Everywhere in the Qur’an we feel an obligation towards knowledge and science when we read verses like these:

Behold! in the creation of the heavens and earth and the alternation of night and day—there are indeed signs for men of understanding (3.190)

We created not the heavens, the earth and all between them merely in idle sport (44.38)

In his book New Researches into Composition and Exegesis of the Qur’an, Dr Hartwig Hirschfeld says:

We must not be surprised to find the Qur’an the fountainhead of sciences. Every subject connected with heaven or earth, human life, commerce and various trades is occasionally touched upon and this gave rise to the production of numerous monographs forming commentaries on parts of the Holy Book. In this way the Qur’an was responsible for great discussions, and to it was indirectly due the marvelous development of all branches of science in the Muslim world. This again not only affected the Arabs, but also induced Jewish philosophers to treat metaphysical and religious questions after Arab methods. (Hirschfeld, 1902)

Spiritual activity once aroused within Islamic bounds was not confined to theological speculations alone. Acquaintance with the philosophical, astronomical and medical writings of the Greeks led to the pursuance of these studies. In the descriptive revelations Muhammad [salla-llahu ’alayhi wa sallam] repeatedly calls attention to the movement of the heavenly bodies, as parts of the miracle of God forced into the service of man and therefore not to be worshipped. (ibid.)

Muslim minds tried to find the physical principles that govern the universe because to do so is a part of their obligatory worship. This is so clearly stated in the Holy Book that when Islam was in its golden age the practice of science was very common in the society. Brian Stock has remarked in his perceptive review Science and Technology and Economic Progress in the Early Middle Ages: ‘The most remarkable feature is . . . that science in one form or another was the part-time or full-time occupation of so a large a number of intellectuals—most of these men were not scientists, they were universalists, physicians, astronomers, lexicographers, poets and even theologians at the same time.’

In what way did Islam contribute to the Renaissance?

In the West, after the establishment of Christianity, the Christian-dominated West was sunk in barbarism. Yet two centuries after the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, the Islamic world under the Caliph Harun al-Rashid was far more active culturally than the contemporaneous world of Charlemagne—although the latter started earlier. At the time when restrictions on scientific development were in force in the Christian world, a very large number of studies and discoveries were being made at Islamic universities. George Sarton, a professor in the history of science at Harvard University, stated in his book The Life of Science that the foundations of science were laid for us by the Mesopotamian civilization (present-day Iraq) whose scholars and scientists were their priests. The second development in science came through the Greeks. The third stage of development, however, is to be credited to the meteoric rise of Islam. For nearly four hundred years Islam led the scientific world as, from Spain to India, the great body of past knowledge was exchanged between Muslim scholars and carried forward with new discoveries and new ideas. Scholars in Christendom, from about the eleventh century, were mainly occupied for over two hundred years in translating from Arabic into Latin. Thus Islam paved the way for the European Renaissance, which in turn led to science’s fourth great development in the modern world (Sarton, 1971, pp.146–66).

For the very first time science took on an international character in the Islamic universities of the Middle Ages. At that time Muslims were more steeped in the religious spirit than they are today; but that did not inhibit, still less prevent, the best minds of the age from being both believers and scientists. Scientific knowledge was the twin of religious knowledge and it should never have ceased to be so.

In this century, most of the reformers of the Muslim world tried to preach the full message of the Qur’an, they did not exhort the Muslims to only religious knowledge. They understood that because of serious neglect of science, the Muslims had ceased to occupy the intellectual mainstream and thus gradually lost their ideological, social and political superiority. The great Turkish scholar Bediuzzaman Said Nursi asserted that the success of the contemporary Muslims in exalting God’s Word will be proportional to their advances in science, technology and civilization. He indicated the importance of science by saying: ‘For the Muslims it is a great adventure that the West has acquired science and knowledge, and Islam can therefore appeal to them more easily than at any time before’ (Nursi, 1960, p.78). In fact, Bebiuzzaman Said Nursi can be offered as an example of a true, devout Muslim whose love for science is stated in his beautiful expression: ‘There is a tendency in the cosmos towards perfection. Thus the creation of the cosmos follows the law of perfection’ (Nursi, 1977, p.13).

Mentality of world-dominating powers: ‘What is yours is ours and what is ours is ours’

Developed countries in the world are now playing a great monopoly game over the resources and riches of the earth. Newton, Maxwell or other geniuses are being used as the private intellectual property, the cultural heritage of the West. ‘Even though the developing countries need the help of industrialized countries to overcome the economic and ecological problems they face, the latter do not intend to share with the third world ‘their’ intellectual resources; in other words they refuse to transfer technology and know-how, however great the need for it . . . Their mentality is—what is yours is ours and what is ours is ours’ (Sayar, 1992).

By contrast, when, in Cordova the Arab built the first university in Europe, knowledge spread throughout Europe from Muslim sources. In the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, of 24th March 1983, Francis Ghiles raised the question: ‘What is wrong with Muslim science? . . . At its peak about one thousand years ago the Muslim world made a remarkable contribution to science, notably mathematics and medicine. Baghdad in its heyday and southern Spain built universities to which thousand flocked: rulers surrounded themselves with scientists and artists. A spirit of freedom allowed Jews, Christians and Muslims to work side by side.’

Scientific enterprise in Islam was of an international character. Muslim society was very tolerant of men from outside it, and of their ideas. Al-Kindi wrote: ‘It is fitting then for us not to be ashamed to acknowledge truth and to assimilate it from whatever source it comes to us. For him who scales the truth there is nothing of higher value than truth itself; it never cheapens or abases him who seeks’. So the goal of Muslim scientists was revealing the truth, not exploiting mankind by the use of it, as has been done by Western nations in recent centuries. The Muslims thought it to be a common heritage of mankind.

In this century, many influential Western scientists understood that the approach of their civilization towards science is sure to lead the world to a catastrophe. Many tried to find a solution and, just in trying to do so, came closer to the Islamic approach. Now many of them think that religion should be given a chance to make its impact on norms and aspirations, while science and technology are an evil instrument in the hands of cynical Western commercial-political interests.

In the dark years of the Cold War, Einstein said: ‘We, scientists, believe that what we and our fellow-men do or fail to do within the next few years will determine the fate of our civilisation. And we consider it our task untiringly to explain this truth, to help people realize all that is at stake, and to work, not for appeasement, but for understanding and ultimate agreement between peoples and nations of different views’. In 1990, at the Moscow meeting of a global forum of spiritual and political leaders, Carl Sagan (1990) urged: ‘Mindful of our common responsibility, we scientists, many of us long engaged in combating the environmental crisis, urgently appeal to the world religious community to [co-operate] in words and deeds, and as boldly as required, to preserve the environment of the earth.’

‘United Field Theory’

This religion-oriented approach is increasingly referred to in the West. For example, merely to understand how nature works we do not need to unify the fundamental forces—gravitational, electromagnetic and strong nuclear. But for the last thirty years of his life Einstein tried to find a theory that would do just that, called the ‘United Field Theory’, though he did not succeed. He had a deep faith that these forces are different manifestations of one and same entity. Again what Stephen Hawking has sought for a lifetime is a united and consistent theory that encompasses all the mysteries of the universe in a single set of equations. He says: ‘Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God’ (Hawking, 1988, p.175).

Understanding (or as Hawking puts it, reading) the ‘mind’ of God was one of the aims of the glorious centuries of Islamic science. That aim was the easier to pursue as it was supported by the Qur’anic revelation. And in future, God willing, scientific curiosity will be wholly motivated and guided by the Message of God and the resulting science truly be a blessing for mankind.

          January Forum Roundup        

I hope everyone at Dragonmount celebrated the holidays and welcomed in the New Year with hopes and dreams. Nevermind resolutions!

Many of us have holidays that are rooted in religious traditions. I found something I thought quite interesting about Robert Jordan. This comes from an overview written by our own Jason Denzel about his time spent with Mr. Jordan during the San Diego ComiCon in 2004.


Jason Denzel:

One unique subject discussed over dinner was the metaphysical basis for the underlying spiritual topography of the Wheel of Time. Specifically, one member of the dinner party asked Robert Jordan whether he had intentionally woven core elements of the world's various spiritual/mystical traditions into his work, or whether those ideas were in fact manifesting THROUGH him as pure art.

Robert Jordan:

His answer was a description of his bookshelf at home, which begins at the left side with the Christian Bible, continues into more Judeo-Christian texts, then picks up with the Quran, with books on Hinduism (I got the sense he was referring to the Bhagavad-Gita, but would need to check with him to be sure), Buddhist texts, and then what he called various "discourses" on world religion and spiritual philosophy.

Jason Denzel:

In short—Robert Jordan is a student of world religion, which explains much of the religious diversity of his work, not just in terms of the many cultures of his world but in terms of the underlying metaphysical structure of his universe.

Members have been busy at Dragonmount's Social Groups engaging in a multitude of activities.

The White Tower and Warders have been occupied with the White Ajah's Wheel of Time Winter's Carnival! The Warders are discussing New Year's resolutions and playing games. Plus there was a raising! The Kin are critiquing movies and discussing our weekends.

The Ogier are busy adding to their "Memory Tree."

The Wolfkin are having "Healer's" discussions and games.

The Band of the Red Hand has discussed "Christmas Markets" throughout the world and have put up their "Matrims Nominations for 2017."

The Black Tower has hosted a discussion on 2016 and "Goals."

The Aiel had both light-hearted and serious activities: "The Book Game, Weird Cultural Oddities, and Prison Systems."

Wishing a prosperous and busy New Year for Dragonmount and all of its members. 


          Barnhardt: Banned In Boston - Transcribed        

Kudos to Vanderleun for posting this:

Hello, my name is Ann Barnhardt and I am the person who says the things that everyone else is too terrified to say.

This is the speech that I was going to deliver in Boston today, May 15, 2011, had a facility been available to me. Unfortunately, no facilities were willing to host my speech, sponsored by Rabbi Jon Hausmann, because I was deemed to be “hateful”, “bigoted” and “potentially violent”. 

Well, we’ll see about that.

In this speech we are going to cover a lot of intellectual and theological ground. I tend to set my goals extremely high, and this speech is no exception. 

I hope to fully explain the relationship between Christians and Jews in today’s world, and show that we, and really all people of civilization and good will, are allied in a war of survival against satanic evil, manifested today by islam and Marxism.

I am also going to show how our fundamental human rights as codified in the Constitution of the United States flow directly out of the Judeo-Christian milieu and the bible.

I will then contrast this to the Marxist-islamist paradigm, and show that Marxism and islam are actually cut from exactly the same philosophical cloth.

Finally, I will discuss my personal three-point tactical plan that I will carry out should the proverbial “poop” hit the proverbial fan. My three-point plan serves not only as a system of engagement, but it simultaneously rebuts any and all accusations of “intolerance”, “bigotry” and “hatefulness”. 

AND I aim to do all of this in less than 30 minutes. Like I said, I’m a very high goal-setter.

The first concept we need to tackle is that of the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. There is a tremendous amount of confusion, ambiguity and bigotry flowing in both directions. There are plenty of anti-Semitic Christians who think that the Jews are the accursed killers of Christ. There are also plenty of Jews who think that Christianity despises them as a point of intrinsic doctrine. Both are completely wrong, and it is high time that someone stepped up and explained the relationship clearly and without mincing any words.

The fact of the matter is this: you show me an anti-semitic Christian, and I’ll show you a Christian who is completely and totally clueless about his faith. Sadly, in this day and age, most Christians are exactly that – CLUELESS. And that goes for everyone, Catholic, Protestant, non-denominational, all of them. If we look at the Church from an intellectual standpoint, it has already been reduced down to just a mere remnant. There are so many heresies active today that it would take a lifetime to define them all individually, so I have named them corporately. What the Church suffers from today is the Heresy of Stupidity.

Now everyone listen up, Jew, Christian, atheist – everyone.

The foundational premise of the Jewish people and of Israel is that Israel is the representative proxy for humanity. This is why the Jews are called “the chosen people”, because they are. God chose Israel to stand in representation of all people everywhere. This is an honor, but it is a taxing and dubious honor due to the Fall of Adam and Eve and the inherent tendency that all people have for sin, which is called concupiscence.

God chose Israel to stand at the fore of humanity and be the people with whom the historical narrative of Salvation History is played out. This began with a married couple, Adam and Eve, and then expanded to a family unit through Noah, then the expansion moved to the tribal level through Abraham, the national level through Moses, then to the level of a kingdom through David, and finally in the fullness of time the expansion moved beyond Israel to cover all people everywhere through Jesus Christ. BUT, the only way to fully understand God’s relationship with us as individuals is to understand God’s interaction with Israel through history.

We see in the Old Testament a continuous pattern of Israel falling away from God in sin, and God taking Israel back, many times after a required chastisement to make Israel fully appreciate the gravity of its sin. God says to Israel over and over again that He will NEVER, EVER forsake His covenant. God uses the imagery of marriage to make Israel understand that the relationship between God and Israel is not a mere legalistic contract – it is a covenant sealed in flesh. The covenant cannot be broken. It can be abused by one of the partners, but it can never be broken.

God does not walk out. God does not “get divorced”. He always has been and always will be ready and willing to take us back, forgive our indiscretions and betrayals, if we will only turn back to Him. He did it after the unfortunate incident with the golden calf at the foot of Mt. Sinai. He did it after the numerous phases in which Israel had bad kings and fell into idolatry and immorality. He did it with King David after David’s sins of the flesh.

The exuberant joy of the “honeymoon” period after Israel’s return to God was put into words by Solomon in the Song of Songs. The image of the rocky trials of the marriage relationship was put into writing by the prophet Hosea.

Every macro image of Israel presented in the Bible maps perfectly to the micro context of the individual. Every sin committed by Israel corporately is a sin I have personally committed as an individual. The worshiping of idols, the failure to trust in God’s provision, the hypocrisy, the sins of the flesh – all of them. Every single one. They all map precisely to me as an individual. And to each and every human being.

And now we move into the New Testament. There are many verses in which Jesus soundly and harshly rebukes the Jews and the Pharisees. Knowing now as we do that Israel is standing in our personal stead as the proxy representatives of humanity as a whole and as us as individuals, we need to read these words of Christ as chastisements and critiques of us individually and personally, not as a critique or condemnation of a third party.

When Christ says, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites . . .” He is speaking directly to me. “Woe to you, Ann, you hypocrite.” When Christ says, “You are like whitewashed tombs which appear beautiful on the outside but inside are full of dead men’s bones and every kind of filth” He is speaking directly to me. I am the serpent. I am the brood of vipers. I am the liar. And if I may be so bold, so is every one of you.

The more a person thinks that Jesus is speaking not to them but only to the Jews, and then considers themselves able to sit in seething hatred of the Jews, the further from Christ they actually are. These people who read Jesus’ words as exclusive to Jews aren’t in the right ballpark, they aren’t even in the right galactic cluster. This is the Heresy of Stupidity in full bloom.

Now to ten of the most beautiful words in the New Testament. Every Jew watching this has heard these words, and probably has shuddered every time they heard them. These ten words have been twisted by stupid, ignorant people to justify horrific acts of evil against Jews for 1978 years. And many of these people have claimed to be pious Christians. Well, we’re going to fix this deal once and for all. The ten beautiful words are: “Let His Blood be upon us and upon our children.”

These are the ten words shouted by the Jewish crowd to Pontius Pilate as he was sentencing Jesus. I repeat these words internally at every Mass, because these are the words that give hope to humanity. These are the words that open the gates of heaven. These words are the means by which our salvation is accomplished.

At every Mass, the temporally transcendent sacrifice of Calvary which is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ Himself, re-presented to God the Father by the power of God the Holy Ghost. This is accomplished through the transubstantiation of Bread and Wine as prefigured by the priest and King Melchizedek in Genesis 14. This sacrifice is the Todah sacrifice of Israel, which is the only sacrifice to be offered in the post-messianic age and for all eternity, according to ancient Rabbinic teaching. The Todah sacrifice is the sacrifice of Thanksgiving. The word “Thanksgiving” in Greek is Eucharist. The Divine Surprise to Israel and the world is that GOD provided and provides HIMSELF IN THE FLESH as the final, worthy and fully efficacious Todah sacrifice.

There is a saint called St. Gaspar del Bufalo who was an Italian priest who had mystical visions during his life. In one of St. Gaspar’s visions during a Mass, he saw angels approach the altar after the consecration of the wine into the Precious Blood. The angels took branches of hyssop and dipped them in the chalice. The angels then turned and proceeded to sprinkle the people with the Blood of Jesus, exactly the way that Aaron and all of the Levitical priests sprinkled the people of Israel with the blood of the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant. We are literally being showered and cleansed with the Precious Blood of Jesus.

Let His Blood be upon us and upon our children.

I believe this is happening at every Mass in a dimension that we are not, at this time, able to physically see. And so TO the Jews who stood in Pilate’s courtyard as my representative, and as the representatives of all humanity, and called the Precious Blood of Jesus down upon humanity, all I can say is THANK YOU. God heard the deep, groaning cry of Israel, and answered it, even though Israel didn’t understand it themselves. And again, isn’t this exactly what I do as an individual? I lash out at God in groans of anger and despair and misunderstanding, and He hears me, and answers by transforming my anger and despair and misunderstanding into grace, through His Mercy.

In the last month and a half since I burned my Koran on YouTube, I have received a significant amount of anti-semitic email and comments left on my YouTube Channel. They are all fairly similar, but I did reply to one in particular. The man started out by complimenting my burning of the Koran and then asked, “When are you going to go after the Christkillers?” And then proceeded to launch into a typical anti-semitic diatribe, concluding that if I didn’t share in his anti-semitism, that I wasn’t really a Christian. I responded thusly:

“Sir, you are deeply confused. I killed Jesus. The Jews are merely the historical proxy for me.”

That shut him up. And I would invite all of the Jews the world over to feel free to use my reply if ever accused of being “Christkillers”. Please reply by saying, “No, Ann Barnhardt killed Christ.” 

Because that is the truth. I betray Him, and like Judas, I do it with a kiss.

It is ME who is whipping Him with the flagellum at the pillar. It is ME who spits on Him and laughs at Him as He carries the Cross that should be mine. It is ME who nails Him to the Cross. And it is ME who callously walks away leaving Him to die in my stead. And I do it every damn day. And yet He stays. You would think that He would eventually get to the point where He would simply say, “This is too much. I can’t do this anymore. I’m sorry it didn’t work out between us, but I think it is better that we just go our separate ways.” But no. He’s not going anywhere because it is the same with me as it is with Israel. We are in a covenant, and He will not forsake that covenant. Ever. No matter how much I deserve it. He chose to enter into it, and I am free to choose whether or not I respond to that covenant or not – just like Israel was free to drift in and out of His Grace over the centuries.

Now that we understand that Israel is the proxy for all of humanity, both on a macro scale, and on a micro, individual scale, we can now turn to the question of proper systems of human governance as revealed to Israel and recorded in scripture.

We need to start in Exodus chapter 18. Israel has just escaped Egypt and is traversing the desert toward Mt. Sanai. Moses is visited by his father-in-law, Jethro. Yes, the Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies is named after Moses’ wifes’ father. And for very good reason, because Jethro was blessed by God with wisdom that would affect all of humanity. When Jethro arrived, Moses was sitting at the head of a huge line of people. One by one, each party would approach Moses and tell him of some sort of problem or disagreement between them that needed judgment, and one by one, Moses would judge these issues and claims. And this would go on for days, because there were hundreds of thousands of people in Israel, even at this time. Moses was judging them and governing them all alone.

When Jethro saw this he told Moses that it was “not good”. Jethro then, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, explained to Moses the concept of governmental subsidiarity. Jethro laid out a system whereby the people were encouraged to govern themselves in a tiered representative structure. The first tier removed from the individuals themselves was in groups of ten families. This would be the analogue of a neighborhood. The next representative tier was in goups of fifty. This would be analogue to a city or county commission. The next tier was in groups of one hundred. This would be the analog of a state legislature. The next tier would be in groups of one thousand. This would be the analogue of a national legislature. Finally came Moses himself, with Aaron at his right hand and Joshua at his left hand. This would be the equivalent of a Chief Executive with a cabinet.

Yes, our current system of representative republic governance in the United States was modeled after the Jethrine system in scripture. The big difference between The Jethrine system and our system is that in the Jethrine system, Moses personally appointed all of the representatives based upon their Godliness and good character. In our system, representatives and the Chief Executive, or President, are elected. However, the over-arching concept here is the concept of SUBSIDIARITY.

Subsidiarity is defined as the idea that a central authority should only perform those tasks which can not be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level. In other words, the most power resides with the sovereign individual, and as layers of government move away from the individual, the power structure necessarily dilutes, being tasked with those objectives that only they are capable of performing.

In the case of our federal government, those tasks would include such things as coordinating national defense, negotiating and entering international treaties and trade agreements, and perhaps most importantly, ensuring that the Rule of Law as defined in the Constitution is preserved, protected and defended throughout the chain of subsidiarity all the way back to the individual.

This concept of subsidiarity was first formally defined and codified by – GUESS WHO – the Catholic Church, although the concept existed and was understood and practiced in various ways all the way back to Jethro and Moses at the foot of Mt. Sinai. The Catholic Church has always understood subsidiarity through the life and actions of Christ Himself. Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, manifested His Kingship by submitting Himself totally and completely to his subjects, to the point of willingly dying for them, and thus doing for them the one thing that they could never do for themselves, which is make perfect atonement for their sins.

Subsidiarity is not exclusive to democracy, representative republic or parliamentary republics. Subsidiarity can be executed in many systems of governance, including hereditary monarchies. This is why Christ did not call out a specific form of governance, because He knew that many forms of governance are feasible, so long as subsidiarity is observed. History has shown us that a Godly man can reign as a king, living as a humble servant to his people. In the Old Testament Good Kings included Asa, Hezekiah and Josiah. In modern times, King St. Louis the ninth of France, King St. Stephen the first of Hungary, and King St. Casmir of Poland are examples of Godly monarchs who ruled in a spirit of subsidiarity.

As a corollary, democratic or representative republic systems do not guarantee subsidiarity, and if infiltrated and usurped by Godless, power-hungry, money-grubbing moral degerates like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Charles Schumer, Lindsey Graham, John McCain and all the rest, those systems will lead to totalitarianism and ultimate collapse.

That is what we are seeing happen right now. This is also why the so-called “Arab Spring” is no such thing. The totalitarianism of the Islamic political system, elevated to power, though it may be, by democracy, is still totalitarianism. So long as islam is the driving force behind ANY form of government, that government is satanic by definition, and by definition will destroy the people within it. Don’t kid yourself. The Arab Spring is the Arab Winter, because that is all it can ever be.

The Catholic Church, and many Protestant sects as well, today have been infiltrated and infested by Marxists. There is still a remnant remaining, but please understand that the infiltration and rot is DEEP. Any Catholic, from a lay person all the way up to an Archbishop or Cardinal, who proclaims Marxism, and ratifies the concentration of power in the state to redistribute wealth by force, or to elevate the importance of the collective above the dignity of the individual is a DIRTY SATANIC LIAR. Period. End of story.

And that goes not just for Catholics but any Christian or Jew, because the concept of subsidiarity was revealed at the foot of Mt. Sinai, recorded in the Torah, and demonstrated par excellence by Christ crucified on Calvary.

The argument that Christ’s call to love and serve the poor is to be achieved by dehumanizing the individual and installing a totalitarian state is satanic, serpentine manipulation. You filthy Marxist scum have been twisting and perverting the Gospel into this satanic filth for decades, and you know what? I’m ending it. Right here and right now.

You CAN NOT BE both a Christian or an observant Jew and a Marxist.

Specifically to Christians now: you cannot advocate a satanic system of governance whilst claiming to be preaching the Gospel of Christ. Nope. You have to pick. It’s either Marxism or Christ.

And so to Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, the majority of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the majority of the Jesuit order, the majority of the United Methodist church, the majority of the Presbyterian Church USA, the majority of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the majority of the Episcopalian Church (what little is left), and of course, the ironically named Disciples of Christ and United Church of Christ, and all of the others, CHOOSE. 


It is either Christ or Marx. If you choose Christ – great. Praise the Lord. If you choose Marx – in even the smallest way – and we all know that you will, pack your bags and get out. And we’ll be praying for you and for your conversion and return to the fold as authentic Christians. But your days of squatting in the Church are OVER.

Finally, I would like to lay out my three-point tactical plan should the Marxist-islamic poop hit the proverbial fan, which I am afraid is all but inevitable at this point.

In this portion, I would like to focus once again especially on the Jews in the audience. So far, we have established how Israel has been the proxy for humanity throughout Salvation History. Understanding that as we do, we can now see that to hate Israel is to hate humanity itself.

All we need do to confirm this is look at where the locus of anti-Semitism exists in today’s world. There are two main loci today: Marxism and islam. Both of these political systems have at their core an intrinsic hatred of the individual man. Both mask this seething hatred by wrapping themselves in a false cloak of collectivism, manifested in the call for Marxist class warfare and jihad. Both systems use the Jews as their primary scapegoat and whipping boy, blaming all problems in the world on Jews, and then calling for the “final solution” to the stumbling block to utopia that is the Jewish race.

From the Koran to Mein Kampf, the rhetoric is exactly the same: exterminate the Jews so that utopia can be achieved. But what this is at its core is a call to exterminate humanity itself, which is the ultimate goal of both Marxism and islam. If the Jews are exterminated, the rest of humanity will follow quickly, because if the Jews are exterminated, that means that there are no longer any people of good will on earth who could see and understand the representative quality of humanity itself in Israel. No one would be left to take up the banner of Christ and the Church Militant to march against the forces of evil in defense of not just Israel, but of all human life on earth. It is essential to approach, understand and see this coming war with the forces of evil through that lens.

I recently saw a video of an Islamic execution taped in the Middle East. In it, the three condemned men were bound hand and foot, standing beside an incinerator, or furnace. The men were doused with an accelerant, presumably gasoline, and then thrown alive into the incinerator, where they could be seen writhing in flames as they died in the furnace. These men were not Jews, but that is beside the point. They were human beings who ran afoul of Sharia Law.

This is what is coming. This, and executions like this, are the inevitable destination of both islam and Marxism. Hitler had his ovens. Stalin had his gulags. Mao had his execution quotas. The Khmer Rouge had their killing fields.

And so here is what I say to all people of good will, but specifically today to the Jews. If a second holocaust begins and you find yourself standing bound on the precipice of an incinerator – I’m coming.

My first tactical objective will be to come in, guns-a-blazing, and rescue you and we’ll both get out of there, and hopefully take a bunch of evil men out in the process. That is objective number one.

If that doesn’t work and I am unable to free you by force of arms, I will negotiate with the evil executioners to switch places with you. I will offer to be executed in your place, so long as you are freed. That is tactical objective number two.

If that doesn’t work, then I am going to stay and die with you.

There is no possible way that I am going to turn my back on you as you stand on the precipice of the incinerator, walk away and let you die alone and afraid and then congratulate myself on my ability to “handle and survive the situation”. No. I am going to stand beside you, I am going to throw my arms around you, and I am going hold you and tell you that I love you. I am going to make certain that the last sounds you hear ringing in your ears on this earth are the sounds of a friend telling you that you are loved, and that you are precious, and that you are not, never have been, and never will be alone. And then we will go into the incinerator together. Because I can’t think of a better way to die – with the words “I love you” on my lips. THAT is tactical objective number three.

One final question. Do you honestly believe that Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or John Kerry or any of the Hollywood people, or Michael Moore or Keith Olbermann or Joy Behar or any of the people who would call me a venomous hate-spewing bigot would stay and die with you if it came down to that? Of course they wouldn’t and we all know this. But I am the hate monger. I’m the bigot. I am the danger to society.

Ladies and gentlemen, Western Civilization has officially jumped the shark. The words, “I love you”, delivered in sincere Christian charity are now a hate crime that warrants the suppression of free speech.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Ann Barnhardt . . . . and I love you.

          Super Junior Ryeowook - Maybe Tomorrow        
Setelah Kyuhyun dengan Love Dust -nya, ternyata personil dari super junior yang juga memiliki suara cetar alias Kim Ryeowook gak mau kalah sodaraaa,,,
Terus terang,,, awalnya aq gak tau soal lagu oppa yang satu ini,
Pertama kali kenalin lagu ini sama kuping aq, kuping aq langsung Heppyy, suara oppa keknya udah nampol di hati dan kuping aq...
Lagunya bernada Melow bin selow,,,
Klo kalian inget ama lagu Smile Again, nahh lagu ini msejenis ama lagu itu,,, :D
Di Lagu ini ceritanya mengenai seseorang yang sedang bersiap membuktikan kemampuan dirinya kepada orang orang yang meremehkan dia. And maybe tomorrow, aq bakal balik lagi bawa lirik lagu Hero.
tungguin Upadatenya yaa,,,

[Lyric] Super Junior Ryeowook - Maybe Tomorrow

Nemonan haneureul bodaga
Jogeuman eokkael anabwa
Chagapgo museoun sesang
Charari sumeobeorilkka

Gamanhi gwireul giurimyeon
Barami soksagyeojune
Yeonyakhan namusipdeuldo
Da noraehandago

Nado moreujin anhatji
Aesseo moreun che haesseul ppun
Eoneusae umteugo inneun
Eorin nalgaedeureul barabwa

Ijen duryeowodo naui gireul chajagal geoya nan
Myeot beonigo neomeojyeodo ireonal geoya nan
Dasi han beon nareul mitgo narabol geoya
Geurae naeireun
Maybe tomorrow

Eonjenganeun naui kkumgwa majuhal geoya nan
Sangcheo gipeun maeumeul deo anajul geoya nan
Nawa darmeun neoreul hyanghae useojul geoya
Geurae naeireun
Maybe tomorrow
Nan oh

Haneureun neomu neorpgo neorbeo
Bit ttara naragadaga
Neol dasin mot bomyeon eojjeoji

Jinaon siganeul geurimyeo
Chueogui garureul ppuryeo
Chumeul chuneun nabicheoreom
Ireumeul bureumyeon dwae

Nado moreujin anhatji
Aesseo moreun che haesseul ppun
Eoneusae jarana inneun
Eorin nalgaedeureul pyeolchyeobwa

Ijen duryeowodo naui gireul chajagal geoya nan
Myeot beonigo neomeojyeodo ireonal geoya nan
Dasi han beon nareul mitgo narabol geoya
Geurae naeireun
Maybe tomorrow

Eonjenganeun naui kkumgwa majuhal geoya nan
Sangcheo gipeun maeumeul deo anajul geoya nan
Nawa darmeun neoreul hyanghae useojul geoya
Geurae naeireun
Maybe tomorrow

Malharyeoda samkyeotdeon sungandeulmada
Neoui ireum sseotda jiun gotmada
Huhoega millyeoojiman
Nal saranghandan mareobsi saranghaejugo
Neul dwieseoman anajudeon neoraneun geol anikka

Ijen duryeowodo naui gireul chajagal geoya nan
Myeot beonigo neomeojyeodo ireonal geoya nan
Dasi han beon nareul mitgo narabol geoya
Geurae naeireun
Maybe tomorrow

Eonjenganeun naui kkumgwa majuhal geoya nan
Sangcheo gipeun maeumeul deo anajul geoya nan
Nawa darmeun neoreul hyanghae useojul geoya
Geurae naeireun
Maybe tomorrow
Oh nan
Maybe tomorrow
          Fideldad del perro        
De pronto se acordó de aquel hombre que veía todas las tardes al salir del colegio cuando no era verano. El hombre tenía un perro.

El perro era pequeño delgaducho y hambriento. Y no tenía nombre; «chucho» le llamaba su dueño, únicamente. El hombre era grandote, sucio y sin afeitar. Siempre estaba borracho, decía palabrotas y pegaba al perro cuando estaba enfadado, que era a todas horas. «Vete, maldito chucho», le decía dándole una patada, y el perro se alejaba unos pasos, pero nunca se iba.

Aquel hombre tenía tanto vino en su cuerpo que a veces se caía en medio de la calle. El perro entonces acudía a lamerle las manos y la cara, y se ponía nervioso si no se levantaba; y se echaba delante de su amo caído por si venía un coche, y gruñía furioso y enseñaba los dientes cuando oía que algún niño le gritaba <<¡borracho!>>.

Quique no comprendía por qué aquel perro defendía al borracho si él lo trataba mal.
Un día le preguntó a papá.

-Porque es su amo, Quique -le respondió su padre.
-Pero es malo y le pega.
-Los perros nunca piensan si sus dueños son buenos o son malos: los quieren y ya está, les da igual cómo sean.

Seguimos recorriendo nuestra primera particular ruta #escapadariberaduero para visitar uno de los lugares donde más disfrutamos: Dominio de Cair.

Llegamos una fría mañana de febrero, donde habíamos quedado con Noemí, que nos dedicó un buen rato tan sólo a nosotros: no hay nada como este tipo de visitas tan y tan en familia, es un lujazo. Ella es quien, copa en mano, comenzando por el Cair Rosé 2015 que nos sirve en el elegante hall de la bodega, nos comienza a introducir en los orígenes de Cair. El Cair rosé, por cierto, es muy fresco, frutoso, agradable y de buena acidez. Excelente copa de bienvenida.

Nos hallamos en una bodega muy nueva, de 2008, pero el edificio es de tan sólo hace un par de años, de 2015. Pertenece a la conocida familia Luis Cañas (ya visitamos Luis Cañas en Rioja, aquí el post, y también incluye Amaren, que desde finales de 2016 también ofrece visitas: pendiente!).

Se trata de un proyecto personal de Luis y Juanjo, un amigo suyo amante del vino que quiere invertir en el negocio. Entre los dos, escogen venir aquí, a un clima más extremo que Rioja alavesa, donde la uva desarrolle un hollejo muy gordo que dé cuerpo, estructura y color. Según el equipo de Cañas, es la mejor zona de Ribera, donde no hubo concentración parcelaria y donde disponen de uva muy vieja de calidad extraordinaria. La maduración, en este clima, es muy lenta.

Son un total de 27 hectáreas de propiedad y casi 100 más de 9 proveedores. La altura media de la viña se sitúa alrededor de los 900 metros en tierras principalmente calcáreas y arenosas. El cultivo es con criterios ecológicos. 

Producción anual: 300.000 botellas.

El objetivo no es otro que el de contar con la mejor tierra para realizar el mejor vino. Para ello, también resultaría necesario contar con las mejores instalaciones, que sin duda son extraordinaras. Arquitectónicamente, el edificio también llama mucho la atención, que combina estética artística vanguardista pero siempre al servicio de la practicidad técnica.

Pronto, la primera cosecha de Cair crianza 2008, que sale al mercado en 2011, consigue el premio al mejor vino de Envero (un certamen de la D.O. Ribera del Duero). 

Dominio de Cair sólo vinifica y embotella vinos cuyas cepas tengan un mínimo de unos 20 o 25 años de edad, nos explicaba Noemí. Los vinos que elabora la bodega son los siguientes, con el siguiente rendimiento muy limitado, muy por debajo de lo permitido por la DO (7.000 kg por hectárea):

- Cairé Cuvé: 4.000 - 4.500 kg. por hectárea. Semicrianza.
- Crianza: viñedos de 40 a 50 años. 3.500 kg / ha.
- Reserva: viñedos de 70 años; rendimiento de unos 2.500- 2000 kg./ha.
- Pendón Aguilera: viñedos de más de 70 años; 1000-1500 kg/ha.

Cuentan con un jardín de variedades experimentales.

Sala de homogeneización, estabilización y cupaje en inox.

La vendimia es manual y en cajas de 11kg. Además, se lleva a cabo una "vendimia con rocío", mediante una cámara frigorífica en que el hollejo más duro se le da maceración intracelular dando color y aroma a la pulpa. Luego, nueva selección manual.

Y aún tiene lugar una nueva selección de uva con la máquina Delta Rflow mediante lámina de aire. No lo habíamos visto nunca, es tecnología punta. De nuevo, otro proceso y otro punto que contribuye a la maximización de la calidad del producto final.

Zona de fermentación: FAL en barrica para las gamas altas que luego darán productos finales más acabados y agradables. En inox, para el Cuvé y el crianza. La maloláctica, en inox para el cuvé; el resto, en barrica.

Y a través de un depósito de inox al cual entramos por el que bajamos por unas escaleras internas de caracol, llegamos a la primera salsa de barricas: la maloláctica se realiza en barricas nuevas, a excepción del cuvé (inox). Cada barrica, por cierto, tiene una vida máxima de sólo 3 años. Los tostados son ligeros o medios. Se quiere respetar la fruta. Son 1.300 barricas, siendo un 65% de roble francés.

La salsa circular de barricas es extraordinaria, donde hacemos un alto en el camino para catar directamente:

- Cair crianza 2015. Lleva 11 meses, le faltan 3. Roble francés. Tempranillo. Mora, regaliz, fruta (mucha!), sequedad. Le falta, además, año y medio en botella. Balsámico.
Por su parte, el de roble americano, es más amable, más torrefacto, más vainillas y seca menos. Se nota que, al tener el poro más grueso, en menos tiempo se lleva a cabo más microoxigenación. En cualquier caso, prevalece la fruta.

Salsa dormitorio: ahí está el crianza 2011.

Finalizamos el recorrido con cata y degustación de queso y chorizo muy ricos:

- Cair Cuvé 2014, cupaje de 85% Tempranillo, 15% Merlot (da frescura). Tiene 9 meses de barrica de roble, el 60% francés y el 40% americano. A la práctica, con esos meses, es equiparable a un crianza.

En fin, una visita muy agradable de la mano de Noemí, que nos supo hacer partícipes de todos los entresijos, particularidades y valores añadidos que van apareciendo durante todo el proceso de vinificación en Cair (desde el mismo momento que se idea el proyecto, el edificio, la viticultura, la selección, la crianza, la tecnología...) dando lugar a vinos de primera. Lo pasamos muy bien y seguimos aprendiendo y conociendo, diferentes estilos y zonas en nuestro idilio con la Ribera del Duero.


(Sábado, 11 de Febrero de 2017)

          Comment on Manual of Judeo-Spanish: Language and Culture (only audio) by kveerlarka        
book is available on libgen
          Kosher Equality: First Woman Elected to Lead a Kasruth Agency        

For the first time in history a female will lead a national Kasruth agency promising equality in Kosher supervisory

New York, NY -- (SBWIRE) -- 03/03/2015 -- As the first female President to lead a Kosher certification agency, Miriam Jochelman Peled may have just become the most powerful person in Kosher – man or woman. On Wednesday Peled was elected by KOSH 9009 Board of Directors to serve a four year term as President of the organization. KOSH 9009 is one of the nation's leading Kasruth and quality management consultation agencies and pioneer of a challenging movement that is destined to go viral promoting 'Equality for Women in Kosher.'

The KOSH 9009 website is located at which proudly advertises its mission statement: "Kosher Made Simple and Affordable – With Equality For Women."

Moshe Heinman, Director for KOSH 9009 said males have dominated Kosher supervision since the 1920's when Kosher products started finding their way into the American market. According to Heinman, a teacher of Conservative Judaism, all major Kasruth agencies are directly or indirectly disqualifying women to serve in leadership roles, particularly as President, simply because of their gender. "Someday we respectfully hope to see a woman President of The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations (OU), The Organized Kashrus Laboratories (OK), STAR-K, Kosher Supervision (KOF-K), and other major Kasruth certification agencies, said Heinman.

Jochelman Peled is an educator, speaker, second generation of Holocaust Survivor Parents. Born in Postavy, Republic of Belarus, formerly the U.S.S.R, Miriam holds a B.A. in Art Education/Art Therapy, Master Degree from Seton Hall University in Judeo-Christian Holocaust Studies, and attended the Yiddish I.L. Peretz School, where Judaism was fostered, along with other secular subjects. Her professional work experience includes VP of Operations for Guberman-PMC, LLC, an internationally recognized quality management consultancy. Previously she served as senior auditor for G-PMC Registrars, in which she received numerous awards. She is currently serving a three year term as Chairwoman of CWOB, the nation's fastest growing quality management certification program for women-owned businesses. Miriam has lived and/or traveled to Israel, Poland, Belarus, Lithuania, France, Italy, Russia and other countries teaching others of Jewish history, and its cultural, and social challenges.

In a nod to the significance of being the first woman to lead a Kosher agency, Jochelman Peled said she hoped her achievement would inspire more women to seek positions as head of a Kasruth agency. "I'm really hoping to see more women in Kosher supervisory roles for other Kosher organizations that believe in equality," she said.

Sara Brickman, spokeswoman for KOSH 9009 said through Miriam's leadership and strong values rooted in her Jewish faith and heritage, combined with her professional work experience, international travels, and understanding of Kashrut laws, KOSH 9009 will continue to prosper as a preferred Kosher/ISO certification program bringing guidance, strength, diversity and purpose to businesses worldwide.

The American Board of Accredited Certifications (ABAC), which serves as the accreditation board of KOSH 9009 and oversees its operations has made a history of bringing diversity to Kosher and quality system certification by electing women, minorities, Veterans and people of different faiths to serve as board members, directors, and signatories of the organization. Last year two consultants representing KOSH 9009 traveled to New York City to meet with Rabbi Moshe Elefant, COO of the Orthodox Union's Kashruth Department to discuss a potential partnership that will enable the OU to offer quality management solutions for its customers, particularly ISO 9001 certification. The alliance never materialized but is believed to be still open for future discussions.

Ironically, earlier this week the New York Post ran a story about a major marijuana company in Colorado planning to sell medical marijuana in New York that is Kosher certified by the Orthodox Union. In responding to the story Heinman said, "It's rather disheartening to learn the OU is seriously considering working with a Colorado pot peddler to Kosher a natural plant, but is yet to offer customers a quality standard implemented by over one million companies and organizations in over 170 countries." He concluded, "Where's the quality?"

Businesses interested in value-added Kosher Certification (KOSH 9009) and/or Quality System Certification (ISO 9001) can submit an application at

About KOSH 9009
KOSH-9009 is a nationally recognized Kashrut agency serving businesses of all sizes in a large variety of industries, including food & beverage processing, restaurants, delis, food machinery & equipment manufacturers and machine shops seeking to Kosher certification. KOSH 9009 is the first and only system accreditation program offering the combination of Kosher and ISO 9001 certification following International Organization for Standardization methodologies per national and international requirements, and more importantly inclusive of Rabbinical Kashrut (Kosher) laws.

Media Contact:
Sara Brickman

For more information on this press release visit:

Media Relations Contact

Sara Brickman
KOSH 9009 - Kosher Supervision
Telephone: 212-726-2320
Email: Click to Email Sara Brickman

          Quinney, "An Interview with Harold Bloom"        

Geoffrey Hartman and Harold Bloom:
Two Interviews

An Interview with Harold Bloom1

Laura Quinney, Brandeis University

  1. Laura Quinney: Ok, so it's November 27th, in New Haven. We're at Harold's house, and my name is Laura Quinney. This is an interview with Harold Bloom about his latest book Jesus and Yahweh. Tell me what the epigraph was to have been.

  2. Harold Bloom: Well there was originally a double epigraph. One is still there because it explains the subtitle, The Names Divine, and that is the second of the two quatrains of the concluding "To the Accuser who is the God of this World" of the final version of Blake's little emblem book "For the Sexes: The Gates of Paradise," that is to say:

    Though thou art Worshipd by the Names Divine
    Of Jesus and Jehovah thou art still
    The Son of Morn in weary Nights decline
    The lost Travellers Dream under the Hill—

    but originally I had wanted to have with it a very great sentence, spoken by an actual governor of Texas back I think in the early 1930s who rejoiced in the name of Ma Ferguson. And when this lady was inaugurated as governor of Texas, she announced that so long as she was governor, no state-supported school, from junior high up through the University of Texas at Austin would be allowed to teach any foreign language whatsoever, and her reason for this she expressed in one very great sentence: "If English was good enough for Jesus then I suppose it should be good enough for us."

  3. LQ: [Laughs.] Thank you. I wanted to ask you in particular about what it means to be a Jewish Gnostic.

  4. HB: Ah.

  5. LQ: In your book, in the opening paragraphs on "The Jewish Sages on God," you write: "The God of the Gnostics is called the Stranger or Alien God, and has exiled himself from our cosmos, perhaps forever. I do not regard Yahweh in that way" [p. 193, Quinney's emphasis]. And yet you describe yourself as a Gnostic.

  6. HB: Well, I am partly relying upon my great mentor Gerhard or Gershom Scholem, who in many conversations with me, primarily in Jerusalem, but also in Boston, New York City, and here at this table in New Haven, would frequently say to me that the great disaster of Kabbalah was its Neoplatonic scheme or myth of emanation—the sephirot—and that he greatly preferred what he called the Gnostic kabbalah of the early Merkavah mystics, which he thought had been renewed by Moses Cordovero, who was the teacher of Isaac Luria, and then by Isaac Luria in which Ein Soph, the Kabbalistic name of the infinite one, or Yahweh—whose name you're not supposed to use, but I am now—Ein Soph creates the universe by contracting and withdrawing inside himself, or as I say, going back to the original Hebrew of the Zimzum, which means to sharply draw in or take in your breath—it is that act which at once creates and ruins worlds, according to Cordovero and Luria, and those who came after them. But Gnosticism: Scholem was convinced and Moshe Idel, to whom I am much closer in every way—he is a close personal friend—Moshe Idel on this agrees with Scholem though frequently they don't: Idel says that fundamentally he thinks that what someone like Hans Jonas and other scholars after him have called Gnosticism is actually a kind of parody or echo of a kind of archaic Judaism which we don't have any more, though you can find curious versions of it in the different books of Enoch and other apocryphal literature. Even when I was a little boy, the Talmudic rabbi who fascinated me was the one denounced by all the others in the Pirke Abboth or Sayings of the Fathers, the rabbi Elisha Ben Abuyah, whom the others called Akah, meaning the stranger or the alien, and who is reported to have ascended into heaven in a mystical trance and there beheld not one God but two gods, sitting on thrones facing each other, one being Yahweh, and the other being Metatron, the angel of the divine presence who simply was the transmogrified human being Enoch after he is carried off by Yahweh to the heavens without the necessity of first dying. There are all kinds of complex traditions, some of them going back a long, long way, even though we have no texts of what could be called an original Jewish Gnosis. As I understand Gnosticism,—and it seems to me in this I am highly consonant with my hero Ralph Waldo Emerson, as I am with Valentinus of Alexandria or Basilides of Alexandria, or with Luria or Cordovero, let alone that splendid fellow Nathan of Gaza, who wrote the treatise on the dragons and was the spokesperson or prophet for the false Messiah Sabbatai Zevi,—Gnosticism essentially comes down to a few convictions. One is that the best and oldest part of every one of us, even if we don't have immediate access to it, or easy access to it, is part and parcel of God. (I want a very small sliver, dear.) Another is that the creation and the fall are not two separate events, but one and the same event with all of the unfortunate (that's fine dear) the unfortunate pragmatic (thank you dear)—pragmatic consequences of this (mmm . . . it's full of liquor; mmm, it's yummy . . . ).

  7. LQ: [To the tape recorder.] A whisky cake is being consumed.

  8. JB: [Laughs.]

  9. HB: Willie, come and have some whisky cake. A very Yahwistic whisky cake.

  10. Daniel Flesch: Is this yours, Mom?

  11. William Flesch: Shhh . . .

  12. HB: I suppose the remaining basic conviction of Gnosticism is that there is, besides the divinity to which it is so hard to have access, it is very deep in the rock of the self. There is also an exiled component of the true God, who is not Yahweh but presumably the Anthropos, the original man/God of the hermeticists. Except, who knows? Akiba—Akiba who was after all the normative rabbi, the founder of what we call normative Judaism in the second century of the common era, Akiba specifically said that his favorite name for God was ish, which is man. So—in any case I suppose the final tenet of Gnosticism is that there is an exiled component of the Godhead, but it's not in this world, which is governed by the archons and governed by Blake's Nobodaddy as it were, and that far off beyond our solar system, in the cosmological outer spaces there is the—aren't you going to give Willy some of that?

  13. WF: I had some.

  14. HB: Well put it back in there: you don't want it to go to waste.

  15. WF: But I might want more.

  16. JB: Stop talking in the microphone.

  17. HB: Pussycat? Oh, I'm sorry.

  18. LQ: It's ok, it's ok. It can be edited. Or not.

  19. HB: It doesn't matter.

  20. LQ: But your Yahweh is not Blake's Nobodaddy.

  21. HB: No. No no no no no. He is—he was for me the surprise of my book. As I say at one point he usurped this book. Indeed he wasn't supposed to be there at all in the first place. Originally the title of the book was Jesus and Christ, since I regard the two of them as totally separate figures, but I found that as I got into it, it didn't make any sense to me unless I really talked about Yahweh, and I think the really original part of the book is the second half, on Yahweh, which actually goes so far as to apply Lurianic Kabbalah to the whole question of the origin of Yahweh. You will remember that in Kierkegaard Nebuchadnezzar, after he had been changed back from a beast in the field to a man, says of Yahweh, "Nobody knows who his father was, or who taught him the secret of his strength" [quoted from Quidam in Stages on Life's Way] and I speculate in a perfectly Kabbalistic way, I say—I speculate that a perfectly—aren't you going to eat it—?

  22. LQ: Yes I'm going to try it.

  23. HB: In a perfectly, I think, Kabbalistic way that Yahweh may have come into existence by this act of Zimzum, this act of contraction or withdrawal, which means that he diminished himself in order to get started. Which I find fascinatingly parallel to Walt Whitman, in which I again follow Scholem: who used to say in conversations with me, that in a secular world somehow Whitman by some miracle without knowing anything about Kabbalah had in effect reinvented his own Kabbalah, and I think that is true. Whitman throughout Song of Myself and elsewhere is always saying that he is expanding, that he is getting to contain more and more multitudes, that his sense of self is steadily increasing. But in fact he too is always contracting and withdrawing. He is endlessly elusive and evasive, and the worlds that he creates and ruins also seem to come from some process of self-withdrawal.

  24. LQ: This may lead to my next question, which is something that puzzles me about the book. And that is that in some sense I was not sure why you think of the Yahweh of the Hebrew Bible as a true description of a Deity, rather than as a . . . ?

  25. HB: Well, there are Yahwehs—just as I say there are seven versions at least of Jesus or Jesus Christ, or Jesus and Jesus Christ, in the Greek New Testament, there are innumerable versions of God in Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible, but the one who interests me and always has and always will, is the original one, the first Straha, traditionally called J or the Yahwist, probably written as early as the reign of Solomon, 3,000 years ago, in which most certainly he is as I say a stern imp, up to a lot of mischief, something of a trickster God—human all too human: he's always walking around on the ground; he isn't flying up in the air—he's walking around on the ground in order to make personal, you know, sort of on the job inspections of how things are going. He closes the door of the ark—of Noah's ark with his own hands; he even more memorably buries Moses in an unmarked grave, with his own hands; he is very fond of picnics; thus at Mamre he sits beneath the terapim trees because he always likes to be in the shade rather than the sun, thus he walks we are told in Eden in the cool of the day, at Mamre, with two of the Elohim who are his angels he sits beneath the terapim trees, and he has a sumptuous rather full-scale luncheon prepared by Sarah—roast veal and whey and freshly baked sort-of cakes. And how is one to put it—he on Sinai, on the side of Sinai, he sits there and shares a meal with 73 elders of Israel. They stare at him and he stares at them and that's it. He doesn't say a word and they don't say a word, but there he is. And according to Kabbalistic tradition, from the Merkavah thing on, he's enormous, he is I say the King Kong of deities, he is of enormous size.

  26. LQ: What leads you to think of this God as more than an exceptional fiction?

  27. HB: Well, his metaphysical density, his ferocious and vivid personality, his intensely human traits—I gather you're not going to eat that so I'm going to put it back in there—

  28. LQ: One more bite.

  29. HB: Go ahead, go ahead. He is . . . he is a . . . the reason why I keep invoking Shakespearean characters like King Lear, who is I think Shakespeare's version of Yahweh, or Hamlet, who has a very complex relation I think to Mark's Jesus, is that Yahweh, Mark's Jesus, Hamlet, King Lear, Falstaff, Cleopatra, Iago—they are all more real than you are, whoever you are, and yes, they are fictions, but if they're fictions, what are we? Since they are livelier than we are, exceed us in energy and in dynamism, as Yahweh does also. It seems to me that—I mean he may just be not at all an attractive version of what Mr. Stevens wanted to call the supreme fiction, but he is . . . he's quite a fiction, he's very persuasive and as I keep saying in the book I wish he would go away. I don't like him. I don't feel anybody can like him. His famous definition when Moses asks him his name—his famous self-definition is ehyeh asher ehyeh, translated by William Tyndale as "I am that I am" and that's kept in the Authorized Version of the English Bible. The Hebrew "ehyeh asher ehyeh" actually means "I will be, I will be;" "I will be that I will be," or to make it into better English "I will be present wherever and whenever I choose to be present," but I say throughout the book that also means "And I will be absent wherever and whenever I choose to be absent." And he is very distinguished by his absences, it seems to me. But if he is just a literary character—well first of all I don't recognize any distinction between literary and human characters; I mean I'm notorious for that, and why not be notorious for that—it seems to me that the sacred Bloomstaff, as I call him, is at least as real as old Bloom—Sir John Falstaff, of course. But not even kidding, I mean what can you say about the Yahweh of the J writer? He is endlessly memorable, he is endlessly unreliable. [Pause.] But he gets inside you. I repeat I would like him to go away, but he doesn't seem to go away.

  30. LQ: Why doesn't he go away?

  31. HB: Well, because I'm pretty sure he is our equivalent—I mean, our equivalent for him now is what our Uncle Siggy Freud called "reality testing" and the Reality Principle. Freud says that reality testing means that you have to "make friends with the necessity of dying."

  32. LQ: So he's the name of everything that opposes our will.

  33. HB: Yeah, he is . . . [Pause.] I think I remark somewhere in the book, with a certain amiable—I wouldn't say irony, but a kind of zest, that God had breathing trouble and this trouble created the world. And I think I remark something like, "Try to hold in your breath for as long as possible, and then just before you can't stand it any more, try to think something into creation, try to will or think something, and see what happens." Which always makes me think of Kafka's very grand remark to Max Brod, where he says, "We are one of God's thoughts when he was having a bad day." It seems to me he has mostly bad days. But since I don't think there's any distinction whatsoever between sacred and secular texts, there's only great writing and bad writing (or good writing in between I suppose or fair writing) then it's natural to speak of—in fact, remember what Blake says; he says religion is just choosing forms of worship from poetic tales, and then he adds—this is The Marriage of Heaven and Hell — "Thus men forgot that all Deities reside in the human breast." But that doesn't mean that they don't reside there. And of course, this is now a very tricky business, because I'm not sure anybody—you're not supposed to believe in Yahweh anyway if you are a normative Jew, you're supposed to have Emunah, you are supposed to trust in the covenant with him, but he's never kept the Covenant himself, and I get awfully weary of the Hebrew prophets who are always denouncing the people of Israel for violating their covenant with Yahweh when Yahweh hadn't kept his for a moment, and always seems to be hard at work destroying his chosen people. He seems to resent sometimes, precisely because he had such trouble bringing them into existence I suppose and they are after all according to that story the original people that he brought into existence—

  34. LQ: The title of Frank Kermode's review is "Angry at God." Do you think anger is the correct word?

  35. HB: "Angry at God" is not what Sir Frank says. That's on the front cover of The New York Review of Books. If you look inside, Sir Frank's review is "Arguing with God," and I think that's what this book is, and an old Jewish tradition is an argument with God.

  36. LQ: What adjective would you use to describe your feelings about . . .

  37. HB: Yahweh?

  38. LQ: . . . God?

  39. HB: I don't like him. I repeat I wish he would go away. But somehow he doesn't. I don't think I have any nostalgia for him. I wouldn't dream of praying to him, but then I'm an Emersonian, and Emerson in "Self-Reliance" says quite wonderfully, "As men's prayers are a disease of the will, so are their creeds a disease of the intellect." Now Christianity has creeds; Judaism doesn't. Islam has creeds; Judaism doesn't. There are now one and a half billion so-called Christians in the world and one and a half billion so-called Moslems in the world—those who have submitted: which is what it means, Islam means "submission." There are perhaps fourteen million Jews still left, so obviously it's a thousand to one. The fight got settled a long time ago, but on the other hand there are even more Hindus. Nobody knows how many people there are in India—they don't practice birth control there, unlike the Chinese who so rigorously try to keep their population from getting completely out of hand; there may well be more Indians now than there are Chinese—in any case, if you add up all the Indians, excluding the Pakistanis or the Moslem Kashmiris, if you add up all the Hindus and other modes of religion in India which are not Moslem or Christian, and you add in all the Taoists, Buddhists, and Confuciusts, not only of China but of the rest of Asia, and the Buddhists and Shintoists of Japan, there are more non . . . what are we to call them? Ultimately at the moment it seems to me that with great crusader Bush leading us there is a kind of religious war being fought between the Moslem world and the Christian world, just as there is obviously a religious war being fought between the state of Israel and the Moslem world, which is why Israel is sitting on top of that vast mound of atomic and hydrogen bombs in Dimona, but in the long run I suppose the religious future may well lie with the East.

  40. LQ: Um hm. Would you think the word "disappointed" would be a fair characterization? Would you say that you are disappointed . . .

  41. HB: . . .with Yahweh?

  42. LQ: Yes.

  43. HB: No. I wouldn't have dreamed of trusting him in the first place. So what is there to be disappointed with? He is, he's bad news, he has always been bad news. No, I'm not disappointed; I find him very fascinating, very interesting. As I say, he's even more interesting than King Lear, and to some extent at least—well, Mark's Jesus and Hamlet run almost neck and neck in interest. Each of them has incredible mood swings, as Sir Frank points out, following me in that part of his review. No I'm... [Pause.] Look, I've been teaching how to read for 51 years now. I've been writing and publishing criticism for 51 years. It seems to me that what I've written in this book is really just an extension of the book The Anxiety of Influence, which in its first form was written back in the summer of 1967 when I was 37, and actually contained a rather savage chapter on the Gospel of John, which I detached and later published separately, and now in revised form have put it into this book, so it's a pretty direct line from one to the other. I was rather amused, though, to see my old student Jonathan Rosen, in the review that appeared in today's Sunday Times Book Review, saying that: Well after all what difference does it make that Wallace Stevens strongly misread Shelley in order to produce characteristic Stevens, what matters is religious truth, and, you know, it is the truth or falsehood in regard to one another of, say, Christianity and Judaism or of Islam that matters. That may be Jonathan Rosen, but that isn't me, and that isn't in the book that he's reviewing. Not that I'm ungrateful for his review, which you know certainly shows a warm heart, and reminds me of a wonderful pun I once—quoting from the Hebrew—of an almost Lewis Carrollian or Joyceyan dimension, that I threw into an outrageous public lecture here on the relation between the so-called two covenants or two testaments. I also liked the joke, which I'd seen before but hadn't seen for a long time. It's an old Yiddish remark, that the Christians stole our watch 2,000 years ago, and are still telling us what time it is. I like that. It's almost as good as my favorite Yiddish proverb, as I translate it: "Sleep faster, we need the pillows."

  44. LQ: [Laughs.] I'm still fascinated by the question of your relation to Yahweh, as you can see.

  45. HB: Well, it seems to me no more or no less vital or of concern to you as my close friend or to me, as my relation to King Lear. I would have great difficulty in saying what my relation to King Lear is. I agree with Charles Lamb: you shouldn't even go and see somebody try and act the part, because it's unactable. What can you do with a figure who actually stares up at the sky and cries out, "You heavens, you should take my side because you too are old." That's so marvelous and I can't imagine an actor enunciate it. And I've never seen a Lear that worked. I think that trying to play Lear would be rather like having a drama in which somebody played Yahweh. Inconceivable.

  46. LQ: You do use one phrase here which struck me very much. I was fascinated by it. I'm not sure I can imagine you using it about Lear. You speak of your "waning skepticism" about Yahweh.

  47. HB: Well, I have waning skepticism about Lear also. I mean the difference is that I get fonder and fonder of Lear, irascible old creature as he is. Waning skepticism.

  48. LQ: Yes, that's interesting. It's a good surprising phrase. You expect the reverse.

  49. HB: I drag it in at the end of the book because I got very bored by Sam Harris. You know pragmatically there's no difference between Sam Harris urging an end to faith; I would say fine, Judaism isn't faith anyway. That's Pauline Pistis, the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. No, the only question is whether you trust Yahweh or you don't, and obviously you shouldn't and can't and couldn't and won't, because he's bad news, as I keep saying. He's as good an explanation for why everything goes wrong all the time as we could want. And he's had a terrible effect upon the world. Because in a somewhat altered and perhaps even more aggressive form, he is the Allah, which is a variant in Arabic on Elohim, of the Koran, of the Recitation, and he utterly disappears in Christianity, where God the father is just kind of an unfortunate, weak imitation of Yahweh. [Pause.] Surely it comes back to Leibniz, doesn't it? Which is then picked up by the horrible Heidegger. Why should anything be, anyway, rather than not be? Since Yahweh puns on ehyeh, which is the ancient Hebrew verb for being. I don't know. In the end I suppose if I have to vote and go with any one, I go with Hamlet, who is a nihilist as I read him. I think Shakespeare's ultimately is nihilistic, not Christian, not even Hermetist, just nihilistic, but I don't know that pragmatically there's any difference between Yahwism and nihilism. You know: is this a difference that makes a difference? to invoke William James's, you know, quite Emersonian definition of American pragmatism. It doesn't seem to me that it is a difference that makes a difference.

  50. LQ: I see. So the phrase "waning skepticism" doesn't mean "increasing faith"?

  51. HB: No, there's no faith to be had anyway. Certainly, the only issue is whether or not you trust him. I don't trust him. He's not worthy of trust. He is very bad . He is . . . .

  52. LQ: You speak often of the Holocaust as—I take it that that for you is emblematic.

  53. HB: Oh sure. Oh sure, I mean Yeshua, if he was crucified, was one of hundreds of thousands of Jews who were being crucified by the Romans in those days. And the biggest single holocaust of Jews took place after Rabbi Akiba proclaimed Simon bar Kosba, Simon bar Kochba or son of the star and said he was the Messiah, ben Joseph, that is to say, not the Messiah ben David but the Messiah ben Joseph, the warrior who comes first. And that led all of the Jews in the world into a terrific rebellion against Hadrian, and millions of Jews were eventually slaughtered and Akiba tortured to death at the age of 95; Bar Kochba went down heroically, taking legions of Romans with him. At one point in the book I have a sentence that Jeanne, my wife, reading it, said "Harold, it shouldn't be there; it will get you into trouble." But I'm glad it's there, because you know the great phrase about Yahweh in the Psalms and elsewhere is that Yahweh is a man of war, and I think his most memorable single appearance, and I talk about it, in the Bible, in Tanakh, is in the Book of Joshua, where at one point Joshua—you know it is after the death of Moses and Joshua is in command of the Israelites and they conquered Canaan, and before a crucial battle near Jericho he notices an armed warrior. He doesn't recognize him, and he boldly goes up to him, and he says, "Are you one of us or one of them." And the fellow replies, "The ground upon which you stand is holy. Take off your sandals." At which Joshua takes off his sandals and abases himself because he recognizes that it is Yahweh a man of war come to fight in the battle of Jericho, which he does, as he also fights, you know, with the tribes that came to the battle in the first Hebrew poem that we have, the song of Deborah and Barak in Judges 5. So I have this sentence in the book: "If Yahweh is a man of war, then Allah is a suicide bomber." I think they are all bad news, Judaism and Christianity and Islam. But I wanted to make clear in the book that there is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian tradition. That is absolutely ridiculous. And fascinatingly enough there are two things that I've said throughout my life when I've addressed Jewish audiences, say at the Jewish Theological Seminary or such places, and they always get furious at me. But they're both true. One is that nowhere in the whole of the Tanakh does it say that a whole people can make themselves holy through study of texts. That's a purely Platonic idea, and comes out of Plato's Laws. That simply shows how thoroughly Platonized the rabbis of the second century were. The other one, which I say in this book and it has already given some offense, is that in fact not only is Judaism, which is a product of the second century of the common era—and it's worked out by people like you know Akiba and his friends and opponents like Ishmael and Tarphon and the others, is a younger religion than Christianity is. Christianity in some form exists in the first century of the common era. What we now call Judaism comes along in the second century of the common era. Christianity is actually the older religion, though it infuriates Jews when you say that to them.

  54. LQ: I wanted to go back to your comment . . .

  55. HB: I think my book is good clean fun.

  56. LQ: Well I thoroughly enjoyed it. I wanted to go back to your comment. . .

  57. HB: But I don't think it's irreverent.

  58. LQ: No.

  59. HB: Because I think the category—you know any time you want to say that some text is more sacred than another then you've made a political statement, and I don't like political statements. It is utterly insane that by vote of the United States Congress, the Church of Scientology has a tax exempt status. That means that Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard, which I challenge anybody to try to read, is a sacred text, by vote of Congress. And of course what it is is very ninth rate science fiction. Though it now has distinguished believers like, I believe, Tom Cruise and—isn't John Travolta also a Scientologist?

  60. LQ: To go back to your comment about Yahwism and nihilism: What is—I don't know how to put this question exactly—but what is—why do you describe yourself as a Gnostic rather than an atheist or an agnostic?

  61. HB: Ah, that's what my wife always wants to know. She regards herself as an atheist. [Pause.] I don't think I am.

  62. JB: [Whispers.]

  63. HB: Bad wife.

  64. LQ: Sorry, what did you say, Jeanne?

  65. JB: I regard him as an atheist.

  66. LQ: I see. That was "I regard him as an atheist."

  67. HB: No, no I'm not an atheist. It's no fun being an atheist.

  68. JB: True! But what alternative is there?

  69. HB: Well, the alternative is to entertain all of these fictions. Remembering what Uncle Wallace taught us, which is that the final belief he says is to believe in a fiction, with the nicer aspects of belief, that knowing that what you believe in is not true. It's just imaginatively much more interesting to be a Gnostic rather than an agnostic, to be fascinated by Yahweh rather than indifferent to him. Walt Whitman liked to say that the United States are in themselves the greatest poem. Alas they're not, but it's a nice idea. Yahweh is a great poem. [Pause.] I don't think Jesus Christ is a great poem. [Pause.] I never quite make up my mind about Allah, though I'm fascinated by the fact that the Koran is the only book I've ever read in which every single phrase is spoken by God himself. It is the voice of Allah that you hear from the beginning to the end, supposedly by mediation of the angel Gabriel, being dictated to Mohammed, who however doesn't write it down because supposedly he's an illiterate, which baffles me, because he's a successful merchant, and how could you have been a successful merchant if you were illiterate, and couldn't read or write? But supposedly he memorizes it and then he dictates it—a very suspicious process of course, but then no more suspicious than the formation of Tanakh or the Greek New Testament. I don't say it in this book, because I had said it in the book just before, called Where Shall Wisdom be Found, in the chapter there that reprints with a few modifications a commentary that I'd written on the Gnostic or quasi-Gnostic Gospel of Thomas,—I ask every New Testament theologian I've known in this life the same question; I've asked the great Pelikan this question, at which he had just shrugged his shoulders and walked off smiling amiably: How is it that we don't have an Aramaic Gospel? Why is there no Nazarene Gospel? Even though we know that no one who wrote anything that is now in the New Testament had ever seen the historical Jesus, had ever heard him say a word, nevertheless, for any of this to make even an iota of sense, that person did not go around speaking Koiné, speaking demotic Greek. He went around speaking Aramaic. Aramaic and demotic Greek are totally different languages. The nuances of thought, expression and spirituality of one are not readily translatable into the other. How could you believe that you were hearing the ipsa verba, the actual words of the incarnate God, and not write them down and preserve them? And what makes me even more suspicious is, you will notice, as though they throw it in to show the authenticity of this inauthentic schmaltz, all through the Gospels suddenly you're thrown a phrase or two in Aramaic, including, you know, the last words spoken from the Cross. Why? And where's the rest of it?

  70. LQ: You say in the book when you come to the question of why Christianity has been appealing, I believe you say, it's the promise of the resurrection.

  71. HB: Well, even more simply now though: I was on Charlie Rose some weeks ago, and Charlie, I suppose playing straight man—a hard role for Charlie to play—said: To what do you attribute the fact that you've just spoken of, Harold, that there are a billion and a half Moslems in the world and a billion and a half Christians and only fourteen million Jews, how do you explain the enormous appeal of these religions? I said: Well on the one hand, in both Islam and Christianity, you're getting a great deal in exchange for very little. All you have to do in Christianity is say, "I accept that Jesus of Nazareth was also Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the anointed one or Messiah," and as a result you have life eternal. And all you have to do in Islam, as they say, which is what it means, is submit just to the statement that Mohammed, who is certainly not divine and doesn't pretend to be divine is nevertheless the seal of the prophets, the final kind of a prophet and all you have to do is submit to the will of Allah, and in return you get Paradise. And of course there's also the fact, as I said on Charlie Rose, that Christianity triumphed not just because of that but because Constantine the Great looked over what was available to him, including Mithraism and so on, and said, "The right way to hold the Empire together, the right state religion is Christianity." So he swung the sword of Constantine, and out went all the heretical versions of Christianity also, including the Gnostics and we got the Church, the Roman Catholic Church indeed. And then Mohammed, as the Koran makes clear, and all the texts after it—Mohammed is definitely a man of war and kept defeating the Arabian Jews and he defeated the various Arabian pagans, and after his death his Califs went on and on and on magnificently (ah yes, beautiful wife) magnificently went on conquering. So both Islam and Christianity triumphed by the sword, and of course then started engaging with one another—in the Crusades, in Spain, in North Africa, and at the moment, whether we like it or not, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and God knows where next.

  72. LQ: I take it that you find the Hebrew Bible not only aesthetically deeper than the New Testament, but also that you find it—how shall I say it—spiritually deeper?

  73. HB: The only thing in the New Testament that seems to me spiritually valuable is the general epistle of James, undoubtedly written by a disciple of James, that is to say Jacob the brother of Jesus, by tradition anyway the brother. And that is precisely what Martin Luther wanted thrown out of the Bible—he called it an "epistle of straw"—because it said specifically that faith is not enough, that only works matter, and it ferociously, like the prophet Amos and the first Isaiah, cries out against those who oppress the poor. I'm not sure how much spirituality really interests me in the Gospel of Mark. The Gospel of Mark—and a couple of early reviewers, in places like Kirkus and (what's that other one?) Publisher's Weekly, got very angry with me about this—and they both picked this up and a couple of reviewers I've seen since—where I say that in many ways the author of the Gospel of Mark reminds me of Edgar Allan Poe, in that he writes very very badly on a sentence by sentence basis, and yet he's got a spooky kind of universalizing imagination. You know, he dreams universal nightmares, and it's very hard to get them out of your head.

  74. LQ: Like Dreiser, or Mary Shelley. Both bad writers on the sentence level.

  75. HB: Yeah. Oh yeah. Dreiser is endlessly fascinating in that regard. Sister Carrie breaks my heart, and An American Tragedy hurts so much I hate rereading it. But on a sentence by sentence basis they're impossibly drab and dreadful. And it's quite true, Frankenstein and The Last Man, as prose are very badly written, but they work, they work. And the Gospel of Mark I think is very badly written, by an amateur writer, evidently a Jew in Rome, writing at about the time, you know, word is reaching him that the temple is being destroyed and the city is being burned, and—it is very compelling. And then of course I hate the Gospel of John because as I say candidly in the book it hates me so I hate it. It keeps saying that the Jews are all the children of Satan. Now that's very interesting, in the whole of the Hebrew Bible, except for one brief, rather muted reference, I think in the prophet Zachariah, who's late, the only place where Satan enters is not as a fellow named Satan, a personage named Satan, but as the ha-Satana, the accuser, the prosecuting attorney, at the beginning of the Book of Job. But in the Greek New Testament, the only character who matters besides Jesus Christ is Satan, who is onstage almost non-stop. It's a Satan-haunted piece of work.

  76. LQ: Oh, speaking of being haunted, there's a beautiful passage at the end of the book, where you say "I very much want to dismiss Yahweh as the ancient Gnostics did, finding in him a mere demiurge who had botched the creation . . . . But I wake up these days, sometime between midnight and two A.M., because of nightmares [of] Yahweh" (p. 236).

  77. HB: Oh, yeah.

  78. LQ: And so . . .

  79. HB: He frequently looks like Uncle Siggy, in a three piece Edwardian suit, with a beautifully groomed beard and hair, and flashing a cigar at me. But Uncle Siggy—If asked what Yahweh looks like, I wouldn't think of Blake's Nobodaddy, I would think of Uncle Siggy.

  80. LQ: Ah. It's a figure of authority.

  81. HB: Yes.

  82. LQ: But . . .

  83. HB: Uncle Siggy is obviously a kinder and more humane personage than Yahweh.

  84. LQ: I think I understand...

  85. HB: All this is just confirming my wife's view that I am an atheist. But I'm not, I'm not. [Laughs.] How uninteresting it is to be an atheist. I mean, you can't make literature out of that.

  86. LQ: Are you being diplomatic when you say that? Do you think atheism is possible?

  87. HB: Diplomatic?

  88. LQ: Well, I thought when I read the book: I've always described myself as an atheist, but maybe it's dishonest, maybe I should say I'm a Gnostic. I'm angry with God. Perhaps that's Gnosticism.

  89. HB: Yeah, I think if you argue with God, or you're angry at God, if you have a grudge against him, then that's much more fun than just saying he's not there at all.

  90. LQ: Do you think genuine indifference is possible?

  91. HB: Well, remember we live in the United States of America, under the reign of W. the Great, who is on record as saying that Jesus Christ is his favorite philosopher, and is sitting there in Camp David at this moment, telling his intimates that he's on a mission from God to install democracy in Iraq, and will not cease, you know, till he either leaves office or has done it. And I believe him, I think he is that crazy. He is an authentic crusader, unlike his Papa, who knew when to come home. And this is Jesus Christ CEO, you know this is the American Jesus of the Christian right. It's very interesting. There is no Yahweh in the United States. I mean God the Father is just about gone. There is of course the BVM, or as I like to call her, thinking of her manifestation in the Houston Astrodome, visiting the refugees there, the BBB, the Blessed Barbara Bush. That's our deity, or one of our deities. My wife is particularly fond of the Blessed Barbara Bush. I guess I like her too. She is very good value. It's fascinating that we have an American Jesus, and he's always been an American, not a Jew at all, but the Christian right has now so compromised him, that when Hispanics come pouring into this country from south of the border or the Caribbean or further down, like so many African-Americans and like so many increasingly poor whites in the South or even in the Midwest, they're turning to Pentecostalism, which is the fastest growing religious movement in the United States, which has nothing to do with Jesus really, or Jesus Christ. It's all about the Holy Spirit, which is pouring down upon them and they're all shouting and jumping with him. I'm not so sure that in the end this will not be a Pentecostal nation. In which case it's true pre-Scripture will turn out to have been The Crying of Lot 49.

  92. LQ: Where does the idea of the Holy Spirit come from?

  93. HB: Ah. On the basis of almost no New Testament evidence—a dove or two—Christian theology manufactured, needing a third person for the trinity, along with God the father, to finish Yahweh and Jesus Christ the theological God—they needed another entity, so they gave us the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost. But he never really took root in European or Middle-Eastern Christianity, or in East European and Russian Christianity. It's here in the United States that Pentecostalism really took off, and it's burgeoning, you know, every day. The largest single Pentecostal unit is the Assemblies of God, and they just sort of surge on in number all the time. There are independent Pentecostal groups all over the country. I've got some former students in Atlanta, who shall be nameless—charming people—who are literary critics, teachers of literature by profession, and they are ferocious Pentecostalists. They—I attended one such service in Atlanta, and there they were all whooping it up and shouting when the Spirit hits them indeed and crying out in strange tongues and defying the laws of gravity, and it's all wonderful stuff. I'm not being ironic. So it was his mother.

  94. LQ: The kids are getting restless, so just one more question.

  95. HB: I know you must go home, because it's going to be 10:30 before you get those pussycats in bed.

  96. LQ: Ok, one last question then. To come back to this passage about wanting to dismiss Yahweh . . .

  97. HB: Yes. Who wouldn't want to dismiss him?

  98. LQ: . . . and being haunted. Now the question is, why do you think you're—what is it that—why are you haunted, what keeps bringing you back?

  99. HB: I read the Hebrew Bible. I brood about it. It's a very strong text. Whether you read it in the original, or you read William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale, who between them write about eighty-five to ninety percent of what you find in the authorized version, and who are, with Shakespeare and Chaucer the four great writers of the English language as far as I can tell. Tyndale writes prose, Coverdale does Psalms and battle hymns and so on. Both terrific writers. And as I say, with Shakespeare and Chaucer, the most powerful writers.

  100. LQ: But you read the texts because you're already haunted.

  101. HB; Well, Laura, you reread King Lear and Hamlet because you are already haunted, and then you get more haunted by reading them. They are infinite. They go on forever, in the same way the war song of Deborah and Barak or the great chant in the Second Isaiah about the suffering servant, palpably meant to be the people of Israel, which becomes however in the Christian interpretation the suffering Christ—

  102. LQ: Yes. I just wondered if you wanted to pinpoint what it is—what it was—

  103. HB: Remember you have to get your pussycats home.

  104. LQ: Ok.

  105. HB: But go on—one last thing.

  106. LQ; One last thing—just if you wanted to pinpoint a little what it is that prevents you from dismissing Yahweh.

  107. HB: [Pause.] I think it's an aesthetic matter.

  108. LQ: I see.

  109. HB: But you know, how do we know what an aesthetic matter is? Its dimensions are endless.


1This interview was conducted on November 27, 2005 after dinner. Present are Harold Bloom, Laura Quinney, Jeanne Bloom, Daniel Bloom, William Flesch, Daniel Flesch (9), and Julian Flesch (5). The interview was transcribed by William Flesch.

Authored by (Secondary): 

Parent Section: 




          Take Action: Tell The Dove Foundation that Bishop Gene Robinson's Story is Family-Friendly        

Last week, Love Free or Die – the story of the first openly gay bishop Gene Robinson – was denied a family-approved rating by the Dove Foundation, a family film reviewer. Join us to send a message to The Dove Foundation to tell them Love Free or Die is appropriate family viewing.

The Dove Foundation reviews films, videos, and books through the lens of "family friendliness." Their reviews are republished and often promoted by films seeking a family audience. However, they are showing that for the Dove Foundation, "family friendly" does not include LGBT families.

GLAAD is partnering with Groundswell to support frank and honest discussions about LGBT people in faith communities and families. Love Free or Die shares a message that all of our families and children need to explore together: that our faiths and values teach us to love each other and our neighbors, no exceptions.

Click here to tell The Dove Foundation to "Family-Approve" Love Free or Die.

"The film inspires conversations about love and commitment, faith and God, equality and dignity, that make our families stronger, and lay the foundation for our children to grow up as people of faith and values," said petition founder, The Rev. Ellen Tillotson. "Now, as a family film reviewer that writes their reviews based on Judeo-Christian values, the Dove Foundation has the opportunity to say that movies like Love Free or Die, which show loving families, gay and straight, are faith- and family-approved."

The Dove Foundation exercises its power by narrowing the choices for parents deciding what films are appropriate for their children. In addition to focusing on content, such as violence, language, and sexual situations, it is deciding for its viewers what constitutes a family.

"Bishop Gene Robinson is a loving father, a devoted husband, and a leader within the Christian church," said Ross Murray, GLAAD's Director of News and Faith Initiatives. "To label his story inappropriate for families is to deny those families the opportunity to watch together and discuss as a family what it means to treat all people with dignity, honor, and respect."

Help us stand up to the Dove Foundation by supporting Love Free or Die!

Add your name to the hundreds that are voicing their support for family friendly visibility of LGBT people through the groundbreaking film Love Free or Die. Sign and share. 

Tell The Dove Foundation to "Family-Approve" Love Free or Die

GLAAD is in partnership with Wolfe Video, the distributer of Love Free or Die. Until April 15, Wolfe will donate a complimentary DVD of Love Free or Die to anyone who makes a contribution to GLAAD of $100 or more. The funds raised go directly to GLAAD's work to lead the conversation for LGBT equality.

Donate Now

April 9, 2013

          Ferdinand Bardamu: "White people are their own worst enemy"        
Quick recapitulation:
1) Fjordman wrote a highly interesting article about the Proposition Nation, and how this made treason against ourselves the norm among white people. Putting his blow torch under the asses of USA, France and the Enlightenment.
2) Señor NaziUniform enters the room claiming that we should instead put blame on the goblins. (The thing is that Señor NaziUniform will always bring up the goblins in every discussion even if the topic had been Medieval Celtic beer production. And he will always blame any problems on the goblins. He is constitutionally unable to talk about anything else.)
3) The minds of the other people there went into red alert mode (as it always does whenever goblins are brought up) and they were unable to focus on the discussion that Fjordman had intended. The room becomes a pandemonium of heated arguments about how many problems that are due to goblins, while others claim that goblins do not exist (at least not as a group, at least not if you say something negative about them as a group). Next someone calls out that there are actually goblins present in the room, and the goblin says that this is a goblin room, and someone else says that we should always stand by World of Warcraft, etc. No one manages to focus on Fjordman's article, or on America, France or the Enlightenment.

This is what happened so far... except that it wasn't about goblins. It was about... this other ethnic group... the Finns?

Naturally, Fjordman was disappointed, and he wrote as follows:
It is an objective fact that the Idea Nation or Proposition Nation as a concept is a child of the Western Enlightenment and has been disproportionately spread by the USA and France in particular. That was the subject of my original essay. I have gradually come to realize that some of the crucial problems the West suffers from today can probably be traced back to the Enlightenment era. It is an objective fact that the direct intellectual input of Jews when it comes to shaping Enlightenment thought, with the possible exception of Spinoza, was tiny.

The Enlightenment was a creation of Europeans, and if we suffer from its effects today this is largely our own fault. We shouldn’t blame others for it, be that the Chinese, the Muslims or the Jews.
Well, no surprises there for anyone who knows history. No goblins behind the birth of the Proposition Nation. And this is all in line with what Ferdinand Bardamu wrote a year ago in his article "What's wrong with white nationalism?"

- - - - - - - - -
Quoting from the article:

And there we run into our first problem with white nationalism – it doesn’t confront the core of what is wrong with the West. White nationalists are right that multiculturalism and ethnic infighting are serious issues, but they don’t recognize that the tribal soup that America, Britain and other white nations are drowning in is not the cause of those nations’ decline, but a symptom. To demonstrate this, I will use the time-honored method of the Socratic dialogue:

White Nationalist: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children!

Ferdinand Bardamu: Tally ho, chap. I say, what are you agitating about?

WN: I want my white brothers and sisters to throw off their shackles and fight the enemies who are trying to wipe them out.

FB: I see. And just who are the enemies of the white race?

WN: The Jews! They control the government, the media, and Wall Street, and they’re trying to ethnically cleanse us from our own nation by robbing us, importing foreigners to replace us, and encouraging miscegenation with lesser races. And the Negroes! They’re slaughtering us in the streets and raping our women!

FB: Okay, Jews and Negroes are bad. But weren’t white people responsible for letting the Jews in this country and allowing them to participate in public life to begin with?

WN: Uhhhh…

FB: And the Negroes – weren’t they brought here from Africa as slaves and later emancipated by white people?

WN: Errrrr…

FB: Wouldn’t this mean that these problems that white people suffer from are basically self-inflicted?


White nationalism doesn’t address why all of these alien tribes have popped up in our midst. WNs like to blame these and other problems on the Jews, and while I acknowledge that they’ve had a disproportionate, malign influence, the fact of the matter is that the ideology that wrecked the West, liberalism, originates from whites. (Note: for the purposes of this essay only, I will regard Jews as a separate entity from whites.) The intellectual forbears of modern liberalism and its offshoot ideologies like multiculturalism and feminism were all gentiles – 17th and 18th century thinkers like John Locke, Thomas Paine, Mary Wollstonecraft, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Adam Smith. The Jewish establishment in the modern West is merely a vector for a white-created disease of the mind.

And even if we accept the premise that Jews and Jewish influence are primarily responsible for the mess we’re in, that doesn’t absolve whites from blame. The Jews didn’t invade America, Britain or any other country en masse and forcibly take over their institutions – they were invited by the natives. Prior to their emanicipation in the 19th century, Jews were despised and persecuted everywhere they went, and had little to no influence on the societies they settled in. That’s why the neoconservative description of the West as “Judeo-Christian” should make educated people laugh – Jews had about as much influence on pre-Enlightenment Europe as the Gypsies. Jewish emancipation was a product of liberalism, as the first European state to grant them full legal rights was revolutionary France in 1791. If Jews have fired the bullet into the head of white civilization, whites themselves are culpable for letting them touch the gun to begin with.

The fact of the matter, that white nationalists are either unwilling or unable to address, is that white people are their own worst enemy.
The whole article is worth reading. Read it here. There is much more to why White Nationalism is problematic.

So how can we have a proper discussion about how white people are the ones destroying ourselves, and the memes driving it? Well, clearly we'll have to send anyone in Nazi uniform or anyone obsessing about goblins out of the room. Even someone obsessing about Muslims or Hispanics will be useless and disruptive in this discussion. Quite as those obsessing about the Jews. But the last one is worse since it will take the whole room into red alert mode (as described above).

The only thing that the energetic writing and commenting by Chechar and Tanstaafl have lead to is to make open blog discussions about Jews a dead end. I didn't think in this way before, but they have changed the landscape now. Some people who would otherwise say something about the issue will be repelled from it by them. And in this polarized situation, some people who would otherwise have kept a more balanced stance will be sucked into their warp. This since, at least to newcomers, Chechar and Tanstaafl will appear as the brave ones who dare bringing up the "truths".

It's really a pity it has gone this way. A few years ago there were several very informative discussions about the Jewish question over at Gates of Vienna. Plenty of people from Eastern Europe made great contributions there back then.

The whole series:

          Regresando a las raíces #1        
Regresando a las Raíces:
En nuestras pasados post estábamos hablando un poco sobre la revolución espiritual que esta ocurriendo a nivel mundial, conocimos también de donde sale el nombre de Biblia, tambien hablamos un poco de la historia que tiene la Biblia y sobre la importancia de conocer tanto la historia, costumbres y entorno del pueblo judío para poder tener mayor comprensión y revelación que nos lleve a poder trascender en el propósito que tiene Dios para nosotros. En esta ocasión vamos a adentrarnos un poco más profundo en conocimiento sobre la historia de la Torá (Biblia). También cubriremos información sobre la cultura judía. Ahora si no ha estado con nosotros desde la primera vez y no sabe nada de la información que se ha dado, sintiendose perdido no se preocupe, trate de ponerse al dia con los post anteriores.
Antiguo Pacto o Antiguo Testamento:
El Antiguo Pacto o el Tanah para los hebreos constituye de un conjunto de los 24 libros de la Biblia hebrea y es el equivalente al Nuevo Testamento para los cristianos. El Tanaj también se llama Micra (מקרא, que significa "lectura" o "lo que es leído"). La lista o canon (libros bíblicos hebreos inspirados por Dios) quedó establecida definitivamente para el Judaísmo (es la religión, creencias, tradición y cultura del pueblo judío) en el siglo II de la era cristiana, por el consenso de un grupo de sabios rabinos que habían conseguido escapar del asedio de Jerusalén por los romanos en el año 70 y que habían fundado una escuela en Yamnia (Antigua ciudad en la llanura costera este de Jerusalén y al sur de la moderna Tel Aviv). A estos libros se les conoce como protocanónicos (libros de carácter bíblico que desde el principio la Iglesia reconoció como de divina inspiración), y forman el Canon Palestinense o Tanaj. El significado de Tanaj viene de las tres letras iniciales hebreas de cada una de las tres partes que lo componen el Tanaj o Antiguo Pacto.
  1. La Torá = «instrucción»
  2. Los Nevi'im = o «Profetas»
  3. Los Ketuvim = o «Escritos»
Torá (תּוֹרָה) = instrucción
  1. Génesis = [bereshit - en el comienzo]
  2. Éxodo = [shmot - nombres]
  3. Levítico = [vayikra - (y) lo llamó]
  4. Números = [bamidbar - en el desierto]
  5. Deuteronomio = [dvarim - palabras]
Torah o Torá (aceptado por la Real Academia Española como Tora), a decir verdad, se dice Torah por un mandamiento, o en su sentido más amplio, para designar a la totalidad de la revelación y enseñanza divina al pueblo de Israel. Sin embargo en un sentido intermedio, se refiere únicamente al texto de los cinco primeros libros de la Biblia (que para los cristianos se llama Pentateuco), se le llamo así porque en el periodo de Moisés, la Biblia se le llamaba Torá y eran únicamente los primeros cinco libros los que existían en ese momento y que les fueron otorgados en el monte Sinaí. En el caso de los Judíos Mesianicos tambien le llaman Torah a toda la Biblia completa, en si al Antiguo Pacto y Nuevo Pacto.

Nevi'im (נְבִיאִים) = o los Profétas
  1. Yehoshua o Josué = [yehoshua - Jah - es salvación, salvador]
  2. Shoftim o Jueces = [shoftim - jueces]
  3. Shmuel o Samuel = [(I Samuel y II Samuel) shmuel - Dios escucha]
  4. Reyes (I Reyes y II Reyes) = [melajim - reyes]
  5. Isaías = [yeshaya - salvará Dios]
  6. Jeremías = [irmiya - levanta Dios]
  7. Ezequiel = [yejezquel - fortalecerá Dios]
  8. El libro de los 12 profetas menores: = [treyə asar - en arameo doce]
  • Oseas o Oshea = [osheha - salvó]
  • Joel = [Yah - es Dios]
  • Amós = [amos - ocupado, el que lleva la carga]
  • Abdías = [ovdyəa - trabajó Dios]
  • Jonás = [yona - paloma]
  • Miqueas = [mija - hay personas que piensan que es: ¿quién como Dios?]
  • Najum = [najum - confortado]
  • Habacuc = [javacuc - una planta en acadio o abrazado]
  • Sofonías = [tzfania - norte de Dios, ocultado de Dios, agua de Dios]
  • Ageo = [jagayə - vacación en lenguas semíticas, mis vacaciones en hebreo]
  • Zacarías o Zaharia = [zejaría - se acuerda Dios]
  • Malaquías = [malají - ángel, mis ángeles]
Ketuvim (כְּתוּבִים) = o los Escritos
  1. Salmos (Tehilim)
  2. Proverbios (Mishlei)
  3. Job (Iyov)
  4. El Cantar de los Cantares (Shir HaShirim)
  5. Rut (Rut)
  6. Lamentaciones (Eija)
  7. Eclesiastés (Kohelet)
  8. Ester (Ester)
  9. Daniel (Daniel)
  10. Esdras y Nehemías (Ezra Nejemyahu)
  11. Crónicas (I Crónicas y II Crónicas) (Divrei HaYamim Alef, Bet)
Para los Judíos ortodoxos que son los líderes del Judaísmo el Tanaj o Antiguo Pacto es el único libro válido y reconocido para ellos como inspirado por Dios. Ellos no le reconocen autoridad a Jesús, ni tampoco como su verdadero Mesías, ni al Nuevo Pacto como un libro inspirado por Dios, reconociéndose como texto sagrado únicamente al Tanaj. Para los cristianos el canon bíblico es el conjunto de libros de la historia del pueblo judío que la tradición judeocristiana considera divinamente inspirados y que por lo tanto constituyen la Biblia. El canon bíblico cristiano está constituido por los cánones del Antiguo Testamento y del Nuevo Testamento. Existen diferentes opiniones respecto a la canonicidad de distintos libros de la Biblia como lo son los llamados libros Deuterocanónicos (son textos y pasajes del Antiguo Testamento de la Biblia cristiana que no están incluidos en el Tanaj judío hebreo-arameo) y algunas religiones los consideran apócrifos (son los libros sobre cuya canonicidad se dudó durante un cierto tiempo, pero que al final no entraron a formar parte del canon).
Aunque el Judaismo tiene algunas cosas incorrectas como por ejemplo no reconocer a Jesús como el Mesías y eso esta muy mal, aunque es debido al velo que tienen, y que está cayendo, y caerá cuendo regrese nuestro Mesías nuevamente, tambien tienen algunas cosas buenas y me explico. No se han preguntado alguna vez como es que Moíses sabía tanta historia de sus antepasados? Aunque en varias partes de la Biblia se encuentran citas que indican que Moisés escribió la Torá (nos referimos a los primeros 5 libros) también el judaísmo ortodoxo sostiene que junto con los escritos, el pueblo de Israel también recibió la revelación oral, que se ha transmitido tradicionalmente de generación en generación. Eso se llama Talmud que es la tradición oral, mientras que la Torá (o sea el Pentateuco) es considerada como la tradición escrita. El Talmud extiende, explica y complementa al Tanaj (Antiguo Pacto), pero no puede, por definición, contradecir a la Torá (Biblia) ni ir por encima de su autoridad.
Además de lo escrito en la Torá, es bien probable que Moisés haya recibido parte de lo que escribió en Génesis y parte de Éxodo, mediante la tradición oral de 6 eslabones ya que era algo normal en su pueblo:
  1. Adán: Vivió hasta los 233 años de Matusalén y hasta los 51 años de Lamec;
  2. Matusalén: Vivió hasta los 98 años de Sem;
  3. Sem: Vivió hasta los 50 años de Jacob;
  4. Jacob: Vivió hasta los 60 años de Leví y hasta aproximadamente los 18 ó 20 años de Cohat;
  5. Leví: Vivió aproximadamente hasta los 77 años de Amram;
  6. Amram: Padre de Moisés
Si vemos los hebreos han cuidado sus tradiciones, costumbres e historia desde el mismo principio de los tiempos. El Talmud hebreo se hizo escrito en el siglo III d.C para evitar que se perdiese en la diáspora judía (se ha empleado el término para referirse al exilio judío fuera de la Tierra de Israel cuando el Imperio Romano destruyo el templo y a Jerusalem). Ya con los Judíos saliendo de Israel siglo III a. C., el texto de Tanaj (Antiguo Pacto) se tradujo al griego para el uso de las comunidades judías que residían en las colonias griegas del Mediterráneo. La versión resultante, conocida como la Septuaginta,(Torá traducida de hebreo a griego pero solamente el Antiguo Pacto) contiene importantes variaciones y adiciones con respecto al texto canónico de la versión hebrea. De acuerdo a la tradición crítica, esto se debe a que la Septuaginta proviene de un canon textual distinto al que compilaron los masoretas para producir la versión hebrea.
Los Masoretas son los escribas con la responsabilidad de hacer copias fidedignas de las Escrituras Sagradas, eran rabinos y escribas estudiosos que compilaban el llamado Texto Masorético, que es el texto más usado para hacer traducciones y visto por la mayoría de los estudiosos como el más confiable para traducir el Antiguo Pacto. Esta Biblia griega, a pesar de ser la versión de uso común en la iglesia de esos días, y endosada por padres antiguos incluyendo Agustín de Hipona (uno de los cuatro Padres de la Iglesia latina o romana que es aquella parte de la Iglesia Católica que usaba como lengua litúrgica el latín), Jerónimo de Estridón (otro de los cuatro Padres de la Iglesia latina o romana) no utilizó la Septuaginta para redactar la Vulgata (es una traducción de la Biblia al latín) latina, el texto canónico de la religión católica optando más bien utilizar el texto hebreo Masorético. La versión toma su nombre de la frase vulgata editio (edición para el pueblo) y se escribió en un latín corriente en contraposición con el latín clásico de Cicerón, que Jerónimo de Estridón dominaba. El objetivo de la Vulgata era ser más fácil de entender y más exacta que sus predecesoras.
La intención de Jerónimo de Estridón fue buena, pero habia otra Biblia latina utilizada antes de la Vulgata, la Vetus Latina, que no fue traducida por una única persona o institución y ni siquiera se editó de forma uniforme. La calidad y el estilo de los libros individuales dentro de la Biblia variaban. Las traducciones del Antiguo Testamento provenían casi todas de la Septuaginta griega. Pero en la Edad Media la Vulgata sucumbió a los cambios inevitables forjados por el error humano, en el copiado incontable del texto en los monasterios a través de Europa. Desde sus días más tempranos, las lecturas del Vetus Latina fueron introducidas. Las notas marginales fueron interpoladas erróneamente en el texto. Ninguna copia era igual a la otra. Asi se fue perdiendo la escencia.
Realmente conociendo todos los acontecimientos históricos y el funcionamiento de la cultura hebrea seguímos descubriendo y fortaleciendo nuestra Fé con conocimiento, ahora mientras sigamos por ese camino comenzaremos tambien a entrar en otro campo que no muchos hemos logrado entra y es el de la Revelación.

          Historia del Cristianismo:        
1. Raíces del cristianismo:
Jesús y sus primeros discípulos fueron judíos, con eso en mente es imposible que podamos llevar el mensaje de salvación correctamente sin conocer tanto las costumbres judías como su historia.
El cristianismo continuó utilizando las Escrituras Sagradas hebreas, convirtiéndose en lo que hoy se conoce como el Antiguo Testamento. Aceptando muchas doctrinas fundamentales del judaísmo, como el monoteísmo (un solo Dios), el libre albedrío y el Mesías, término hebreo usualmente traducido como mesías en español, el cual es equivalente a Cristo (Cristos "[el] ungido" en griego). El cristianismo comenzó entre un pequeño número de judíos. En el libro de los Hechos de los Apóstoles 1:15 se mencionan cerca de 120. Veamos el texto Bíblico:
Hechos 1:15 (RV1960)  En aquellos días Pedro se levantó en medio de los hermanos (y los reunidos eran como ciento veinte en número), y dijo:
El termino cristianismo es un nombre puesto por los habitantes del imperio romano para identificar a los creyentes de Cristo en los primeros 3 siglos luego del nacimiento, muerte y resurrección de Jesús. Se les llamaba así a todos los que seguían las enseñanzas de Cristo, aunque lo interesante es que Jesús nunca introdujo ese nombre,incluso cuando les dio instrucciones a sus apóstoles para llevar su mensaje basado solo en la verdad y la fe. En el siglo III, el cristianismo creció hasta convertirse en la congregación dominante en el norte del mundo mediterráneo. También se extendió de forma importante al este y al sur del Mediterráneo. Los hechos que acontecieron en los primeros años del cristianismo se relatan en el libro de los Hechos de los Apóstoles. Actualmente se cuestiona la veracidad de algunos de estos relatos debido a la gran proliferación de libros falsos sobre los Hechos (o Actos) de los apóstoles que abundaban durante el cristianismo primitivo, pero la mayor parte ha mantenido la esencia del mensaje, confirmado por evidencia arqueológica reciente.

Sobre esas evidencias hablaremos en otros capítulos mas adelante. Esta sección examinará aquellos primeros 300 años.
2. Relaciones con el mundo helenista (griego)
La Tierra de Israel fue sumamente disputada por los antiguos imperios, debido en gran parte a su ubicación geográfica. Estaba en medio de dos grandes rutas comerciales: Egipto y Mesopotamia, Arabia y Asia menor. Alejandro Magno derrotó a los persas y luego se adueñó de Palestina. Tras la muerte de Alejandro (323 a. C.), nuevamente Palestina (territorio de israel y otros países) queda en discordia. Recordando la ideología de Alejandro, que era de unir a toda la humanidad bajo una misma civilización de tonalidad marcadamente griega (fusión denominada Helenismo). Esta fusión combinaba elementos griegos con otros tomados de las civilizaciones conquistadas, aún variando de región en región. Esto le dio una unidad a la cuenca del Mediterráneo, que serviría a la expansión del imperio romano y al cristianismo o predicación del evangelio. Para los judíos el helenismo era una amenaza para su religión, pues la filosofía helenística era materialista. La presión del helenismo era constante y la fidelidad de los judíos a su Dios y a sus tradiciones también. Esta presión desató una rebelión por una parte de los judíos macabeos, quienes se rebelaron contra el helenismo, quienes pretendían imponer sus ideales.
Luego en la historia se presenta el romano Pompeyo en el 63 a. C. quien toma Palestina deponiendo al último de los macabeos Aristóbulo II. La política romana era tolerante a la religión y las costumbres de los pueblos conquistados.
Herodes I hizo todo lo posible por introducir el helenismo, a tal grado que intentó colocar un águila en la entrada del Templo de Jerusalén, lo cual provocó una rebelión nuevamente, que se sofocó (aplasto) con 2,000 crucifixiones. Durante este tiempo existían grupos religiosos; los fariseos que eran un partido del pueblo y no gozaban de las ventajas materiales que otorgaban el régimen romano y el helenismo, también velaban por cumplir la ley en los momentos difíciles, creían en la resurrección y en la existencia de los ángeles. Los saduceos eran el partido de la aristocracia, cuyos intereses le llevaban a colaborar con el régimen. Eran aristócratas y conservadores, no creían en la resurrección ni en los ángeles. Los zelotes eran el partido que se oponían tenazmente al régimen romano, y siguió existiendo aún después de las atrocidades. Jesús y los apóstoles estaban más cerca de los fariseos en la doctrina (Jesús no los criticó por ser malos judíos, sino porque en su afán de cumplir la ley se olvidaban de los seres humanos). Todos los partidos y todas las sectas tenían algo en común; compartían el monoteísmo ético y la esperanza escatológica.
  • El monoteísmo ético: Creencia en un solo Dios. Dios requiere algo más que un servicio apropiado, requiere la justicia entre los seres humanos (aunque la justicia la interpretaban cada grupo de manera distinta), honrar a Dios con toda la vida misma.
  • La esperanza escatológica: Guardaban la esperanza mesiánica, creían firmemente que el día llegaría cuando Dios interviniera en la historia de Israel y el cumplir un reino de paz y Justicia. Estas fueron las bases para el cristianismo, ya que ayudaron a su expansión por todo el Imperio romano.
El cristianismo también continuó con muchos de los patrones encontrados en el judaísmo de la época de Jesús, como la adaptación de la forma litúrgica de la adoración en la sinagoga a la iglesia o templo; la oración; la utilización de las Sagradas Escrituras; un calendario religioso; el uso de la música en himnos y oración; además de disciplinas como el ayuno. Estas características nos llevan a la conclusión de que no había realmente algo diferente entre las costumbres judías y las de la iglesia primitiva (primera iglesia) e incluso las nuestras en tiempos modernos. Los cristianos adoptaron inicialmente las traducciones griegas de las escrituras judías, conocidas como la Septuaginta, como su propia Biblia, y más tarde se canonizaron muchos de los libros del Nuevo Testamento.
3. La Iglesia cristiana primitiva:

El concepto "judeocristianos primitivos" es utilizado a menudo al discutir sobre el cristianismo primitivo, aunque realmente no existe diferencia entre un cristianismo primitivo y el moderno. Se le dice cristianismo primitivo por ser los primeros cristianos, no por ser inferiores en cuanto a conocimiento con nosotros en nuestros tiempos, incluso a ese "cristianismo primitivo" es el que debemos aspirar a tener en nuestras congregaciones ya que es el mas puro en cuanto a las enseñanzas de Cristo, ya que estaban en los tiempos mas cercanos a su vida y enseñanzas. Jesús, sus doce apóstoles, los ancianos y la mayor parte de sus seguidores eran judíos. Así como los 3000 convertidos en Pentecostés luego de la crucifixión descrita en los Hechos de los Apóstoles 2, donde todos los judíos, prosélitos (recién llegados al reino de israel) y todos los convertidos al cristianismo eran no gentiles antes de la conversión del oficial romano Cornelio por Simón Pedro en Hechos 10, quien es considerado según la tradición como el primer gentil en ser convertido al cristianismo. La más grande división en el cristianismo antes de ese tiempo se presentó entre los judíos helenísticos y no helenísticos o sea los de habla griega y los de habla aramea (Hechos 6). Sin embargo, después de la conversión de Cornelio y su aceptación como cristiano, ahora existía otro grupo, los cristianos gentiles. Como un movimiento escatológico (lo más nuevo), anticiparon que los gentiles se transformarían al Dios de Israel como lo profetizaba Isaías en los versículos 56:6-8. Veamos el texto Bíblico:
Isaías 56:8 (RV1960)  Y a los hijos de los extranjeros que sigan a Jehová para servirle, y que amen el nombre de Jehová para ser sus siervos; a todos los que guarden el día de reposo para no profanarlo, y abracen mi pacto,

Isaías 56:7 (RV1960)  yo los llevaré a mi santo monte, y los recrearé en mi casa de oración; sus holocaustos y sus sacrificios serán aceptos sobre mi altar; porque mi casa será llamada casa de oración para todos los pueblos.
Isaías 56:8 (RV1960)  Dice Jehová el Señor, el que reúne a los dispersos de Israel: Aún juntaré sobre él a sus congregados.

El Nuevo Testamento no utiliza el término "gentil-cristiano" o "judío-cristiano", en cambio Pablo escribe en contra de aquellos quienes estaban circuncidados, quienes se separaban de los no circuncisos: "En esta nueva naturaleza, no hay griego ni judío, circunciso ni incircunciso, bárbaro, escita, esclavo ni libre, sino que Cristo está en todo y en todos" (Colosenses 3:11). Veamos el texto Bíblico:

Colosenses 3:11 (RV1960)  donde no hay griego ni judío, circuncisión ni incircuncisión, bárbaro ni escita, siervo ni libre, sino que Cristo es el todo, y en todos.
Circuncisos y no circuncisos se interpretan generalmente como judíos y griegos respectivamente, siendo estos últimos quienes predominaban. Sin embargo, esto es una simplificación excesiva de la provincia de Judea del siglo I debido a que existían algunos judíos que no seguían circuncidándose, y que algunos griegos (llamados prosélitos o judaizantes) sí lo hacían además de otros tales como egipcios y etíopes. Con esto también tenemos que dejar claro cual es la diferencia entre judaísmo y cristianismo, ya que casi no hay ninguna, salvo que gran parte del pueblo de Israel no reconoce al Nuevo Testamento como libro Bíblico y tampoco reconocen a Jesús como el Mesías que vino a darnos salvación, muchos de ellos todavía lo están esperando, aunque también hay un sector del pueblo de Israel (judíos Mesiánicos) que ya esta viendo la luz y se les ha caído el velo reconociendo a Jesús como el Mesías que vino a dar la vida por nosotros en la cruz.
4. Final de la etapa apostólica:
Hacia el año 62, el sumo sacerdote del judaísmo, Ananías, hizo arrestar a Santiago, que encabezaba la Iglesia de Jerusalén y le ajustició. Uno de sus hermanos, Simón, fue llamado a sucederle, pero la situación política de Israel se agravaba y los conflictos internos del judaísmo eran cada día mayores. Se cree que Pablo fue decapitado y Pedro fue muerto crucificado boca abajo en Roma durante la persecución por parte de Nerón. Al final del siglo I, de los apóstoles originales vivía tan solo Juan, que se había trasladado a Éfeso, cuya iglesia se considera madre de muchas de Asia Menor y Grecia, donde se manifestaban brotes gnósticos. Con el emperador Vespasiano, el cristianismo siguió extendiéndose, hasta que en el año 90 con el imperio bajo el emperador Nerva (de quien dice su biógrafo Xifilino que «no permitió que se acusase a nadie por haber observado las ceremonias de la religión judaica o haber descuidado el culto de los dioses»), pudo regresar Juan a Éfeso, y pocos años después falleció, a edad muy avanzada. Con su muerte (hacia el año 100) concluye la etapa apostólica. La Didajé (enseñanza en griego) y otros escritos de los Padres Apostólicos documentan las principales prácticas de la "iglesia primitiva" o la primera iglesia.
5.Los escritos:

Los primeros cristianos produjeron durante la historia muchos cánones importantes y otras obras literarias descritas dentro de la organización de la Iglesia Cristiana. Una de las primeras de éstas es la Didaké, el cual es normalmente fechado a finales del primer o inicios del segundo siglo. La "Didaké" o "enseñanza de los Apóstoles" es uno de los más antiguos documentos cristianos que se conservan. Posiblemente anterior a algunos textos del Nuevo Testamento, muy probablemente es de origen judío y a través de la primera iglesia de Jerusalén, pasó a manos de los gentiles -no judíos- que después se convertirían al Dios Vivo y adquirirían salvación por medio de la Gracia que recibimos cuando ponemos nuestra fe en el Mesías de Israel: Jesús de Nazareth. Con esto nos da a entender nuevamente que incluso el Nuevo Testamento fue escrito originalmente en hebreo, arameo y traducida luego al koiné (griego antiguo). Hay que recordar que los apóstoles hablaban hebreo y arameo, la lengua que hablaban Jesús y su entorno, por ende la versión original tuvo que haber sido en hebreo. El uso del término «testamento» proviene del vocablo hebreo berith (‘alianza, pacto, convenio o disposiciones entre dos contratantes’), a través del griego diatheké, y del latín testamentum. Los nombres Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento con que se designa las dos grandes secciones en que se divide la Biblia cristiana provinieron de un error de interpretación de la palabra diatheké, que significa: ‘deseo’ o ‘voluntad’, y también ‘acuerdo’ o ‘convenio’. Con este criterio diatheké en griego haría referencia al antiguo y al nuevo convenio de Dios con los hombres mas que a las Escrituras mismas.
Respecto al término «testamento», este proviene de la traducción de la Vulgata y del paso del concepto hebreo al griego. Los traductores de la Septuaginta habrían buscado evitar que al hablar del berith (la alianza entre Dios e Israel) se entendiera que era un pacto entre iguales. Por eso no usaron el término griego syntheké (que se traduce por ‘alianza’), sino que escogieron diatheké, que se traduce por ‘testamento’ o ‘voluntad’, que es la obligación de uno solo con respecto a otro que solo recibe beneficios. De esta forma destacaron más la disparidad entre las partes (es decir, entre Dios y los hombres). Luego, esa es una de las acepciones de la palabra testamentum, y de la castellana «testamento» (no entendida solo como última voluntad). La versiones latinas, como la de Jerónimo, y la mayoría de las versiones de la Biblia cristiana siguen utilizando el término «testamento» en lugar de «alianza» para referirse al Antiguo Testamento (alianza del Sinaí) y al Nuevo Testamento (alianza en la sangre de Cristo). Con toda esta explicacion tan detallada tenemos que darnos cuenta que la Biblia es un solo libro sin division, que no hay un Nuevo y Viejo Testamento, que lo que si hay es una sola Palabra (Tora) y un Nuevo Pacto con el Eterno.
6. Oficialización del Cristianismo en el Imperio romano:
El cristianismo en el imperio romano fue aceptado como la religión oficial por el emperador Teodosio y se le atribuye como una de las consecuencias que provocaron la decadencia del imperio. A fines del siglo IV el cristianismo se transformara en la religión oficial del Imperio Romano. Pero habían disputas entre los grupos cristianos y otras religiones que afectaban al Imperio Romano. Mientras sucedía todo eso sube al poder el emperador Constantino. El como todos los demás emperadores anteriores era el sacerdote superior de la religión mitraica (rendía culto a una divinidad llamada Mitra). Sin embargo, también estaba interesado en crear unidad para facilitar el gobierno, y para hacer esto se involucró en la disputa entre grupos cristianos sobre el arrianismo (mantenían que Jesús era hijo de Dios, pero no Dios mismo), invocando el Primer Concilio de Nicea (concilio debía ser establecer la paz religiosa y construir la unidad de la Iglesia cristiana), este concilio (asamblea) produjo el Credo Niceno. El objeto del Credo fue consensuar (unir en un consenso) una definición de los dogmas de la fe cristiana y con ello la creación de una declaración dogmática (indica una creencia, doctrina o proposición sobre cuya verdad no se admiten dudas).
Constantino mitigó algunas diferencias y las unió entre el cristianismo ortodoxo y su principal competidor, la religión oficial del Sol Invictus (culto al dios sol).
Por ejemplo, cambió la celebración del nacimiento de Jesús al 25 de diciembre, debido a que esta era la fecha de celebración del nacimiento de Mitra (dios persa) y Baco (dios griego), así como la fecha de los festivales del solsticio de invierno tales como la Saturnalia (festividades romanas en honor al dios Saturno). Además, Constantino instituyó el uso de símbolo chi-rho (crismón), representativo del cristianismo en las monedas, aunque según algunos estudiosos esto servía para propósitos cristianos y no cristianos simultáneamente.
La leyenda popular dice que Constantino I era cristiano, sin embargo, nunca repudió su posición de alto sacerdote de Mitra Sol Invictus públicamente, y su única "conversión" conocida fue moribundo en su cama (como se dijo luego por Padres de la Iglesia cristiana posteriores), lo cual es imposible de verificar. Sin embargo, no era inusual (fuera de lo común) para la gente del siglo IV el evitar convertirse completamente al cristianismo hasta muy avanzada su vida, por la fuerza de las advertencias en contra de que continuaran en pecado después de haberse convertido y por las consecuencias espirituales que aquello traía. Se le conoce a Constantino como el fundador de la Iglesia Católica Bizantina griega, como San Constantino y muchos historiadores le atribuyen también ser el verdadero creador de la Iglesia Católica Apostólica Romana. En conclusión debemos aprender la historia de Israel y de los judíos para poder entender todo lo que conlleva el camino que recorreremos juntos en el evangelio, y tenemos que volver a las raíces como el movmiento que esta pasando mundialmente con muchas iglesias y congregaciones ya que el velo de obscuridad esta cayendo...
Quien no conoce las costumbres judías y la historia jamas conocerá la Gloria en Jesucristo!

          La Biblia y de dónde salen sus Bases Textuales:        


La BIBLIA es más que un tesoro histórico o un clásico literario para ser preservado, admirado o aplaudido. Es algo mas que un conjunto de documentos sobre cuya base puedan exaltarse talentos de hombres eruditos o sabios. La BIBLIA es la mas grande de todas las obras del Creador. Revela su mente, expresa su voluntad y manifiesta su poder mediante palabras que, entre otros muchos propósitos, tienen poder para quitar la muerte y sacar a luz la vida y la inmortalidad de quien lee con fe. No podemos suponer entonces nosotros como lectores que tenemos en nuestras manos un libro que el hombre hubiera podido escribir de haber querido. Su maravillosa unidad y continuidad, y sus predicciones cumplidas, evidencian el carácter trascendente y sobrenatural de la Obra. También tenemos que saber por otra parte, que tampoco es un libro que el hombre hubiera querido escribir de haber podido, consistentemente habla en su contra y sin excepción de personas, testifica contra el, exhibiendo sus rebeliones, perversiones y fracasos.

Si con nuestra mente adulta, en cambio, creemos vivir en un planeta visitado por Dios hecho carne, entonces las palabras que El dice revisten una importancia tal, que al considerar el Precioso Texto, sera imposible abstraernos de que el Libro nos confronta con asuntos que exceden los limites de nuestra habitación temporal. Ante esta realidad, no quien pretenda, sino quien humildemente aspire a traducir al Autor Exacto (Dios), tiene que admitir las limitaciones y la poca o ninguna importancia que representa el depender de humanas disciplinas, y reconocer que, así como ante el DIOS TODOPODEROSO no es posible acercarse con varias repeticiones, tampoco ante su PALABRA es posible hacerlo con la charlatanería de un espíritu liberal, como si se tratara con preparación y comentarios propios de diccionarios o enciclopedias. No; ante el Libro, uno se ha de acercar con espíritu arrepentido, corazón hecho leña y postrada actitud; con fe sencilla y pies descalzos, limpios del mundanal lodo de las filosofías humanas, pues en este caso particular, no es el lector quien juzga al Libro, sino el Libro al lector. 

Las Bases Textuales de la Biblia:

La composición de la Biblia que hoy conocemos esta conformada por 66 libros 39 Antiguo Pacto (Antiguo Testamento) y 27 del Nuevo Pacto (Nuevo Testamento), eso conforma el llamado canon de la Escritura y fue reconocido también por la Iglesia Primitiva. Y que es el canon de la Escritura es el conjunto de libros de la historia del pueblo judío que la tradición judeocristiana considera divinamente inspirados por Dios. La Iglesia Primitiva es la que se denomina cristianismo primitivo desde el año 30 d.C. hasta el Concilio de Nicea I en el 325 d.C. Desde Job, su libro mas antiguo (1900 a.C.), hasta el Apocalipsis (90 d.C.), los libros se escribieron en hebreo, con algunas palabras en arameo (idioma parecido al hebreo más o menos en la misma forma como el castellano se parece al portugués) y griego Koiné (variedad del griego antiguo). La Biblia fue escrita en lugares tan distantes como 3 continentes Asia Menor, África y Europa. En un lapso de casi 2,000 años, por no menos de 40 autores de distintos rangos sociales, oficios y profesiones, cuya mayoría no se conoció entre si, aunque hablaron sobre diversos temas con extraordinaria similitud, principalmente acerca de cosas por venir. Esa diversidad de personalidades, tiempo y espacio coincidieron de manera tan exacta en el cumplimiento de sus aseveraciones, mas las cualidades que resaltan del Libro son su maravillosa unidad, autoridad y trascendencia.

Ahora bien, el lector ha de estar advertido que antes de traducir las palabras, frases y oraciones de la Escritura, el interprete ha de interesarse por un problema anterior:

Cual es el texto original del pasaje?

Que tal pregunta debe ser hecha y contestada! eso obedece a dos circunstancias. Primero que ningún manuscrito original de la Biblia existe hoy, y segundo las copias existentes difieren unas de otras. Hay que recordar que los textos se escribían en el frágil papiro, así que teóricamente los originales se tuvieron que haber destruido o extraviado y las copias manuscritas que existen exhiben múltiples diferencias. En el caso del Nuevo Pacto (Nuevo Testamento), los aproximadamente 5,300 manuscritos existentes, presentan entre si no menos de 250,000 variantes, que se acumularon durante los 14 siglos que duro el proceso de copiado manuscrito. Sin embargo, tanto en el caso del Antiguo Pacto como del Nuevo Pacto, los cambios introducidos, aunque numerosos y del interés mas profundo, están muy lejos de afectar la estructura doctrinal de la Obra. Pero gracias a los hallazgos de la Arqueología Bíblica, juntamente con los esfuerzos de la Critica Textual, se ha logrado desde mediados del siglo 19 hasta finales del siglo 20, la restauración de arquetipos muy cercanos a los Textos Originales.

Transmisión y Alteración Textual:

La historia de los principales hechos que contribuyeron en la alteración de los manuscritos bíblicos podría resumirse así: En los primeros días de la Iglesia Cristiana, luego que una Epístola o Carta era enviada, o después que un Evangélio era escrito, se hacían copias para extender su influencia y beneficios a otras congregaciones. Era por tanto, inevitable que tales copias tuvieran un numero de diferencias en palabras con respecto a su original. La mayor parte de estas situaciones ocurrieron por causas accidentales, tales como confundir una letra o una palabra con otra parecida. Si dos lineas como ejemplo terminaban con el mismo grupo de letras, o si dos palabras similares se encontraban juntas en la misma linea, era fácil para el ojo de del copista saltar alguna linea y así mismo omitir una porción del texto. Como también podía ser a la inversa que el escriba sin querer copiaba una o dos palabras dos veces y luego se pronunciarán por error de igual manera, podían llegar a ser confundidas por los escribas oyentes. Todos esos errores eran casi inevitable que ocurrieran cuando se copiaban a mano largos pasajes, sin contar que algún oyente tuviera el oído defectuoso o si era interrumpido en su labor, o si por causa del cansancio estuviera menos atento a su labor. Otras cosas que ocurrieron fueron de intentos deliberados por suavizar formas gramaticales toscas, o por tratar de eliminar partes que son real o aparentemente oscuras en el significado del texto. Algunas veces, un copista sustituía o añadía lo que le parecía ser una palabra o forma mas apropiada, quizás derivada de un pasaje paralelo parecido. De esta manera, durante los primeros años que siguieron a la conformación del Canon del Nuevo Pacto, surgieron centenares, si no millares de las llamadas variantes textuales.

Tipos de Textos:

Igualmente, durante los primeros años de expansión de la Iglesia Cristiana, se desarrollaron los llamados textos locales. A las nuevas congregaciones establecidas en grandes ciudades, tales como Alejandría, Antioquía, Constantinopla, Cartágo o Roma, se les proveían copias de las Escrituras en el estilo que era corriente en esa región. Al hacer copias adicionales, el numero de lecturas especiales e interpretaciones eran conservadas y hasta cierto punto aumentadas, de tal manera que un tipo de texto peculiar a su región llego a crecer y establecerse.

El tipo de texto Alejandrino, siendo el mas antiguo, es usualmente considerado como el mejor y mas fiel e la preservación del original. Sus características son la brevedad y la austeridad. Hasta muy recientemente, los dos principales testigos del tipo de texto Alejandrino eran el códice Vaticano y el códice Sinaítico, manuscritos en pergamino de mediados del siglo 4to. Sin embargo, con la aparición de importantes papiros a mediados del siglo 20 (Rollos del Mar Muerto), ha sido posible inferir que el tipo de texto Alejandrino retrocede hasta principios del 2do siglo (125 d.C.) El texto Alejandrino es el texto usado en tiempos modernos para la traducción de la Biblia NVI (Nueva Versión Internacional). Otros tipos de texto son el Occidental, el Caesariense y el Bizantino.

La característica principal del texto Occidental es un amor a la paráfrasis: "Son cambiadas palabras y hasta cláusulas, omisiones e insertaciones con libertad sorprendente, para que el significado pueda ser llevado a cabo con mayor fuerza y definición". Una posible procedencia del glose es el deseo de armonizar y completar. "También la peculiaridad del texto Occidental es la disponibilidad de adoptar alteraciones o añadiduras de fuentes diferentes a los libros que finalmente se consideran canónicos (auténticos según la Iglesia católica). Algunos de sus críticos están revisando si las consideradas ampliaciones del texto Occidental, podrían ser "auténticas" o dicho de otro modo, que en algunos casos, la forma alejandrina haya sido la que haya suprimido vocablos o frases, conservados en la recensión occidental y que, en tal caso, serían auténticas del original.

El texto Caesariense fueron papiros probablemente obtenidos de antiguos comerciantes ilegales. A causa de esto las circunstancias exactas de su hallazgo no están claras y parece haberse originado en Egipto. Está basado en el papiro Chéster Beatty 45 cuyo nombre se bautizó porque fue el mismo el que los descubrió. De acuerdo con los puntos de vista de la mayoría de eruditos, se trata de un texto oriental, y está caracterizado por una mezcla de lecturas occidentales y alejandrinas del siglo 3ro. Su característica principal que se puede observar es un propósito de hacer elegantes las expresiones, distinción que es especialmente notable en el tipo de texto Bizantino.

Este ultimo el texto Bizantino es el mas reciente de los tipos distintivos de texto del Nuevo Pacto (Nuevo Testamento). Durante el periodo transcurrido entre el siglo 6to hasta la invención de la imprenta en el siglo 15, el tipo Bizantino fue el de mayor circulación, el mas aceptado, y el reconocido como el texto autorizado por la Iglesia de Roma. Lo caracteriza su esfuerzo por aparecer completo y explicativo. Los constructores de este tipo de texto, intentaron sin duda, pulir cualquier forma ruda del lenguaje, combinar dos o mas lecturas discrepantes en una sola lectura expandida, y armonizar pasajes paralelos divergentes (parecidos en que hay discrepancia).

El Textus Receptus:

Por extraño que parezca, el tipo de texto Bizantino fue también el que sirvió de base para las traducciones Protestantes del Nuevo Pacto (Nuevo Testamento). Esta base textual griega fue editada e impresa en 1517 por Desiderio Erasmo de Rotterdam. Sus subsecuentes ediciones fueron ampliamente difundidas, y fue aceptado como el texto normativo para la Iglesia Católica y Protestante, el cual llego a ser reconocido por el nombre de Textus Receptus. La obra de Erasmo sirvió como base textual de traducción a la mayoría de los idiomas de los países de Europa. Fue editada 5 veces, y mas de 30 ediciones fueron realizadas sin autorización en Venecia, Estrasburgo, Basilea, Paris y otros lugares. Subsecuentes editores, a pesar de haber realizado un numero considerable de alteraciones injustas y caprichosas, reprodujeron vez tras vez esta adulterada forma de base textual griega, asegurándole una preeminencia (privilegio, ventaja o preferencia) tal, que hasta principios del siglo 20, llego a aceptarse como el texto normativo del Nuevo Pacto. Tan supersticiosa e inapropiada ha sido su inmerecida reverencia, que los intentos por criticarlo o enmendarlos son todavía en nuestros días considerados un sacrilegio, todo esto a pesar de que su base textual es esencialmente un manojo de manuscritos tardíos (siglo 12) escogidos al azar y, por lo menos en una docena de pasajes, además su lectura no esta respaldada por ningún manuscrito griego conocido hasta el presente. Aun así, este Textus Receptus ha resistido durante casi 500 años (y aun resiste) en ser desplazado a favor de la verdadera Base Textual Griega, y hoy, encubierto bajo su nuevo nombre de Texto Mayoritario, trata de retomar la supremacía y sigue obstaculizando el camino a todo esfuerzo por restaurar la genuina Palabra de Dios. Las dos principales Biblias que utilizaron el Textus Receptus para traducirse son la Reina Valera, King James y la Scofield.

Pero la pregunta es: Porque ocurre esto en nuestros días y no se dan cuenta de el error?

Debido a que no conocen su historia, así que para eso debemos ir a las fuentes históricas comenzando en el año 303 d.C. El emperador romano Dioceciano quizo traer el paganismo de Roma nuevamente, de esa forma se empeñó en destruir las Escrituras y promulgó una serie de edictos cada vez más severos contra los cristianos, provocando lo que algunos historiadores denominan “la Gran Persecución”. El primer edicto ordenó el derribo de los lugares de reunión de los cristianos y la quema de las Escrituras. Harry Y. Gamble, profesor de Estudios Religiosos de la Universidad de Virginia, escribió: “Diocleciano dio por descontado que toda comunidad cristiana, dondequiera que se hallara, poseía una colección de libros, y sabía que estos eran indispensables para su existencia”. El historiador eclesiástico Eusebio de Cesarea (Palestina), que vivió en aquel entonces, escribió: “Con nuestros propios ojos hemos visto las casas de oración, desde la cumbre a los cimientos, enteramente arrasadas, y las divinas y sagradas Escrituras entregadas al fuego en medio de las plazas públicas”. Tres meses después del primer edicto de Diocleciano, el gobernador de Cirta (ciudad del norte de África conocida hoy como Constantina) ordenó a los cristianos que entregaran todos sus “escritos de la ley (Tora)” y sus “copias de las escrituras”. Existen testimonios sobre cristianos que prefirieron la tortura y la muerte antes que entregar sus biblias para que las destruyeran.

Dioceciano se unió al grupo de pretenciosos para destruir la Biblia (Jehoiaquim, Antíoco, etc.) No obstante, la Biblia sobrevivió a todos los intentos de destruirla. Aunque los emperadores romanos que sucedieron a Diocleciano empezaron a declararse cristianos, los ataques contra la Biblia continuaron. Las autoridades civiles, y más adelante también las eclesiásticas (católicas), afirmaban que las quemas no tenían como objeto destruir la Biblia, sino más bien evitar que cayera en manos de "la gente común". Por ese motivo hubo casi la total destrucción de las Escrituras durante esos periodos obscuros de nuestra historia, y eso provoco que la gran mayoría no tuvieran acceso a los Escritos originales, además de que la Iglesia Católica comenzara a tener control de los pocos Escritos que quedaban. Esto provoco que muchos cristianos de esos siglos no conocieran realmente si los Manuscritos que hubieran sobrevivido fueran realmente confiables en base a los originales. También provoco que en el siglo 12 utilizaran unos manuscritos tardíos con muy poca confiabilidad llamados Textus Receptus por Desiderio Erasmo de Rotterdam en el cual hablamos anteriormente para confeccionar la mayoría de las Biblias que conocemos hoy en día.

Restauración Textual:

Durante los siglos 17 y 18 los eruditos recaudaron información de muchos manuscritos griegos, pero con la excepción de dos o tres editores, que tímidamente se atrevieron a corregir algunos de los mas inútiles errores del Textus Receptus, esta degradada forma de texto continuo siendo reimpresa edición tras edición. No fue sino hasta la primera parte del siglo 19, cuando a los eruditos bíblicos se les reconoció haberse apartado totalmente del Textus Receptus para demostrar, por comparación de manuscritos, de como con estos Manuscritos se podían hacerte retornar al pasado, hasta sus arquetipos modelos originales perdidos, e inferir así su condición y paginación. Un profundo movimiento en pro de la restauración del Texto Sagrado dio comienzo en la primera mitad del siglo 19, y mediante los esfuerzos de destacados críticos textuales, se ha extendido hasta nuestro tiempo. A partir de entonces se presentan ediciones de la Biblia en sus idiomas originales y se evalúan al mismo tiempo los grandes descubrimientos de la arqueología bíblica, en los cuales aparecieron documentos manuscritos mucho mas antiguos de aquellos que conforman el tipo de texto Bizantino. Gracias a ello ha sido posible editar el Texto Sagrado con palabras que se acercan hoy mas que nunca a las del Original. Estas bases textuales de la Biblia vienen siendo plasmadas en las ediciones criticas de la Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Antiguo Pacto) y del Novum Testamentum Graece (Nuevo Pacto) sobre cuyo texto se basa principalmente estas informaciones. Pero aun cabe destacar que estos eruditos no dejan de mantener un necesario proceso de perfeccionamiento, que obviamente no necesitariamos si tuvieramos o encontráramos los originales. Y por tal razón estaremos utilizando la versión textual mayormente durante los talleres consecuentes.

Una Versión Perfectible:

La inspiración verbal y plenaria de la Escritura recayó exclusivamente sobre los Autógrafos Sagrados, su completa seguridad se limita al Texto Original, y nunca beneficio al copiado manuscrito, aunque este fuera en los idiomas originales de la Biblia. Si esto es así, mucho menos entonces puede beneficiar a las traducciones que de ellas se derivan, y así, la sola consideración de una versión perfecta es imposible. Nuestro intenso y extenso contacto con las labores de traducción, nos ha demostrado durante los 30 años que la obra nos ha durado entre las manos, que es mas el resultado de transpiración (expulsar agua por los poros) que el de inspiración. Las Versiones, por excelentes que pretendan ser, no constituyen mas que un esfuerzo humano, personal o colegiado, por presentar un idioma vernáculo (nativo) la infalible (que no puede fallar o equivocarse) Palabra de Dios. Ante esta realidad, surge la propuesta feliz de una versión perfectible, que siguiendo los pasos humildes de la Critica Textual, acepta las limitaciones impuestas por las circunstancias, y mediante sus ediciones criticas manifiesta su aspiración hacia na versión perfecta.

Traducción Contextual:

El esfuerzo por realizar una versión bajo la disciplina de traducción contextual procura presentar al lector una versión comprensible de lo que sin duda es la obra literaria mas compleja del Universo. La exposición detallada de los postulados de la traducción Contextual son extensos y no es posible citarlos aquí. No obstante, resumimos ahora el concepto diciendo que por traducción contextual se define inicialmente una disciplina que:
  • enmarcada en las reglas que controlan la gramática general del lenguaje, pero
  • sin prejuicio de la coordinación y subordinación gramatical registradas en el Texto Sagrado,
  • transmita toda la intención, fuerza y lucidez del original,
  • defienda su brevedad y simplicidad,
  • preservando su pureza y respetando sus faltas de armonía, asperezas gramaticales y redundancias,
  • valore la riqueza de estilo literario lograda a través del tiempo, y los beneficios que de allí se derivan al retardar los cambios que corrompen el lenguaje; y finalmente
  • refleje de manera consistente las conclusiones que por la sana interpretación textual y trazo contextual cercano o remoto, surgen de la semejanza y armonía espiritual latentes en toda la Escritura.


Tal vez se haya sentido engañado todo este tiempo sobre lo que leemos y hemos aprendido, nosotros también pasamos por esa situación. Pero Dios esta sacando a verdad en estos tiempos todo lo que habíamos tenido a oscuras en cuanto a conocimiento y verdad. Los arqueólogos están cada vez, encontrando más evidencias que afirman más y más lo que nosotros ya sabíamos, que tenemos un Dios real. El mundo y la religiosidad nos han ocultado por mucho tiempo verdades que debíamos conocer para poder trascender, por eso vemos muchas iglesias que están en un ciclo en el que no crecen tanto espiritualmente y en conocimiento, ya que no conocen muchas verdades que puedan sacarlos de esos ciclos. Pero eso no pasara con los que tengamos ese espíritu en verdad, así que tenemos que conocer nuestra historia para poder ganarnos la gloria, que Dios nos siga bendiciendo en conocimiento y en revelación!!!


          Sobre Manual de esgrima para elefantes        

El escritor paraguayo Mario Castells (residente en Argentina) ha leído mi libro de cuentos y publicó el fruto de sus reflexiones sobre el texto:

La literatura paraguaya tiene un problema esencial, sabemos, que es la diglosia; pero otro es que no se sostiene en sus propios fundamentos, en su propia palabra, en un sistema crítico propio. De allí que vengan muchos pajarones a plantearle criterios de modernidad ajenos (centrales, hegemónicos) y boludeces por el estilo. Manual de esgrima para elefantes, libro de Javier Viveros, es un libro fundamental de esta literatura y creo que no ha tenido el empuje crítico que se merece, pero bien, pocos textos en Paraguay lo han tenido. Y digo que lo es porque, ante todo, ha podido sortear barreras ideológicas que son viejas taras de la literatura del Paraguay. No ha necesitado del lugar común del cronotopo paragua, no ha necesitado del guaraní o de ese substrato folclórico aberrante (folclórico aunque sea campesina o urbana su trama), no ha necesitado vomitar en portuñol ni andar cachaqueando para ser universal y enteramente paraguayo. ¡Logro excepcional de Javier!

Lo que más me ha ganado de este libro ha sido quizás su trampa, su método. Manual de esgrima nace de la convivencia del autor con la cultura africana. Vale decir, Viveros ha construido su camino a la modernidad tardía yendo desde una periferia, o más bien de un hinterland, como es el Paraguay, a otro hinterland acosado de la misma manera por las sinuosas redes de la globalización. Ha seguido un camino transversal, complicado desde ya; ha preferido lidiar con su época y su mundo lejos de los hologramas del capitalismo feliz, enfocando su perspectiva allí donde se tensa la red de la economía mundo, donde el éxito capitalista supura cadáveres y las viejas tradiciones se niegan a morir, apelando inclusive a la muerte en vida del dejà vu(dú). Desplazándose desde Senegal y Ghana hasta Tanzania, pasando por el Congo y Ruanda. Quizás para muchos el sumun de este libro puede ser su exotismo, pero siento que si dejamos correr la extrañeza de esos sonidos desconocidos, de los fonemas en lengua suajili, las referencias a las tribus y a los animales exóticos, encontraremos que los parecidos entre nuestras sociedades tercermundistas, son más precisos que los que podemos tener con sociedades menos desconocidas y más asimiladas a la idea occidental de lo globalizado, como las orientales. Si como probó Flannery O’Connor, “en la buena ficción, ciertos detalles de la historia tienden a concentrar significados; (pues) se vuelven simbólicos por la misma función que desempeñan”, creo que los símbolos de este libro son los puentes que conectan nuestros universos. Crujen pero todavía sirven.

Desde ese partido de tenis con el nieto de Mobutu, alentado por Evetta, la negra cheta de culo imponente, siempre sonriente, hasta el doble funeral de Kweku Mensah que no tan al extremo me remitió a los festejos del mita’i re’onguépe ñeñotyra que vi en mi infancia en la campaña ñeembuqueña, o la presencia permanente de la magia negra, algo que en Paraguay es bastante fuerte también aunque tengamos el tino de taparla un poco con rituales del catolicismo popular y su santería herética; el comparatismo entre África y América Latina es, como señalé, algo plausible. Así como efectivo es el uso de la ideología en el tono narrativo de los personajes narradores. Desde el cancherismo idiota del kurepi de “La lista”, el tono desaforadamente putero del paraguayo en “Putas rusas”, en “Primera semana”, en “Passing shot” mismo, la culposidad pequeñoburguesa del jerárquico en relación con los africanos, el desparpajo del que tiene el ego como un tuétano recubierto de una caparazón hecha de billetera gorda y moral judeocristiana.

Tan bueno es el libro de Javier que “Primera semana”, texto que me podría haber cerrado al prejuicio siempre corroborado de que eso de combinar distintos procedimientos de la escritura en redes sociales, twitter, e-mails o el chat, para describir las experiencias personales del narrador posmoderno, es vakarekaka montón al gusto de la gilada, me abrió al contrario a la sorpresa de un despliegue de denuncia del racismo cultural de occidente. Homo sum, humani nihil… Hecho que se destapa como una gran fosa común en “Ruándicas”, texto que adopta una vigorosa segunda persona y la técnica del flash, del fragmento, para desdoblar el pensamiento del personaje y su remordimiento por el exterminio del pueblo tutsi, reconocido mundialmente como el genocidio del machete.

Para que con la lectura no seamos embaucados, el ejercicio de la crítica —que implica, en el peor de los casos, un doble embaucamiento– debe curar sus intenciones. Mis intenciones no se salen del korapy de la literatura. “La realidad delira” y querer aprenderla o encerrarla en una verdad consagrada es una de las peores mierdas que se les ocurrió a los stalinistas y que nos ha salpicado a todos los intelectuales de izquierda. Empero, el breve resplandor denuncialista del Manual… engrosa así mismo la dimensión total del libro de Javier. Es otra arista del objeto, otra trama de su arte narrativo.

          The World's Changing Face        
Take look at the world. Make it a long, slow look. Drink in the rich cultures. Gondolas in Italy. The Riviera in France. China's patchwork of farms. Embed those pictures in your mind because they will not be around long.

And this doesn't have to do with global warming -- the hottest day on record was in 1934 and only three of the top 10 hottest days occurred in the last 10 years (check out this site for more information on global warming data).

Rather, the changing face of the world is about low birth rates and sex selection. Western Europeans are not reproducing at a rate high enough to sustain their populations. In fact they're 30 percent below replacement. This creates delicate situations. For one thing, the balance is topsy-turvy.

People are marrying later and having fewer or no children. Remember the family pyramid? Mom, Dad at the top with their three or so children, and their spouses and children? Well, now it's Mom and Dad and their child. This means more people who are older at the top, and fewer young people at the bottom. Old people are considered a burden.

(Think this is not so? Remember the heat wave in France in 2003 when 15,000 people died? They were sick and elderly in hospitals and nursing homes whose adult children didn't interrupt their vacations to return home and take care of their dead parents' bodies, but left it to the facilities to find refrigeration units to hold the bodies until they were claimed. And France had the audacity to criticize America for the 1,100 deaths in New Orleans during Katrina.)

The Easter European countries will survive, but not the nations, not their cultures, because Muslim immigrants are living, working and having families there without assimilating into the cultures. Check out this clip on an issue Italy is facing.

In Western Europe, Russia's population has fallen so low even the United Nations doubts it has a chance to rebound despite recently implemented incentives for couples to bear children. Russia has one-sixth of the world's land mass -- and much of its oil supply -- and only 142 million people, whose life expectancy is 55.

To its south is China with its 1.3 billion people, three-decade-old one-child law, and fanatical emphasis on male children. China has 70 million single young men, more than half of whom will not be able to find a young woman to marry. A migration north may be a plausible alternative.

While not a new phenomenon, this changing face of the world's population bears increasing importance in light of other issues brought together in an article by a former CIA official Herbert Meyer. His four points are worth reading as his perspective is clear, unique, and devoid of emotion. It's also a good defense of the Judeo-Christian society and its embrace of intertwining faith with life in the modern world. For Herbert Meyer's full article, click here.

In the meantime, look at the world around you. Drag out your old National Geographics. Enjoy the view while it lasts.
          Un Dios que se exige mucho (y mucho nos pide en amor)        
Publicado por El Blog de X. Pikaza
Dom 6 tiempo ordinario, ciclo A. Mateo 5,17-37.

El evangelio de Mateo, que ha crecido en diálogo interior con el judaísmo, ha presentado en seis antítesis (habéis oído que… pero yo os digo…) la novedad del evangelio, en contra de aquellos (judíos, cristianos, agnósticos...) que entienden la fe en Dios como pura estrategia de supervivencia propia (a costa de los otros).
En este contexto se plantean algunos de los elementos básicos de la vida cristiana, que empezaré exponiendo este domingo (de las dos últimas antítesis trata el evangelio del domingo que viene). El querido titular este post diciendo que “aquel que está peleado contra el prójimo ya le ha matado”.

Hay varias maneras de matar. Una de las más eficaces es oprimir al prójimo.

Para situar el tema (y adelantar los motivos del próximo domingo) he querido presentar a Dios ofreciendo su amor al mismo diablo. Parece evidente que este Dios del Sermón de la Montaña no está peleado con el Diablo, sino todo lo contrario... Es un Dios que se exige mucho a sí mismo, y que mucho nos pide a nosotros. Quien quiera ver más que siga leyendo. Buen domingo a todos.

a. Punto de partida, formulación general:

«No penséis que he venido a abolir la Ley o los Profetas; no he venido a abolir, sino a cumplir, porque en verdad os que el cielo y la tierra pasarán antes de que deje de cumplirse ni una «yota» o una tilde pasará de la Ley, hasta que todo se haya cumplido. De manera que cualquiera que quebrante uno de estos mandamientos muy pequeños y así se lo enseñe a los hombres será muy pequeño llamado en el reino de los cielos; pero cualquiera que los cumpla y los enseñe, este será llamado grande en el reino de los cielos. Por tanto, os digo que si vuestra justicia no fuera mayor que la de los escribas y fariseos, no entraréis en el reino de los cielos» (Mt 5, 17-20)

Se trata por tanto de una antítesis (o de una oposición) en el cumplimiento de la ley. Hay un cumplimiento legal de la ley, que para Mateo no es radical, ni responde a la voluntad de Dios; y hay un cumplimiento evangélico de esa misma ley, que Jesús ha radicalizado. Este pasaje recoge una extensa y dura polémica. Muchos cristianos (especialmente Pablo) no estarían de acuerdo con el planteamiento exterior de Mateo, diciendo que la ley ha cumplido ya su función y ha terminado (cf. Rom 10, 4).

Mateo piensa que la ley antigua (habéis oido...) ha cumplido su función, pero debe superarse; sólo subiendo de nivel, superando el plano de la pura ley, la verdadera ley encuentra su sentido.

-- Jesús no ha venido a abolir y abrogar, como algunos judíos y judeo-cristianos afirman, sino para cumplirla, es decir, para llevar a plenitud lo que está latente en la ley.

-- Cumplir la ley significa superarla. La interpretación de Jesús no destruye la Ley, sino que le da una consistencia mayor que la que tienen cielo y tierra. Por medio de esa nueva interpretación de la Ley, los cristianos que están en el fondo de Mateo se fueron separando de los fariseos, no para abandonar el judaísmo, sino para fundar una nueva y más honda interpretación de sus leyes básicas.

Las seis antítesis concretas.

En este contexto se entienden las seis antítesis que desarrollan la formulación anterior, antítesis que son para Mateo una aportación específica de Jesús al judaísmo (y al despliegue de la verdad del hombre. Quizá más que antítesis se podrían llamar síntesis, porque en general no niegan la ley anterior, sino que la profundizan.

(a) Mt 5, 21-26. No matar.

Texto base. Habéis oído que se dijo a los antiguos: "No matarás", y el que mate será procesado. Pero yo os digo: Todo el que esté peleado con su hermano será procesado.
Añadido eclesial. [Y si uno llama a su hermano "imbécil", tendrá que comparecer ante el Sanedrín, y si lo llama "renegado", merece la condena del fuego. Por tanto, si cuando vas a poner tu ofrenda sobre el altar, te acuerdas allí mismo de que tu hermano tiene quejas contra ti, deja allí tu ofrenda ante el altar y vete primero a reconciliarte con tu hermano, y entonces vuelve a presentar tu ofrenda. Con el que te pone pleito, procura arreglarte en seguida, mientras vais todavía de camino, no sea que te entregue al juez, y el juez al alguacil, y te metan en la cárcel. Te aseguro que no saldrás de allí hasta que hayas pagado el último cuarto.]

Lo que se dijo a los antiguos (¡no matar!) es para Jesús insuficiente. No basta con evitar el asesinato externo, sino que es necesario que los hombres superen todo tipo de ira y violencia contra el prójimo. El Papa Francisco ha interpretado esta antítesis en su Exhortación Evagelii Gaudium diciendo que el mundo capitalista “está peleado con los pobres”, condenado a muerte a millones de personas.

(b) Mt 5, 27-30. No adulterar.

Texto base. Habéis oído el mandamiento "no cometerás adulterio". Pues yo os digo: El que mira a una mujer casada deseándola, ya ha sido adúltero con ella en su interior.
Añadido eclesial. [Si tu ojo derecho te hace caer, sácatelo y tíralo. Más te vale perder un miembro que ser echado entero en el infierno. Si tu mano derecha te hace caer, córtatela y tírala, porque más te vale perder un miembro que ir a parar entero al infierno.

Evidentemente, la ley condena el adulterio desde la perspectiva del esposo (porque a la mujer se le considera propiedad del varón), no por la posible maldad del placer erótico, sino para que sea posible un amor personal, permanente, entre el esposo y la esposa. Pues bien, Jesús no sólo se opone a un tipo de adulterio externo, sino que quiere que los esposos (varón y mujer) se quieran y deseen en plenitud, descubriendo y gozando en su deseo-amor la más honda riqueza de la vida. En amor en este plano es un compromiso de entrega total, de persona a persona, como Dios que se entrega en amor a los hombres

(c) Mt 5, 31-32. Ley de divorcio.

Texto base. Está mandado: "El que se divorcie de su mujer, que le dé acta de repudio." Pues yo os digo: El que se divorcie de su mujer, la induce al adulterio, y el que se case con la divorciada comete adulterio.]
Añadido eclesial: Excepto en caso de impureza (porneia, infidelidad o prostitución).

Va en la misma línea de la anterior. La ley en cuanto tal sirve para restringir el derecho absoluto del varón, al que se le pide ofrecer un documento legal a la mujer a la que despide. Pues bien, Jesús va en contra de esa ley, para situar el matrimonio en el plano del compromiso definitivo de amor de un hombre y de una mujer. Amor del todo y para todo tiempo, eso quiere Jesús que sea el matrimonio. En este contexto introduce Mateo la cláusula restrictiva «a no ser en caso de fornicación [porneia]», que puede entenderse de diversas formas, pero que sirve para destacar el valor de la unión matrimonial por encima de una norma legal; el matrimonio en sí es indisoluble, pero en el caso de que esté roto irremisiblemente por porneia no tiene sentido mantenerlo.

(d) Mt 5, 33-37. No perjurarás.

Texto base. Habéis oído que se dijo a los antiguos: "No jurarás en falso" y "Cumplirás tus votos al Señor". Pues yo os digo que no juréis en absoluto
Añadido eclesial: [ni por el cielo, que es el trono de Dios; ni por la tierra, que es estrado de sus pies; ni por Jerusalén, que es la ciudad del Gran Rey. Ni jures por tu cabeza, pues no puedes volver blanco o negro un solo pelo.] A vosotros os basta decir "si" o "no". Lo que pasa de ahí viene del Maligno."

La ley exige mantener el juramento, como acto religioso (pues Dios mismo es quien avala los juramentos). La prohibición de Jesús (¡no jurarás!), matizada por el mismo Mt en otro contexto (Mt 23, 16-22), tiene un sentido básicamente religioso: Dios no está ahí para avalar los juramentos, sino que tiene valor en sí mismo, por encima de ese tipo de palabras sagradas. La verdad religiosa del hombre se sitúa en el plano de la vida profana, sin necesidad de introducir una palabra religiosa (de juramento) para ratificar por ella las relaciones humana.

((Las dos siguientes antítesis aparecen el próximo domingo.

(e) Mt 5. 5, 38-42. Pasar de la ley del talión (ojo por ojo) a la no violencia. La Ley se sitúa en un plano de oposición, suponiendo que para vencer el mal hay que aplicar otro mal (ojo por ojo). De esa forma, la ley se sitúa en la línea del juicio, con la violencia que ello implica. En contra de eso, Jesús quiere que la vida de los hombres sea experiencia y expresión de gratuidad, renunciando de esa forma a la violencia.

(f) Mt 5, 43-47. Del amor al amigo al amor al enemigo. La ley aplica el talión en el campo de las relaciones humanas, dividiendo a los hombres en amigos y enemigos (en buenos y malos para mí). En contra de eso, Jesús presenta la vida como don creador, que puede abrirse a todos, superando la división de amigos y enemigos. En el fondo de las antítesis se expresa la oposición entre la ley (que sostiene lo que existe a través de la fuerza y la venganza) y la gracia (que entiende la vida como fidelidad personal y amor activo)).

El alcance de las antítesis.

En sentido estricto, Jesús no va en contra de la ley, ni discute sus implicaciones, matizando sus implicaciones (como hará la tradición rabínica de la Misná), sino que se sitúa por encima de ella: busca y ofrece un principio de gratuidad creadora, que va más allá de la ley, en la línea de un mesianismo de la gratuidad. Ciertamente, ha existido en Israel un mesianismo militar, vinculado a la figura del Hijo de David guerrero, como muestran los Salmos de Salomón.

Pero Jesús propone otro tipo de mesianismo, fundado en la fidelidad personal y el amor gratuito. Las antítesis pueden entenderse en un plano personal y social (eclesial), pero normalmente, los cristianos sólo las han entendido y aplicado en un plano personal, suponiendo que las instituciones (incluso la iglesia) sólo pueden subsistir aplicando la ley. En esa línea se encontraría ya la interpretación de Pablo en Rom 13, 1-10, cuando distingue la ley (plano social) y el amor (plano cristiano). Pero Pablo ha querido aplicar y ha aplicado los principios del amor a la vida eclesial, cosa que a veces las instituciones sociales de la iglesia posterior no han hecho

Ampliación: Dos casos concretos

1. Del no matar de la 1ª antítesis (no podemos ni airarnos contra el prójimo) al amor al enemigo de la 6ª (¿se debe perdonar al que mata?). ¿Cómo reaccionar ante el que mata: en plano social, en plano cristiano? El tema empieza en el momento en que se quera edificar una sociedad "sin poder coactivo" (¿sin juicio, ni cárcel? ¿sin ejército ni policía?). ¿Se puede construir desde el no airarse-perdonar al enemigo (asesino) una sociedad civil. ¿Qué hay más allá del bien-mal moralista, legalista: la pura jungla con la victoria del más fuerte)? ¿O la respuesta cristiana es puramente testimonial, provocativa...?

2. La excepción en el tema del divocio: a no ser porneia... Ese tipo de exepciónsólo se da en matrimonio, por lo específico del amor matrimonial. Para el caso de no oponerse al mal y de perdonar al enemigo no hay excepciones (¿o las hay? ¿qué haces en el caso de que están matando a un niño a tu lado? ¡quizá las hay pero no se pueden legislar). Sólo en el matrimonio se legisla la excepción; eso significa que el matrimonio es especial. Esa excepción va en contra de todo legalismo... Parece que quiere salvar precisamente el amor. Quizá se podrían distinguir casos: parece que el texto sólo permite nuevo matrimonio a un varón (o mujer) cuya otra parte le haya abandonado por porneia... De todas formas, es bueno que el texto haya quedado indeterminado

(Seguimos el próximo domingo)

rory was at it again this week. looking for rattlers, that is! both those with a transmitter and those heretofore "undiscovered" by humanoid. found this one in the classic i'mawaitin'forarodent ambush position on a log. lookit the raindrops on his scales. been a wet humid, and hot, week, soakin' rory with sweat, makin' hiz pack stinky, his clothing feel as convenient as a jumpsuit made of warm wet wallpaper, and the damn chiggers consuming the flesh 'round his ankles even more irritating. but then, it's all worth it when you see a thing of beauty. and your sweat reminds you it's good to be alive. and to appreciate the simple things. like water.

I know. not everyone thinks rattlers in particular or snakes in general are things of beauty. for some the addition of legs to the critter makes all the difference. some who are repelled by snakes find lizards cute. while writing notes about a snake found near a proposed development area, rory saw this pretty adult five-lined skink darting about a nearby rock, seemingly foraging for insects or arachnids. see 'em frequently. hardly ever get a good shot at 'em with the camera. she's pretty rory thinkz:

maybe even more people like dragonflies. even people who hate insects generally. dragonfly jewelry. dragonfly prints. dragonflies in songs of ziggy marley. dragonflies are "pretty." I agree. just that I find alot of other insects beautiful, if not pretty, as well. but we'll get to that, kinda. so rory came upon this newly emerged dragonfly on a mossy trail. wings still wet and somewhat limp. helpless insect unable to escape rory's lens.

not to far from the dragonfly, rory came across this beetle. apparently a female stuffed with eggs to the point that her carapace looks like the shrunken vest of an obese biker, more bib than abdomen- or belly-cover. oh coleopterists out there: what species is this? my daughter advises it looks like a scarab ... of which there are thousands of species. scarabaeidae. dung eaters. coprophilous critters. oh female of distended abdomen walking the woodland floor, were you in search of "the right shit" when rory distracted you for a moment to record your image? a worthy quest as noble as any search for the holy grail.

is she not beautiful? roryz person on the street survey, however, had her physical beauty rated well below that of the dragonfly. should she consider cosmetic surgery? makeup? rory could have captured her and painted her with shiny metallic, colorful paints and photographed her. perhaps clothed her swollen abdomen with a lovely printed sarong. painted her mandibles ruby red. inserted some thorax implants? would she have been beautiful then? or is there more to beauty than the human-visual-culturally-constructed-vision-of-beauty-of-the-day? scarabs. dung collecters. holy rollers of the shitball. sacred to the egyptians. is this not beauty?

According the Corning Museum: "The scarab rolls dung into pills, buries them in the earth, and thereby provides nutrition for its larvae. The fact that something as inferior as dung gives life to this beautiful beetle made the scarab an ideal representation of Khepri, god of the rising sun, rebirth, and transformation. “Khepri” means both “scarab” and “he who becomes.”"

so the scarab beetle exhorts its young

better than the "EAT SHIT AND DIE!" motto of the bush administration. w the man who wanks while baghdad and beirut burn.

now a short digression on a side-loop trail that will return to the path of this post, kinda: you know the late pope actually believed that the reason his spine became parallel to the ground in his old age was that he had excessively pumped the pre-papal python as a youth? rory shitz you not. imagine a huge organization that has as one of its tenets a great deal of anti-masturbation rules, regulations, commentary, and scholarly works. laughable, yet scary. oh, yes, they take their bishop-bashing seriously. same organization along with others of its ilk is behind the anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment movement sweeping amerika. first of all why the fuck do people think this something for "legislative" action? second of all, why the fuck do people think this is something for a constitutional amendment? third of all why do people give a shit what other people do in the privacy of their bedrooms? ignurnce on so many frickin' levels. a constitution is an overarching, guidelining kinda document, ain't it? by frickin' definition. if every time some piece of legislation were declared unconstitutional, fuckwads in legislatures spent their time trying to come up with a specific amendment to overturn one ruling and enact one law, well, they wouldn't have time to entertain lobbyists or pass lameass idiotic jingoistic bush jerkin' resolutions in support of ill-fated ill-conceived wars ... uh, hmm ... okay ... so maybe we should encourage 'em to work on ridiculously specific constitutional amendments, like the anti-gay amendments, or the anti-flag burning amendments, or ... the anti-masturbation amendment. you know the one that reads just like the Vatican's law: "Sex is defined as the act of coitus between a man and a woman united in holy marriage for the sole purpose of producing more human offspring than the world can sustain. Masturbation has never been formally recognized as a legitimate form of sex under the judeo-christian traditon of America. Indeed masturbation has long been held to be harmful to the physical and moral being of humankind. Wherefore, any act of masturbation, or other manner of self-stimulation for purposes of sexual gratification, whether unilateral or mutual, is not constitutionally protected."

Oh, the Senators can get behind this one. Why, jerkin' the gherkin can be addicting, they might point out. "Let the heathens spill theirs on the dusty ground," we can almost hear them say. And to think that Father Hardon is a moderate on the subject of five-fingered solitaire, willing to at least mitigate culpability!

why the masturbation-cure industry could experience a renaissance! which reminds me of a page in an old book I found in a flea market in Kansas years ago. book is entitled "The People's Medical Advisor" and was published in 1918. worth at least a post in and of itself. even on the subject of weasel-workin' alone. gotta wonder since the catholic catechism is pretty much the same now as it was in 1918, how many people still believe this type of shit. you might have to click up the image to read that the nut on the right was "wasted by masturbation":

wait! what is it? poll results just in! 39% of the world's population believes that wanking can waste the balls! percentage higher among fundies of all stripes! rory's medical advisor states that twisted beliefs about self-play can result in excessive, uncontrollable nocturnal missile launches, suicide bombings, indifference to civilian deaths, and in extreme cases, rape of entire countries by overwhelming military force. (less has been written on the subject of the ill effects of female self-help it seems, again, the social and cultural ramifications of which are subject for a post itself, no doubt).

Oh, Dr. Jocelyn Elders, surgeon general under wild bill clinton, advocate of therapeutic self-stimulation, casualty of the amazingly powerful anti-selfpleasuring movement, would that your message had been spread rather than suppressed! Damnable casualty of wankgate! Oh, yes the anti-manual forces are powerful. powerful and dark. powerful, dark and ruthless. the surgeon general was purged from the clinton administration for the sin of open discussion of self-pleasuring and the denial that it is a sin or unhealthy or more dangerous than our constitutionally protected godgiven american right to bear arms and mindlessly blast the everlovin' crap out of beautiful creatures that do us no harm, such as coyotes, for frickin' example.

one can imagine the subsequent interviews of surgeons general. "Where do you stand on jacking off, self-diddling, solo dildo use, or lone rubbing? Will you sign this oath to never discuss, advocate, or suggest that masturbation does not cause grievous harm to the individual performing this pathological action? Do you agree with the teachings of Claude Lallemand, the 19th Century physician who maintained that autoerotic activity has these effects: "All sensations decrease, sight is endangered, and the mind is threatened, and the usual result is idiocy and death."

which brings me back to the other subject at hand. nature photos declared obscene, that is. well, here's the tie-in. A priest of germanic descent, I suppose, but a true american catholic, name of Irwin Spankmeister, rory shitz you not, whats-in-a-name-anyway, would lead wayward youths to his garden at the appropriate time of year, where a fungus would grow up. some call it dog penis or dog dick fungus. some say it's one of the stinkhorns, for it smells foul, attracting flies that spread its spores. oh, but father spankmeister used to call it by a variant of its more medieval name: "devil's dong." some say it's the devil's "doohickey." And he would tell lads that if they pleasured themselves the lord might render their thing like the devil's dong in color, size, overall appearance, smell, and attrativeness to flies. Oh what an educator of youth the priest was! well rory came across the infamous dog penis fungus during this week's woodland perambulations and got a couple of shots of it.

view from the right:

view from the left:

jesus christ on crutches spankmeister! it's just a fuckin' mushroom! it's not a visual aid in the war against wanking! and it's got a beautiful color. tweaks the mind when you come upon it in the woods. hey, flies like it. a thing of beauty in its own way even. rory also heard, from flyonthewall, that the secret service is still searching for a paranoid schizophrenic man who publicly put a curse on the firstfuckwad's dong shouting out his wishes that it turn into the infamous devil's doohickey! speakin' of which, whatever happened to that poor bastard who got arrested for wanting to lop the presidential marble bag? oh the world of nekked apes is indeed a funny one! and yet, given the news of the past year, none of this surprises rory in the least. and all of which confirms that the bush administration is a lot like the traditional catholic contentions regarding masturbation: the results are idiocy and death.


For those who might not remember threat-on-the-presidential-marble-pouch-incident here's a link to roryz post on it. bush's scrotum declared safe from wishes of indicted mental patient; elderly woman praying for cheney's pecker to fall off to be indicted next rory plans to attempt to locate and interview the alleged perpetrator of this insidious plot. if anyone has his current address, please advise.
          For the Record...        

Judeophobes are unwelcome here.
          By: Sandune        
If the religious right does put Speaker Gingrich in the White House, how long will it take them to figure out that the First Lady was part of that adultery. Some day Americans will realize that our government is serious stuff and the churches have no place in an institution run on laws. The GOP has become insane with power now that they are winning their own private God into the Constitution. I'm certain the French, Spanish and Italians regretted bringing in the Inquisitors to put so many in prison. Art, Music, Literature all suffered under the emotions of sacrificing to their God. There is only one way to restore law to the government and that is to Separate the Church out of the Government. How many damn years do I have to write this before somebody takes the baton? The Republicans leaders are lecherous, filthy minded, users and abusers of the very country they pray to. Of course when they are all raised as sinners they often feel they must break the ethics of people around them. If you have any children, cut through the crap of sinning and simply train your kids to choose right over wrong. The security of realizing the difference from early childhood leaves the rest of the child raising to the years of enjoyment. If restoring Judeo-Christian civilization is what one wants, stay the hell out of politics.
          Jeff Johnston        

-- Focus on the Family gender issues and marriage analyst



-- Claims Satan is at the root of gay people's attractions: "Satan roams the earth like a lion, using sexual and relational brokenness to destroy individuals, families, churches, groups, businesses"  Also: "Instead of taking dominion over the world, Adam and Eve gave control to the “prince of the power of the air,” Satan. Scripture describes him as a liar and an accuser. Thus we are born into a world that is in conflict between Satan and God. Because he hates God, Satan also hates the image of God in humanity and seeks to destroy people. Men and women can produce new life – something Satan cannot do. He works in the world to destroy life, and attacks people’s gender, identity and sexuality. He assaults marriage, families, and children with lies, destruction and accusations."

-- Claims transgender children need help for a "very treatable disorder"

-- Says of homosexuality: "Same-sex lusts, fantasies and sexual activity violate God’s male-female design in a unique way. Instead of normalizing brokenness, calling homosexuality “good,” and identifying people by their sexual attractions, those who follow Jesus are called to bring redemption, grace and transformation."

-- Says same-sex unions are "unreality": A society that attempts to erase male and female or to create new categories to stand next to male and female is living in unreality. 

-- Equates fight against marriage equality with fight to end slavery: "We want to make a difference in the world around us. My sons and I have been reading about William Wilberforce, who set out to eliminate the slave trade in England — and then to eliminate slavery. He also wanted to change the moral character of English society — to model and teach healthy, virtuous living. That’s what we want to do."

-- Uses skewed and discredited research to push the lie that gay men become gay because of sexual abuse

-- Says of Christians who are LGBT or who support equality: "To affirm homosexual and transgender identity and behavior is to ignore 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian consensus and teaching, and assault core features of what it means to be human."


          Iraqi Constitution        
Today I happened to notice an article in the paper that laid out the basis of the new Iraqi Constitution. I was a little troubled.

One part said that Islam would be the official religion and basis for laws. This alone takes away from the whole ideal of democracy and freedom; it becomes more or less a theocratic nation. For instance, America has no nationwide religion nor does the US have a government sponsored religion. Just look- for mentioning the Lord like in the Pledge of Allegiance some minority becomes offended, the ACLU steps in, and it becomes a Supreme Court case. Sure, America is based on Judeo-Christian elements, yet we try to be so protective of the minority that one can't help laughing. If a Christian or Jew were to go live in Iraq (you'd have to be stupid, but who knows), you already have points against you as an outsider to the society. They might not like to admit it, but its true.

There was another part of the Iraqi Constitution, which I think is too idealistic but good nonetheless, said no one would be discriminated based on gender, origin, ethnicity, race, etc.- everyone is equal. We would all like to believe that everyone is equal, but in reality, it is not so. Women are supposed to be equal to men, yet on the average, women make about 78% of what men make for doing the same task. Another factor is obviously socio-economics- as long as this exists and we have a class system, no one will be equal (in capitalism, it will always exist). Racial quotas, although they "don't exist", play a role in who gets into certain college facilities. Unless women get to have rights in the new Iraq, they will be far from equal to men. I still think that if you aren't a Muslim, you will be frowned upon in the new Iraq as well. Even the different sides of Islam will be at odds.

The Georgia Guidestones

Georgia Guidestones
The hole in the center stone of the Georgia Guidestones was drilled so that the North Star could be visualized through it at any moment. This was one of several requirements stipulated by R.C.Christian for the building of the American Stonehenge. It reflects his obsession with the alignment of the stars, the sun, and the moon. Occultists often worship the alignment and movement of heavenly bodies as part of their religious ceremonies.

The Story of the Guidestones

By Radio Liberty

On one of the highest hilltops in Elbert County, Georgia stands a huge granite monument. Engraved in eight different languages on the four giant stones that support the common capstone are 10 guides or commandments. That monument is alternately referred to as The Georgia Guidestones or the American Stonehenge. Though relatively unknown to most people, it is an important link to the Occult Hierarchy that dominates the world in which we live.

The origin of that strange monument is shrouded in mystery because no one knows the true identity of the man, or men, who commissioned its construction. All that is known for certain is that in June 1979 a well-dressed, articulate stranger visited the office of the Elberton Granite Finishing Company and announced that he wanted to build an edifice to transmit a message to mankind. He identified himself as R. C. Christian, but it soon became apparent that was not his real name. He said that he represented a group of men who wanted to offer direction to humanity, but to date, almost two decades later, no one knows who R. C. Christian really was, or the names of those he represented.

Several things are apparent. The messages engraved on the Georgia Guidestones deal with four major fields:

(1) Governance and the establishment of a world government,
(2) Population and reproduction control,
(3) The environment and man's relationship to nature, and
(4) Spirituality.

In the public library in Elberton, I found a book written by the man who called himself R.C. Christian. I discovered that the monument he commissioned had been erected in recognition of Thomas Paine (author of The Age of Reason) and the occult philosophy he espoused. Indeed, the Georgia Guidestones are used for occult ceremonies and mystic celebrations to this very day. Tragically, only one religious leader in the area had the courage to speak out against the American Stonehenge, and he has recently relocated his ministry.

One of the goals of the enviro-mental movement has been to cheapen the value of human life in people's minds, making people feel guilty for their existence on this planet. This ties in with the emerging New Age religion of Gaia worship, which places the value of nature above all else, including human life. This makes sense once you realize that the people behind this anti-human propaganda, which Suzuki is merely a mouthpiece for, want to cull 80-90% of the world's population to make way for the coming New Age and a world utopia of the chosen few. The mantra of radical environmentalists is that humans are parasites, as seen in the video clip above of an unwashed David Suzuki comparing humans to fruit flies and maggots. David Suzuki is an environmental activist who is big, especially up in Canada, and has for years been preaching about how humans are a cancer to the earth. - Matthew D. Jarvie, May 12, 2009

  1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
  2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
  3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
  4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
  5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
  6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
  7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
  8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
  9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
  10. Be not a cancer on the earth - leave room for nature - leave room for nature.
    “The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will in fact become like the Ten Commandments.” — Maurice Strong

    Limiting the population of the earth to 500 million will require the extermination of nine-tenths of the world's people. The American Stonehenge's reference to establishing a world court foreshadows the current move to create an International Criminal Court and a world government. The Guidestones' emphasis on preserving nature anticipates the environmental movement of the 1990s, and the reference to "seeking harmony with the infinite" reflects the current effort to replace Judeo-Christian beliefs with a new spirituality.

    The message of the American Stonehenge also foreshadowed the current drive for Sustainable Development. Any time you hear the phrase "Sustainable Development" used, you should substitute the term "socialism" to be able to understand what is intended. Later in this syllabus you will read the full text of the Earth Charter, which was compiled under the direction of Mikhail Gorbachev and Maurice Strong. In that document you will find an emphasis on the same basic issues: control of reproduction, world governance, the importance of nature and the environment, and a new spirituality. The similarity between the ideas engraved on the Georgia Guidestones and those espoused in the Earth Charter reflect the common origins of both.

    Yoko Ono, the widow of John Lennon, was recently quoted as referring to the American Stonehenge, saying: "I want people to know about the stones ... We're headed toward a world where we might blow ourselves up and maybe the globe will not exist ... it's a nice time to reaffirm ourselves, knowing all the beautiful things that are in this country and the Georgia Guidestones symbolize that. "

    What is the true significance of the American Stonehenge, and why is its covert message important? Because it confirms the fact that there was a covert group intent on:

    (1) Establishing a world government
    (2) Dramatically reducing the population of the world
    (3) Promoting environmentalism
    (4) Promoting a new spirituality

    Certainly the group that commissioned the Georgia Guidestones is one of many similar groups working together toward a New World Order, a new world economic system, and a new world spirituality. Behind those groups, however, are dark spiritual forces. Without understanding the nature of those dark forces, it is impossible to understand the unfolding of world events.

    The fact that most Americans have never heard of the Georgia Guidestones, or their message to humanity, reflects the degree of control that exists today over what the American people think. We ignore that message at our peril.

    The Georgia Guidestones

    The following is a post from the maya12-21-12 forum, which is a prime example of the brainwashing effect of New World Order propaganda and the New Age movement:

    The Venus Project ("Zietgeist: Addendum") presents a bold, new direction for humanity that entails nothing less than the total redesign of our culture. There are many people today who are concerned with the serious problems that face our modern society: unemployment, violent crime, replacement of humans by technology, over-population and a decline in the Earth's ecosystems. As you will see, The Venus Project is dedicated to confronting all of these problems by actively engaging in the research, development, and application of workable solutions. Through the use of innovative approaches to social awareness, educational incentives, and the consistent application of the best that science and technology can offer directly to the social system, The Venus Project offers a comprehensive plan for social reclamation in which human beings, technology, and nature will be able to coexist in a long-term, sustainable state of dynamic equilibrium.

    The plans for The Venus Project offer society a broader spectrum of choices based on the scientific possibilities inherent in current technology and direct that knowledge toward a new era of peace and sustainability for all cultures. Through the implementation of a resource-based economy, and a multitude of innovative and environmentally friendly technologies directly applied to the social system, The Venus Project proposals will dramatically reduce crime, poverty, hunger, homelessness, and many other pressing problems that are common throughout the world today.

    One of the cornerstones of the organization's findings is the fact that many of the dysfunctional behaviors of today's society stem directly from the dehumanizing environment inherent in the existing monetary system. Moreover, the currently utilized random implementation of automation and other technologies have resulted in a fragmented, self-defeating trend occurring throughout the manufacturing and high-tech sectors of today's global economy--namely the technological replacement of human labor by machines. The Venus Project proposes a social system in which automation and technology would be intelligently applied and integrated into an overall social design where the primary function would be to maximize the quality of life rather than profits. This project also introduces a set of workable and acceptable human values that are more appropriate and in balance with our present state of technology.
    Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page


    Gaia: The Revival of Paganism and Worship of 'Mother Earth'

    Gaia Worship - The New Pagan Religion

    By Jennifer Rast

    Anyone who has studied the global environmental movement has no doubt heard the term "Gaia." Gaia is a revival of paganism that rejects Christianity, considers Christianity its biggest enemy, and views the Christian faith as its only obstacle to a global religion centered on Gaia worship and the uniting of all life forms around the goddess of "Mother Earth."

    A cunning mixture of science, paganism, eastern mysticism, and feminism have made this pagan cult a growing threat to the Christian Church. Gaia worship is at the very heart of today's environmental policy. The Endangered Species Act, The United Nation's Biodiversity Treaty and the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development, etc. are all offspring of the Gaia hypothesis of saving "Mother Earth."

    This religious movement, with cult-like qualities, is being promoted by leading figures and organizations such as former Vice President Albert Gore, broadcaster Ted Turner, and the United Nations and its various NGO's. Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance" is just one of many books that unabashedly proclaims the deity of Earth and blames the falling away from this pagan God on the environmentally unfriendly followers of Jesus Christ. The United Nations has been extremely successful in infusing the "Green Religion" into an international governmental body that has an increasing affect and control over all of our lives.

    So, what is this new cult of Gaia? It is basically a rehashed, modernized version of the paganism condemned by God in the Bible. Science, evolution theory, and a space age mentality have given it a new face and made it sound more credible to a modern world, but it is the same paganism in all of its evils. There have been other religious movements that have presented similar revelations about the deity of a living earth, but Gaia has succeeded in uniting the environmental movement, the new age movement, Eastern religions, and even the leaders of many Christian denominations behind a bastardized version of paganism where the others weren't able to.

    The Gaia hypothesis can be credited to James Lovelock. Lovelock worked for NASA during the 1960s as a consultant to the "life on Mars" Viking spacecraft project. Lovelock's theory claims that the earth's "biota," tightly coupled with its environment, act as a single, self-regulating living system in such a way as to maintain the conditions that are suitable for life. This living system, he believed, was the result of a meta-life form that occupied our planet billions of years ago and began a process of transforming this planet into its own substance.

    All of the life forms on this planet, according to Lovelock, are a part of Gaia - a part of one spirit goddess that sustains life on earth. Since this transformation into a living system, he theorizes, the interventions of Gaia have brought about the evolving diversity of living creatures on planet Earth. From Lovelock's perspective in space he saw not a planet, but a self-evolving and self-regulating living system.

    His theory presents earth not as the rock that it is, but as a living being. He named this being Gaia, after the Greek goddess that was once believed to have drawn the living world forth from chaos.

    The idea of Earth as a living, divine spirit is not a new one. Plato said:

    "We shall affirm that the cosmos, more than anything else, resembles most closely that living Creature of which all other living creatures, severally or genetically, are portion; a living creature which is fairest of all and in ways most perfect."
    As today's version of paganism, Gaia is eagerly accepted by the new age movement and fits neatly into eastern mysticism, but science was needed to gather in the evolutionists and science-minded humanists. For these people, Gaia was made palatable by Lovelock's Daisyworld model, a mathematical and scientific theory designed to refute the criticisms of Darwin's groupies. Just as evolution eliminates the need for a divine creator, the Daisyworld model provided a theory of evolving life on earth that incorporates natural selection with a world that is interconnected. It eliminates a personal yet separate God and makes humans a part of the divine spirit that is Gaia.

    More appealing to the New Agers and the interfaith movement is the mystical side of Gaia. They can easily relate to the belief that humans can have mystical experiences or a spiritual relationship with Gaia. A connectedness to nature and the belief that humans are a part of this collective consciousness called Gaia appeals to them.

    Gaia teaches that an "Earth spirit," goddess, or planetary brain must be protected. It is this belief that fuels the environmental movement, sustainable development, and a global push for the return of industrialized nations to a more primitive way of life.

    Just as with the evolutionists, the humanists, and the other pagan religions of the world, Gaia has named Christianity as the obstacle to human evolution and our spiritual destiny. A document mandated by the UN-sponsored Convention on Biological Diversity, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, explicitly refers to Christianity as a faith that has set humans apart from nature and stripped nature of its sacred qualities. The document states:
    Conversion to Christianity has therefore meant an abandonment of an affinity with the natural world for many forest dwellers, peasants, fishers all over the world... The northeastern hilly states of India bordering China and Myanmar supported small scale, largely autonomous shifting cultivator societies until the 1950s. These people followed their own religious traditions that included setting apart between 10% and 30% of the landscape as sacred groves and ponds.
    While condemning Christianity as the root of all ecological evil, the document goes on to praise Buddhism and Hinduism as they "did not depart as drastically from the perspective of humans as members of a community of beings including other living and non-living elements."

    Non-Christian religions are definitely favored by the global government as good stewards of Mother Earth. Members of this "Green Religion" will all agree that the Earth is in a crisis state and this ecological emergency is the result of Christian traditions. They believe that the Judeo Christian belief that God assigned man to rule over the earth has caused us to exploit and abuse it. Monotheism, they assert, has separated humans from their ancient connection to the earth, and to reverse this trend governments, the media, our education system, artists, and other areas of influence must revive earth-centered myth and reconnect us to Earth's spirit. Al Gore, in his book Earth in the Balance, expounds on this view:
    "The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own systems of belief. But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves freely and almost instantaneously through the world has spurred a renewed investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths. This panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization's responsibility for the earth is concerned." (pp. 258-259)
    Gore praises the Eastern religions and new age spiritualism, while blaming Christianity for the elimination of the ancient goddess religion, and calls for a new spiritual relationship between man and earth.
    "The spiritual sense of our place in nature predates Native American cultures; increasingly it can be traced to the origins of human civilization. A growing number of anthropologists and archaeomythologists, such as Marija Gimbutas and Riane Esler argue that the prevailing ideology of belief in prehistoric Europe and much of the world was based on the worship of a single earth goddess, who was assumed to be the fount of all life and who radiated harmony among all living things. Much of the evidence for the existence of this primitive religion comes from the many thousands of artifacts uncovered in ceremonial sites. These sites are so widespread that they seem to confirm the notion that a goddess religion was ubiquitous through much of the world until the antecedents of today's religions, most of which still have a distinctly masculine orientation...swept out of India and the Near East, almost obliterating belief in the goddess. The last vestige of organized goddess worship was eliminated by Christianity as late as the fifteenth century in Lithuania."
    If Gore had read the Bible he would know exactly why Christians will not open their mind to these other beliefs as he suggests. The Bible very clearly warns us not to.
    "So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority." --Colossians 2:6-10
    Gore also might want to read Romans 1:18-25:
    "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the creator - who is forever praised. Amen."
    When men began to worship the creation instead of the Creator, the wrath of God was revealed. As societies begin again to turn from the truth of the creation and worship nature ("Mother Earth" or any other deceiving spirit), the evil and deception in their new religion will be made evident by God's response.
    Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. --Romans 1:26-32
    Our societies today are becoming a picture of this wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. As the Christian Church is brought into the fold by organizations such as the National Council of Churches and the National Religious Partnership for the Environment, we can be sure the results will be a further decline into immorality and chaos. There is a drive by these organizations and others to meld Earth worship with Christianity in the name of tolerance, biodiversity, sustainability, and the preservation of Mother Earth. It is a battle for Christianity and an attack on Biblical truth.

    When this pagan agenda reaches your church or your community, how will you respond? Will you speak up for the truth of God or will you exchanged the glory of the immortal God for a global compromise that is leading countless people into spiritual darkness?

    As followers of Jesus Christ, we know the truth and we must boldly proclaim it. The opposition is fierce, and to those who don't know the joy of a relationship with God, it is an appealing proposition. It is accepting of everything, intolerant of nothing, it deifies the environmentalist, worships the feminist, eliminates all responsibility for sin, and frees you to embrace your sinful nature. The truth of the Bible must first be taught in our churches and then shared with the world.

    As churches begin to fall away from the faith and corrupt the Word of God, it is left to Bible-believing Christians to stand up for the truth, contend for our faith, and offer to the world an alternative to God's wrath. If we are ashamed of our faith, if we compromise our beliefs, and if we hide in our churches and ignore what is going on outside of them, we are aiding in our own destruction, and countless souls will be lost because of our complacency, selfishness, and inaction.
    "For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline. So do not be ashamed to testify about our Lord, or ashamed of me his prisoner. But join with me in suffering for the gospel, but the power of God, who has saved us and called us to a holy life - not because of anything we have done but because of his own purpose and grace." --II Timothy 1:6-8
    Mary apparitions may be the deception that unifies world religions into becoming the Harlot of Revelation

    Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page


    “Análisis crítico del judeocristianismo” es una revisión mordaz a la columna vertebral del cristianismo judaico. Javier Campuzano Terrazas es un joven sociólogo quien se dio a la tarea de revisar las escrituras bíblicas con un lente meticuloso, poniendo en evidencia la innumerable cantidad de contradicciones que aparecen en las Sagradas Escrituras. 

    Realiza un estudio minucioso del ejercicio que los cleros hicieron de la Biblia y profundiza incisivamente en las raíces de la moral cristiana; así se interna en las bases deontológicas del protestantismo, el catolicismo, el luteranismo, etc. El ensayo tiene un profundo valor ontológico por su riguroso estudio del sentido común ético, que ve en las virtudes pregonadas por el cristianismo a un peligroso parásito moral. Realiza un pantallazo general a las consecuencias históricas del fanatismo religioso y hace hincapié en el orden del poder establecido como una consecuencia del pasado de la fe. 

    El Autor
    Como denuncia, “Análisis crítico del Judeocristianismo” manifiesta una serie de consecuencias que orbitan la catastrófica situación del mundo actual y cuyo origen no puede ser otro sino el mismísimo Creador del tiempo y del espacio. Javier Campuzano denuncia, desde un ámbito teológico que transmigra al orden político por efecto de una serie de eventos históricos dentro de la fe, la verdadera faz del Dios de los Judíos. 

    El autor demuestra mediante la misma Biblia que Dios es una nefasta pero muy real metáfora divina, en la que la maldad y la bondad se difuminan en una histeria bipolar, una espiral de eventos desafortunados que usaron la fe para coronar una Sinarquía de poder. La áspera crítica que se realiza en el texto hace vitrina de una forma audaz y brutal de decir las cosas.

    Por su alto rango de visión crítica y analítica, por su magnífica puesta en escena de la sátira ensayística, por su amplia minuciosidad, “Análisis crítico del Judeocristianismo” es una obra profundamente revisionista de alta valía. Muy recomendado para buscadores de la verdad, para inconformes, revolucionarios y rebeldes. Siendo éste el primer trabajo de Javier Campuzano Terrazas, el autor se proyecta como un ensayista intrépido cuyos futuros trabajos podrían traer aún más apologías al sentido común.

              10 things that surprised me most about Buddhism        
    After first encountering basic Buddhist concepts and then learning more and more about them, I often found myself surprised, even awed, by what I learned. I don't know if it the Western 'pop-culture' view or my own Judeo-Christian background were the sources of my initial views of Buddhism, but the more I learned, the more I realized how much my initial impressions of Buddhist ideology differed greatly from the actual teachings and culture. I also remember some of my fellow Buddhists (who grew up in Southeast Asia, and had been born into a Buddhist culture) being surprised when they learned that I did not initially know some of these things about Buddhism (especially numbers 9 and 10), but were understanding about my lack of knowledge once I told them where I was coming from.

    Here is my 'top ten' list of the things that surprised me most about Buddhism, from the mundane (and perhaps even silly) to the profound:

    1. Many Buddhists are not vegetarians.
    2. To be Buddhist, one doesn't have to renounce all one's material belongings (or shave your head!).
    3. Buddhists are not necessarily pacifists.
    4. Many Buddhists do not meditate regularly- in lotus position no less!
    5. 'Fat Buddha' is different from Shakyamuni (i.e. the historical) Buddha.
    6. Buddhism has a tradition, even a foundation, of questioning and challenging beliefs.
    7. Buddhism and science can harmoniously coexist.
    8. Buddhism is not possessive, anyone can incorporate Buddhist principles into their life without 'becoming' Buddhist. 
    9. Buddha was not a god, but a mortal human being who suffered as we do. The difference was that he found the way to end this suffering.
    10. Buddhism is 'equal opportunity'. Every being in the universe has Buddha-nature, or the potential to become a Buddha. 

    If you are a 'new' Buddhist like me, were you surprised by any of these characteristics of Buddhism? Do you have any to add? I would love to hear your thoughts!

    May all beings be happy!

              How equality, fraternity, and liberty fare in Judaism        
    Judeomasonry is about getting non-Judaic individuals to act against their common interest for the common interest of 'Jews' who regard them as animals:
    And now for the question of how equality, fraternity, and liberty fare in Judaism. As to equality and fraternity, from time immemorial support can be found in our heritage for not seeing the Gentile as equal in standing to the Jew. It is no small matter to say, You are called human (adam) while the idol worshippers (ovdei kokhavim) are not called human (TB Yevamot 61) and there is a version adding here but, rather, animals; or to believe truly that Thou hast chosen and sanctified us from all nations (Pilgrimage Holiday prayer).

    The Jew who believes in his chosenness inclines to think of others according to a suggestion drawn [by Judeo-supremacist rabbis ed.] (as in TB Kiddushin 69) from the words spoken by Abraham to his young men prior to the sacrifice of Isaac): Stay here with the ass (Genesis 22: 5); namely, that we are concerned with a people who resemble an ass (or, as believed by Maimonides and most Jewish scholars in the Middle Ages, that all wisdom and science had at first been known only by the Jews but fell among them into oblivion in the length of days and when the foolish nations ruled us (Maimonides, Guide of the Perplexed 1, 71). And as to Abraham ha ivri (the Hebrew), it is said in the Midrash that the entire world is on one side, while he is on the other. (The translation of the Hebrew word ha ivri may be rendered as he who comes over from the other side.)

    Joseph David: The State of Israel: Between Judaism and Democracy

              More good, honest Judeo-Christian Dialogue        

              Judeo-Christian 'brotherhood' is a fraud        
    Over the course of years, we and others have documented the theological and historical absurdity of this new contrivance, Judeo-Christian 'brotherhood.' Given many decades of application of Judeo-Christian 'brotherhood,' we can conclude that it is manifestly absurd at the practical level as well.

    The charity and mercy inherent to brotherhood demand fraternal correction of a brother who errs. We witness much 'correction' in the 'relations' between Judeo-Christian 'brothers' but only in one direction. This is not because only one 'brother' errs, nor is it the case that the 'brother' exclusively delivering the 'correction' does so from a position of correctness. It's a self-evidently unequal arrangement; an unequal yoking.

    Despite the dishonest sloganeering surrounding it, Judeo-Christian 'brotherhood' is evidently not brotherhood; not fraternity. It's a master-subject relationship and an extremely dishonest and ungodly one at that.

    That old crypto-rabbi Cardinal Martini was refreshingly plain when he called 'the Jews' "our superiors," although his presuming authority to place Christians under the authority of the rabbis is laughable.

    Such imposture, this relations with 'the Jews.'

              Goldhagen's Willing Executioners        

    Last year, while browsing at one of those sadly disappearing Upper West Side bookstores, I ran into Norman Finkelstein, a member of the sadly disappearing tribe of left-wing gadflies. Finkelstein said he was working on a book about Harvard Professor Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. Goldhagen, he declared, was a fraud crying out to be unmasked.

    This wasn't surprising. Goldhagen made a lot of people angry with that book. (Click here for a quick refresher on why.) Finkelstein, a political scientist, bills himself a "forensic" scholar. He's fashioned a career out of demystifying what he deems pseudoscholarly arguments. It also made a kind of poetic sense that Finkelstein would become obsessed with Goldhagen. Like him, Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust survivors and a strident commentator on Jewish affairs. He just comes at them from the opposing side.

    Finkelstein's reputation rests on his refutation of Joan Peters' 1984 From Time Immemorial, a book purporting to prove Palestinian Arabs had no claims on the land that is now Israel, having been drawn to it only by reports that Jews were making the desert bloom. Peters' book was lavishly praised by American Jewish organizations, novelists, and scholars. But when Finkelstein showed that Peters had manipulated Ottoman demographic records to make her case, the book's supporters attacked him as an anti-Zionist. By 1986, though, Zionist scholars having published articles that bolstered Finkelstein's case, his version was the conventional wisdom.

    Finkelstein told me Goldhagen was just another Peters. That struck me as dubious. After all, Goldhagen's book wasn't a hoax. It was a troubling interpretation. But Finkelstein insisted that, whatever the reviewers said, the book had been a megapublishing event, and for one simple reason: It was useful to Zionist Jews who believe that all non-Jews are potential Jew killers and that Jews, therefore, are justified in using whatever means are necessary to defend themselves.

    Calling Goldhagen a Zionist propagandist seemed an act of provocation, to say the least, and so it was taken. Last summer, Finkelstein published an article with the lurid title "Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 'Crazy' Thesis" in the British New Left Review. Shortly afterward, it was excerpted in the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel and in Italy's Panorama. Goldhagen promptly denounced Finkelstein as a supporter of Hamas, a radical Islamic Palestinian group. Metropolitan Books, an imprint of Holt, decided to publish a revised version of Finkelstein's essay, along with a no less hotly contested attack on Goldhagen by the German-born historian Ruth Bettina Birn that was first published in the Cambridge Historical Journal.

    Several months before the publication of Finkelstein and Birn's book, A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth, Finkelstein's opponents pressured Metropolitan to cancel it. Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of the New Republic, got on the phone with his friend Michael Naumann, the publisher of Holt and a German, to express his outrage. The Anti-Defamation League's Abraham Foxman wrote to Finkelstein's editor, Sara Bershtel, calling the writer's views "beyond the pale."

    Finkelstein's co-author took even worse flak. Goldhagen accused her of having defamed him in her Historical Journal article, then assembled a team of lawyers in Britain to demand a retraction and an apology. In Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress is trying to have Birn removed from the government's war crimes division (where she helps build cases against Nazi war criminals) on the grounds that, by publishing with Finkelstein, she has demonstrated insensitivity unbecoming a public servant.

    The prepublication attack almost worked. István Deák, a Columbia University historian who agreed to write a preface, backed out. He did provide a blurb, as did seven other distinguished academics, including the Holocaust experts Raul Hilberg and Christopher Browning, the French Jewish intellectual Pierre Vidal-Naquet, and the eminent Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm. (Click here to read what some of them say and here to read why they say it.) Now that the book is out, the grand irony is that Goldhagen should consider himself lucky to have Finkelstein as his adversary. Not that it isn't a good dissection of Goldhagen's contradictions and distortions. Finkelstein handily refutes Goldhagen's claim that German anti-Semitism is all that's required to explain the Holocaust. (Click here to read how he does this.) Checking Goldhagen's assertions against his citations, Finkelstein demonstrates that the scholar's use of secondary sources is untrustworthy. (Click here for another telling example.) And yet Finkelstein turns out to be a kind of doppelgänger of Goldhagen's, equally biased and inflammatory.

    First, Finkelstein makes much of the point that the majority of Germans "did not cast their lot for Hitler." Technically true--but a plurality of Germans did. No party received as many votes in the March 1933 election as the Nazis--43.9 percent. Finkelstein acknowledges the Nazi state was a brutal dictatorship, but he glosses over its disturbingly popular character.

    Second, Finkelstein echoes conventional historical thinking when he says Nazism's main appeal lay in Hitler's promises to restore order in post-Weimar Germany, end unemployment, and make the country an international power. But anti-Semitism permeated Nazi ideology, and Finkelstein is deaf to its nuances. He writes, "Not the Jews but Marxism and Social Democracy served as the prime scapegoats of Nazi propaganda" during their rise to power. Also technically true. But the Nazis perceived Social Democracy as a Jewish party and Marxism as a Jewish creed; when they rallied against Bolshevik enemies, their audiences did not need to be told that these enemies were, if not actual Jews, then "spiritual Jews." If Finkelstein were to apply his logic to Lee Atwater's Willie Horton strategy, he'd have to write, "Not race but crime served as the prime scapegoat of George Bush's 1988 campaign."

    Third, Finkelstein deduces from some Germans' disgust at the destruction of Jewish lives and property during Nazi-sponsored pogroms such as Kristallnacht that "Germans overwhelmingly condemned the Nazi anti-Semitic atrocities." If they did, they gave new meaning to the term "silent majority." The Germans, he writes, displayed "the callousness toward human life typically attending war. ... Hardened and bitter, in search of a scapegoat, they occasionally lashed out at the weak." The first adverb casually banalizes German brutality; the second diminishes its extent; together, they come dangerously close to apologia.

    The most controversial part of Finkelstein's book, though, is the last chapter, in which he sets out to explain why the Goldhagen book was such a big deal. Finkelstein observes that after the 1967 Arab-Israeli War, there was a boom in the kind of Holocaust literature that portrayed the catastrophe as the natural culmination of millennial Jew-hatred. Where some Holocaust experts, such as Hilberg and Martin Broszat, depicted it as a "complex and contingent event," other writers, such as Lucy Davidowicz, found it more "politically expedient" to focus on anti-Semitism, especially as Israel came under increasing censure. (Click here for Finkelstein's explanation of why this logic is "expedient.") According to Finkelstein, Goldhagen's claim that all forms of anti-Semitism "tend toward a genocidal 'solution' " is expedient in this way, and therefore popular--though Finkelstein says Goldhagen adds no more than a veneer of social science sophistication to this reductionist point of view.

    Finkelstein is not breaking new ground here. Israeli intellectuals such as Amos Elon and Tom Segev and the Holocaust historian Omer Bartov have made similar points about the ideological subtext of Holocaust writing. But they also take pains not to dismiss the trauma the Holocaust visited and continues to visit upon Jews. By contrast, Finkelstein adopts an ugly conspiratorial tone when he attributes the book's popularity in the United States to its Zionist message. This is nonsense. The book owed its commercial success to its soothingly simplistic thesis--and to astute marketing. At times, Finkelstein's tone even veers toward the jocular, as when he makes fun of Elie Wiesel's racist remarks about ungrateful black people. One is reminded of Gershom Scholem's remark to Hannah Arendt at the time of Eichmann in Jerusalem: "This is not the way to approach the scene of that tragedy."

    It's too bad that the noise about Finkelstein has drowned out his co-writer, Birn. She knows the archives better than anyone, and she has come up with more quietly damning observations. Birn's experience as a prosecutor gives her a radically different take on the legal testimony Goldhagen bases much of his book on, for the most part confessions of death squad members. "Goldhagen seems to have difficulty comprehending that when perpetrators claim to have been motivated by Nazi propaganda, it need not be sincere," she writes. (Click here to see how these statements could instead form part of a legal defense.) Birn also shows how Goldhagen's insistence on German complicity leads him to soft-pedal the anti-Semitism of the Germans' collaborators, referring obliquely to the "pressures operating on the Ukrainians that did not exist for the Germans." This is flat-out Eastern European revisionism; you could easily imagine some Ukrainian nationalist writing it.

    But the weightiest of Birn's accusations is that Goldhagen glosses over atrocities in which the victims weren't Jewish. Goldhagen recounts the tale of a witness who saw a Russian man beaten to death because his name was Abraham; he does not report the same witness's account, on the next page of testimony, of the "sexually sadistic murder of a young [non-Jewish] girl by one of the officers." In the end, this may be one of the most compelling condemnations of Goldhagen yet: that his focus on Jewish victims leaves him indifferent to the fate of non-Jews, from that young girl to the millions of Soviet POW's who were starved and worked to death in the camps. Without minimizing the significance of anti-Semitism, Birn provides an eloquent rejoinder to Goldhagen's blood-thinking. Her essay radiates a dignified humanism that both Goldhagen and Finkelstein lack.


    Note 1: Holocaust historians have traditionally offered a variety of reasons why Germans followed orders to exterminate the Jews. These include anti-Semitism, the culture of German military units, the pressures of totalitarian rule, the hysteria of wartime mobilization, and the effects of Nazi propaganda. Goldhagen, by contrast, offers a single-bullet explanation. He posits a society of ordinary Germans bred, like attack dogs, to despise Jews, and unleashed by a regime that shared their bloodlust. Germany's uniquely anti-Semitic history had, in his view, made most of them "assenting mass executioners ... [who] considered the slaughter to be just." The book had its defenders, but the reviews were mostly scathing. Hitler's Willing Executioners was dismissed as fundamentally ahistorical in Commentary, of all places, and as a "bizarre inversion of the Nazi view of the Jews as an insidious, inherently evil nation" in the New Republic. Back

    Note 2: This was an unfair characterization of Finkelstein's views on the Oslo accords. Like Edward Said, who regards the Oslo accords as a Palestinian Versailles, he is opposed to them. That doesn't make him a Hamas supporter. Back

    Note 3: According to Finkelstein's editor, Sara Bershtel, who was in Naumann's office at the time and heard Wieseltier on the speaker phone, he said: "Michael, you don't know who Finkelstein is. He's poison, he's a disgusting self-hating Jew, he's something you find under a rock." Wieseltier told me he wasn't trying to silence Finkelstein: "The idea that anyone is trying to suppress the lonely prophet in the wilderness called Finkelstein is comical. Virtually every scholar has attacked [Goldhagen's] book, including, I might add, our critic in the NewRepublic. Finkelstein is just playing this game of épater les juifs." Back

    Note 4: Deák, who was so impressed by an early draft Finkelstein sent him that he wrote him praising his efforts, now says, "I didn't read the article very carefully. I made the mistake of giving my consent too early, and then had second thoughts." Back

    Note 5: "All readers of Goldhagen's controversial book should take note of these much-needed studies, which, in line with serious historians, convincingly and authoritatively dismantle its arguments."

    --Eric Hobsbawm, author of The Age of Extremes: A History of the World, 1914-1991

    "In this important volume Finkelstein and Birn demonstrate that Daniel Goldhagen's study of the Judeocide is monocausal, teleological, and severely blinkered. Finkelstein carefully sets forth Goldhagen's distortion and disregard of the secondary literature; Birn masterfully lays bare his gravely flawed use and interpretation of archival sources. Both authors also raise hard questions about the political reasons for the inordinate promotion and reception of Goldhagen's book. No serious student of history can afford to ignore these well-reasoned and withering reflections on the perils of pseudo-scholarship."

    --Arno Mayer, author of Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?: The Final Solution in History

    "Finkelstein and Birn provide a devastating critique of Daniel Goldhagen's simplistic and misleading interpretation of the Holocaust. Their contribution to the debate is, in my view, indispensable."

    --Ian Kershaw, author of Hitler

    "Among the dozens of reviewers of Hitler's Willing Executioners, Ruth Bettina Birn and Norman Finkelstein stand out for the seriousness and thoroughness with which they have undertaken their task. Even if I do not embrace every aspect of Finkelstein's conclusions concerning the politicization of Holocaust historiography, I am grateful for these writers' courageous, conscientious, and labor-intensive efforts."

    --Christopher Browning, author of Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland

    "Is Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners the definitive work on Hitler's Judeocide? The authors of this volume express serious doubt, which I share. To reduce a phenomenon of this scale and complexity to the anti-Semitism which permeated German society as it also permeated other societies is to be simplistic and to show contempt for the reader. This book rights the balance."

    --Pierre Vidal-Naquet, author of The Jews: History, Memory, and the Present

    "Highly recommended to the many readers of Goldhagen's controversial book, especially those who were mesmerized by its hypotheses. Fortunately, in an open society all scholarship is subject to public scrutiny, and the advance of historical knowledge cannot do without rigorous criticism of the kind provided in this important and courageous collection."

    --Volker R. Berghahn, J.P. Birkelund distinguished professor of European history, Brown University

    "Birn's and Finkelstein's essays constitute a sharp rebuttal provoked by the public's and the press's love affair with a book that casually dismisses excellent work done by others; that contains many contradictions; and that upholds dangerous myths regarding the existence of 'national characteristics.' "

    --István Deák, author of Beyond Nationalism: A Social and Political History of the Habsburg Officer Corps, 1848-1918 Back

    Note 6: Christopher Browning told me: "What's important about Finkelstein's critique is that he has traced the inconsistencies and contradictions in Goldhagen, and no one else has taken the time to do that. It's not my style of writing. But I don't think he's gone beyond the bounds of polemic in replying to Goldhagen's polemic." In interviews, Holocaust scholars sounded grateful that someone had stood up so boldly to Goldhagen, who, in Hitler's Willing Executioners, had dismissed the work of virtually every scholar who came before him. Two of the blurb writers have quite understandable grudges: Goldhagen has, for years, been railing against Browning's emphasis on peer pressure in explaining why German soldiers participated in genocide; in a NewRepublic review, he accused another endorser, Arno Mayer, of being a Holocaust revisionist. In any event, these blurbs often appear to be more the expressions of well-wishers than of close readers. Hobsbawm is not alone in saying he didn't read Finkelstein's essay "line-by-line." Back

    Note 7: Finkelstein notes that anti-Semitism in other countries was often worse; there was, in pre-Hitler Germany, "no equivalent of the riots that attended the Dreyfus Affair in France or the pogroms in Russia." In the Weimar period, moreover, the Nationalist Socialists found they couldn't get much mileage out of raw appeals to anti-Jewish prejudice, and often toned down their anti-Semitism around election time. Back

    Note 8: Footnoting historian Peter Pulzer's sober study Jews and the German State, Goldhagen asserts that only the "core of the socialist movement, its intellectuals and leaders" opposed anti-Semitism. In fact, Pulzer says no such thing. He found little evidence of anti-Semitism among Social Democrats, intellectuals or workers. Back

    Note 9: "Thus interpreted, the Nazi extermination both justifies the necessity of Israel and accounts for all hostility directed at it: The Jewish state is the only safeguard against the next outbreak of homicidal anti-Semitism and, conversely, homicidal anti-Semitism is behind every attack on, or even defensive maneuver against, the Jewish state. 'The Holocaust' is in effect the Zionist account of the Nazi holocaust." Back

    Note 10: Among other things, they warn against the danger of removing the Holocaust from history and turning it into a sort of secular religion, the central symbol of Jewish identity. They also deplore the invocation of the Holocaust as a justification for policies that most Jews would deplore if they were implemented in their own countries. Back

    Note 11: Goldhagen asserts the German police battalions knew of the planned destruction of the Jews before entering the Soviet Union, rather than two months after, as most historians believe. He bases this claim on the "conclusive" statement of two former storm troopers. In fact, their statements about extermination orders from above evolved over time, Birn explains, as part of a "defense focused on superior orders as an excuse." Back

              By: iDavid        
    The fictitious christian judeo "god" is the virus, it's believers are it's carriers. Until this becomes majority fact, and this mock up kicked to the dustbin of antiquity with all other false gods of ancient past, the world will simply continue to writhe in it's self imposed salacious illness.
              AU Protests Kansas County Board’s Sectarian Prayers        


    Thanks to Americans United, the Reno County (Kan.) Com­mission may soon end its practice of opening meetings with sectarian invocations. 

    AU received a complaint about the prayers from a resident and found 14 instances between Dec. 6, 2011, and March 30, 2012, of prayers offered before meetings in which Jesus Christ was invoked. 

    In an April 12 letter to the board, AU Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan, Associate Legal Director Alex J. Luchenitser and Staff Attorney Ian Smith said that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that prayers before government meetings are only permissible if they avoid language that favors a specific religion. The letter also noted that “even nonsectarian prayers raise important concerns” because “prayers in the Judeo-Christian tradition tend to exclude and alienate” many people, including minority faiths and nonbelievers.

    “Because the Commission is a representative body for all Reno County residents, regardless of their faith,” the AU attorneys wrote, “we urge you to consider eliminating the prayers altogether, so all commissioners and their constituents may feel equally welcome.”

    County Commissioner Dan Deming said he didn’t want to discontinue the practice of sectarian pre-meeting invocations, but the county would have to comply anyway.

    “I think it’s insulting to ask ministers who are Jesus-oriented to do a non-sectarian prayer, but we are going to have to comply,” Deming said, according to the Associated Press.

    AU Bulletin
    Magazine Issue: 

    The June 2012 issue of Church & State

    Browse previous issues »

              Community and Individualism        
    Belief systems are a complicated entity. None are really "easy", save perhaps the tongue-in-cheek FSM, to understand and to interpret on an individual vs. corporate or community level.

    While I can't speak with any authority on the specifics of other beliefs, I can comment on my own. There has recently been a study started by some dear friends of mine, and in hopes to prevent me from falling behind I've been informed of some of the content they covered so that I can try and still contribute in the meantime.

    For some of the more personal struggles and testimony, I'll save that for when we can meet in person. I can however talk about the verses they covered, and what my take is on them and how I am being led.

    The verses are as follows:
    2 Corinthians 1:3-7

    Hebrews 10:24-25

    Matthew 5:14-16

    Taking one at a time, lets first delve into 2 Corinthians. The verses state:

    3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God. 5 For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also abounds through Christ. 6 Now if we are afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation, which is effective for enduring the same sufferings which we also suffer. Or if we are comforted, it is for your consolation and salvation. 7 And our hope for you is steadfast, because we know that as you are partakers of the sufferings, so also you will partake of the consolation.

    God of all comfort. For me this verse highlights something which is not often seen in the discussions about God. Often being called vengeful, jealous, loving, supporting...but to state as a God of all comfort?

    To provide some quick context, in this era when the letters were written to the church in Corinth, it was not uncommon in other cultures to have gods assigned to specific tasks. There were gods for water, lamp oil, storms, intelligence, and even debauchery and drunkenness.

    That said, for the Judeo-Christian God to be called the God of all comfort would have been rather odd in that era, especially to Jews who were familiar with the see-saw relationship between them and God as recorded in the old testament, where failures led to events such as conquering forces invading and taking the Jews as slaves, only to return generations later to try the whole relationship again. This was revolutionary stuff to be saying, and what we can conclude from these verses is even more revolutionary.

    In my life, I've often stated that there are some folks that I haven't been able to connect to, and I have sloughed the blame in believing that my path is intended to allow me to speak into others lives who are struggling with the same problems. What this verse seems to say to me though is that that mentality is cutting short the power of God in my own life, and I should be able to love and comfort folks in any situation...not just ones I am familiar with.

    Lastly, I see something interesting in that both the suffering and the comforting are for our "consolation and salvation". I believe that this is not necessarily referring to the state of being saved or not, but in reference similar to what is seen in Philippians 2:12-13 :

    12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

    In the same manner, this isn't talking about being saved or not, but talking about how that salvation impacts your life. Swap the word "salvation" for "bicep" for instance, and you can see how the implication is more a strengthening of something already there than working to manifest something which isn't there already.

    What this then says to me is that both the acts of suffering and comforting should be viewed as ways to grow the application of our beliefs in a practical manner. To take those beliefs from our heads to our hearts, and then work them to our hands while we reach out to those around us.

    For Hebrews:

    24 And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, 25 not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

    It is very easy to be a cynic, especially when your worldview is "them vs. me". While our salvation and relationship in our beliefs are very personal, if we don't "check in" with the rest of humanity now and again, we can become tunnel visioned on ideas in our own head.

    Many times it is said that it is best to write things down or say them out loud, that working out how you actually feel is a part of you feel in the first place at all. We so often want to be the one who has it all figured out, yet the irony is that without input from other folks we can't ensure any sort of quality of our internal thoughts.

    This can be taken to an extreme where we become completely dependent on that interaction for validation, or the other extreme where we shun it completely. Even if balanced in a healthy manner, if who we are getting feedback from doesn't have our best interests in mind, then we're also in a tough situation.

    By seeking fellowship with other believers of the same mindset and foundation, we can help use each other to bounce ideas and struggles, and see what others take on an issue is, or perhaps how they've dealt with it in the past. Either way, by coming together as a group we can support each other in each of our needs.

    In Matthew:

    14 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. 15 Nor do they light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven.

    What stands out most to me here echoes what most people have experienced one time or another - when you are part of something that is truly God-touched, it shows and people want to be a part of it. We don't want to hide that experience, but at the same time we have to remember that the light isn't coming from us.

    It's in this manner we must always be giving glory to God, and not to our own ability to have brought people together and had something amazing. It can be very easy to pat oneself on the back and try to take credit - but in the end what we need is humility.

    Add to that that light is pure - unfiltered or partially covered. In this manner, we must also then be open to that light reaching in to every part of our lives, including the dark corners where we like to keep our sins and secrets. For our community, we then must not pretend that we do not have our own dark corners, and show respect and empathy regardless of the nature of the issues our fellow brothers and sisters are struggling with.

    We've each got our own paths to follow - yet we should never be walking it alone. A great paradox of sorts, where we end up walking both our own and others' paths to help support them, while they in turn walk their path and support us in our own. It is through this, though, that we can all grow stronger and live a more fulfilling life touched by God.
              Consilience Revisited        
    Laura Walls

    Edward O. Wilson is the founder of Sociobiology and is widely regarded to be the world’s most famous living scientist. Recently, Wilson seized the word “consilience” from deep within the history of science and reintroduced it into our language by emblazoning it across the cover of his latest best-seller, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. In this book, Wilson offers to unify the “two cultures” of literature and science for once and forever, as “the way to renew the crumbling structure of the liberal arts” (12). It is an offer many of my colleagues find attractive, for Wilson carries enormous authority both as a natural scientist and as an eloquent speaker for the environmentally appealing concepts of “biophilia” and “biodiversity.” He has well-nigh captured the Thoreau Society: for example, in June 1998 he joined Bill and Hillary Clinton as a featured guest at the opening of the Thoreau Institute, delivering a brief address which has been reprinted as the Preface to the Thoreau Society’s collection of Thoreau’s writings on science, which I edited and entitled Material Faith.

    Yet despite this apparent convergence, Wilson’s is an offer which I must refuse. First, I believe that far from healing the breach between the two cultures, Wilson opens it all the wider: “Works of art,” he writes, “communicate feeling directly from mind to mind, with no intent to explain why the impact occurs. In this defining quality, the arts are the antithesis of science” (218). Science, on the other hand, gathers knowledge in an ordered and systematized way and condenses it “into testable laws and principles” (53). Wilson thus reconstructs the old Victorian opposition between “feeling” and “fact,” with a modern twist: art now is reducible to “biologically evolved epigenetic rules” (213). Art is, in short, not a form of knowing but of expressing, and what it expresses are the emotions engendered by our biology and explained, along with all else, by the knowing scientist. Few artists or literary scholars will find this analysis persuasive. Wilson may hope to have unified the two cultures, but while he is speaking, too many of his literary colleagues have left the room, convinced that scientists are as arrogant and illiterate as ever they were in Snowdonia.

    Second, and more disappointing still, is Wilson’s programmatic dismissal of history. In what I take to be a glancing aside to his vocal opponent, Stephen Jay Gould, Wilson asserts, “It is not enough to say that human action is historical, and that history is an unfolding of unique events. Nothing fundamental separates the course of human history from the course of physical history, whether in the stars or in organic diversity.” (Gould, by contrast, suggests that organic diversity is precisely “an unfolding of unique events,” every bit as contingent as human history.) For Wilson, human history ultimately folds into evolutionary history, and fails being a science only because of limitations on its subject matter: could historiography study “ten thousand humanoid histories” on “ten thousand Earthlike planets,” history too would be a natural science (11). However, since we are limited to a single planet, history must seek its “abstract principles and evidentiary proof” in its parent disciplines of science. This correlates with Wilson’s view of literature: both literature and history are part of culture, which is epiphenomenal to - or growing out of - natural law.

    Having dismissed “the unfolding of unique events” which is history, Wilson does not find it useful to consider the life and work of the Victorian polymath, William Whewell, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, our first historian of science and the originator of the term “consilience.” Wilson’s entire explication of his intellectual ancestor consists of a single sentence followed by a two-sentence quotation.

    William Whewell, in his 1840 synthesis The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, was the first to speak of consilience, literally a “jumping together” of knowledge by the linking of facts and fact-based theory across disciplines to create a common groundwork of explanation. He said, “The Consilience of Inductions takes place when an Induction, obtained from one class of facts, coincides with an Induction, obtained from another different class. This Consilience is a test of the truth of the Theory in which it occurs.” (8)

    Wilson adds that consilience is not, after all, a science but “a metaphysical world view” whose strongest appeal lies in the “intellectual adventure” it offers (9). Here, at least, I am compelled to agree: I too responded to the sense of adventure offered by the concept when I used the word “consilience” in the title of my 1992 Ph.D. dissertation, in which I argued that the works of a literary author, Henry David Thoreau, demonstrated the “consilience” of science and literature. Yet unlike Wilson I pursued my own metaphysical adventure into history. As I put it in the published version, Seeing New Worlds, I went about combining literary history and analysis with the history of science so as to suggest that Thoreau’s

    act of consilience seeks to give voice to all the participating agents, not by blending them together but by giving each a distinct hearing in a medium of sustained attention. In consiliating literature and science, Thoreau tried to enable and enact both, as real knowledge situated in, not beyond, the world. (11-12)

    I followed Whewell’s own use of the word, as a process enacted in history by historically-embedded minds. Perhaps, then, one way to respond to Wilson would be to turn to history, where one might find a very different vision of the unity of the two cultures.

    But why does Wilson need to dismiss history at all? Because, in his view, it was history that killed off the promise of the Enlightenment; Wilson’s project, then, is to retrieve the Enlightenment by killing off history. For as Wilson asserts, the great “vision of secular knowledge in the service of human rights and human progress” that was the Enlightenment (14) led instead, catastrophically, to the nightmare of the French Revolution, after which “Reason fractured, intellectuals lost faith in the leadership of science, and the prospect of the unity of knowledge sharply declined” (38). Only the “spirit” of the Enlightenment lived on, buoyed above the dreary stream of quotidian events. Intellectuals lost faith in science, “Science traveled its own way” (38), and Romantic poets like Wordsworth turned their backs on science altogether to “escape to a higher realm through art” (35). Wilson’s nineteenth century is exceedingly bleak, a startling contrast with the picture painted by historians of science, who have characterized it as “the Age of Science,” even “the second Scientific Revolution.” How might the picture change if instead of following Wilson, we retrieve the historical figure Wilson invokes, William Whewell? How do their two versions of “consilience” compare?

    To begin with, what Wilson means by “consilience” comes clear when he ventures that “The cutting edge of science is reductionism, the breaking apart of nature into its natural constituents” (54). The strongest form of reductionism is “total consilience” (55); as Wilson summarizes:

    The central idea of the consilience world view is that all tangible phenomena, from the birth of stars to the workings of social institutions, are based on material processes that are ultimately reducible, however long and tortuous the sequences, to the laws of physics. (266)

    If one did want to locate this statement historically, one path would lead through the assertions of the American Transcendentalist, Ralph Waldo Emerson. In Emerson’s view, science is the study of the governing laws of nature, and these laws give us our moral direction, such that “The axioms of physics translate the laws of ethics” (CW 1:21) - a path Wilson implicitly acknowledges when he labels his “consilience” a “transcendental world view” (55). Yet surprisingly, this is not what one finds in William Whewell. In fact, Whewell’s language is squarely the opposite of Wilson’s: where Wilson is reductive, Whewell is additive; where Wilson points downward to more “fundamental” levels, Whewell points upward to ever higher generalities (TSM 159). When Whewell visualizes the progress of scientific knowledge, his metaphor is not alchemical but alluvial: “the streams of knowledge from various classes of facts will constantly run together into a smaller and smaller number of channels” (TSM 163). As he adds in his History of the Inductive Sciences (1837), “The Table of the progress of any science would thus resemble the Map of a River, in which the waters from separate sources unite and make rivulets, which again meet with rivulets from other fountains, and thus go on forming by their junction trunks of a higher and higher order” (SW 11).

    In Whewell’s image of science as a river, every stage in its development retains its separate identity: earlier truths are “taken up” and “included” in later doctrines (SW 8) and nothing “reduces” to anything else. As a stream does not “reduce” to a river, points downstream are not “reductive” but “confluent”; generalizations contain the particulars of which they are composed and will themselves, through a similar process of alliance, become components of “higher” or “larger” generalizations still farther downstream. Thus rather than a causal sequence, Whewell constructs a connective network, and leaves open the possibility of emergent properties; unlike Wilson’s reductive metaphor, Whewell’s alluvial metaphor is untroubled by the failure of simple components to predict complex behaviors.

    As his word “trunk” suggests, Whewell’s “river” recalls a second embodiment of this figure, the “genealogical tree,” which “will contain all the leading truths of the science arranged in their due co-ordination and subordination” (TSM 163). Whewell’s genealogical “Tree of Science” will mutate shortly afterwards, in Darwin’s hands, into the evolutionary tree that embodies the genealogy of life itself. Darwin’s “Tree of Life” turns God’s instantaneous creation into an excruciatingly tedious historical process, in which slow increments of change form a material chain of connection growing from the ground upward into a now-godless sky. The connection here between Darwin and Whewell is not incidental: even as Darwin’s species, bereft of uplifting skyhooks, must build themselves from the ground up, so must Whewell’s scientific inductions; science, for Whewell, is primarily a historical process, a human construction built step-by-step, each step marked by the idiosyncratic stages that preceded it, and in turn marking all that follow. Thus science cannot be lifted out of its history, for here, too, there are no skyhooks - or in Whewell’s own words, “From a pictured hook we can hang only a pictured chain” (SW 12).

    By contrast, E. O. Wilson would lift science out of history, bearing it up on the skyhook of truth that is absolute and transcendent rather than historical. That is, in his “transcendental world view,” the laws of physics become the skyhook on which not only all science, but all humanity, will be hung. In the duo of Wilson and Whewell, Whewell may have been the minister, but as an historian as well as a scientist it was, ironically, Whewell who was obliged to be skeptical about the kind of faith Wilson professes. For the historian of science must document how “truth” is built from the ground up; how (to continue with the figure of “skyhooks,” borrowed from Daniel Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea) the cranes of theory are erected and made to lift the building blocks of empirical evidence into place. Take away the cranes, and truth does appear to be transcendent; the value of the history of science lies in the way it reconstructs the vanished cranes, showing how there might have been other building sites and other methods of construction - without, however, disputing the constancy of the underlying physical principles. In short, science can offer to represent the world, but it still cannot become the world, no matter how virtually persuasive.

    Francis Bacon offers a figure for this, which Wilson quotes as the epigraph to Consilience: “Thus have I made as it were a small globe of the intellectual world, as truly and faithfully as I could discover.” Wilson thus lays claim to Bacon as another intellectual ancestor; interestingly, Whewell, too, saw himself as Bacon’s heir, so much so that he tried to rewrite Bacon for post-Kantian modernity. This is, in fact, why Whewell develops Bacon’s concept of induction in such detail, introducing the powerful new concept of “consilience,” or the coincidence of inductions. Yet in Whewell there is a crucial new element to this coincidence, the role of the mind:

    An Induction is not the mere sum of the Facts…The Facts are not only brought together, but seen in a new point of view. A new mental Element is superinduced; and a peculiar constitution and discipline of mind are requisite in order to make this Induction (TSM 139).

    Facts do not simply merge, but as he says shortly, have “jumped together” (TSM 153) - and this “leap” is a creative act of the mind, “a new conception, a principle of connexion and unity,” “a formative act exerted by the understanding” (TSM 163). Hence “consilience” is not a description of a passive occurrence but of an active process; consiliences are not found but forged.

    Indeed, Whewell is most interested in how, once forged, the new fact appears so natural and obvious that the process of making it is quite forgotten: “Although in every inductive inference, an act of invention is requisite, the act soon slips out of notice.” Or as he metaphorizes, “The pearls once strung, they seem to form a chain by their nature” (TSM 143). Whewell wrote often about the necessary coming together of fact and idea, thing and thought, or nature and mind. As he said most succinctly, “Facts involve Thoughts, for we know Facts only by thinking about them” (SW 146). It is this insight that allows science to have a history, for the progress of knowledge becomes dependent on historically situated acts of interpretation; and it also explains why science is a peculiarly European phenomenon, for once science becomes a particular way of knowing, it can be seen to have a specific geographic location (namely, Europe) and a contingent narrative of progress. “And even at this day,” Whewell writes,

    the tribes of uncivilized and half-civilized man over the whole face of the earth, have before their eyes a vast body of facts, of exactly the same nature as those with which Europe has built the stately fabric of her physical philosophy; but, in almost every other part of the earth, the process of the intellect by which these facts become science, is unknown. The scientific faculty does not work. The scattered stones are there, but the builder’s hand is wanting. (SW 6)

    “Consilience,” the “builder’s hand,” is itself a historical phenomenon by which the human mind participates in truth, stringing pearls in chains which, when they hold together, seem then to have always been strung exactly thus.

    Whewell’s is a far more modest vision than Wilson’s, in part because Whewell is certain of the key role played by the interpreter in what is not a transcendent seeing, but a situated reading, of nature. Given this background, there is some irony in Wilson’s rejection of Whewell’s understanding as “postmodern,” the property of that “rebel crew milling beneath the black flag of anarchy” who proclaim that reality “is a state constructed by the mind, not perceived by it,” who deny objective truth and firmly-grounded ethics, and undermine scientific culture as “just another way of knowing, and, moreover, contrived mostly by European and American white males” (40-42). Wilson himself admits as much some pages later when he comments that it is because science is so difficult to master that “it took so long to get started, and then mostly in one place, which happened to be western Europe” (55). Yet what might seem an unwitting convergence is really Wilson’s point of departure: science does indeed require a particular cultural and religious setting, namely, European and Judeo-Christian. Why, Wilson asks, did China produce no Descartes or Newton? Most importantly, because they didn’t believe in God:

    No rational Author of Nature existed in their universe; consequently the objects they meticulously described did not follow universal principles, but instead operated within particular rules followed by those entities in the cosmic order. In the absence of a compelling need for the notion of general laws - thoughts in the mind of God, so to speak - little or no search was made for them. (31)

    Unlike the Chinese, Judeo-Christian thinkers sought universal laws authored by a single all-creative mind; therefore, the scientific culture they produced cannot be “just another way of knowing” but the way of knowing, characterizing not just Europe, but the Cosmos. The success claimed by science is not just that it is coherent, or that, pragmatically, it works, but that it is transcendentally true, a belief pegged to Judeo-Christian theology. Early in the book, Wilson speculates that “science is religion liberated and writ large,” “another way of satisfying religious hunger” (6). Despite his protestations that science is “neither a philosophy nor a belief system,” but only a method, “a combination of mental operations” (45), Wilson’s own language of “Enchantment” and the fervency of his faith in reductionism, the “transcendental world view” he names “Consilience,” give away his deep allegiance to science as a Christian faith reborn from historical superstition to the universal truth of nature, a faith that characterized a great many nineteenth-century intellectuals. In this faith, the universe is knowable to the mind of man because it was designed by the mind of God, a mind in Man’s image, and so the scientist who grasps those ultimate generative laws of the universe will finally close the circle of creation by seeing with God’s eyes - or in Stephen Hawking’s notorious speculation, a complete theory of the universe “would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God” (175).

    Wilson writes as a scientist, imbuing every page with the sublime authority that allows him to mangle history without penalty and dismiss his opponents without argument; yet by his own criteria, his “consilience” is not the creative leap that forges an alliance between two empirical truths, an alliance tested against the resistance of the physical world; it is a leap of faith, beyond empirical verification, into a metaphysics with its own rich history. Wilson suggests that “The love of complexity without reductionism makes art; the love of complexity with reductionism makes science” (54). Those of us who love both science and unreduced complexity can take heart: as I hope this brief venture has shown, restoring history to language and metaphor can reconnect science with literature and humanity in a consilience that sacrifices neither complexity nor truth.

    Such a move helps locate Wilson in a genealogy well worthy of attention: although Wilson’s Sociobiology descends from evolutionary history, by skyhooking the narrative out of history and the interpreter out of science, Wilson effectively returns us to the decades before Darwin, when the ancestors of today’s scientists used their positions as intellectual leaders to provide nourishment for the era’s deep religious hunger, assuring their audiences that the world was not shattered into unmeaning but shaped into one great whole, drawn together by the strength of God’s generative laws, the beneficence of His design, and the God-given power of the human mind to follow the plenitude of Creation back to its source in a single mighty Word - to fold the Many back into the One. Ironically, Darwin’s evolutionary tree is the very story/image on which Wilson relies, but by stripping it of its historical context, Wilson eliminates the key role of the story-teller. Wilson thus returns us to the realm of natural theology - to a renewal of the natural theology that, in Whewell’s day, appeared to be crumbling into the dust of the past.

    works cited

    Dennett, Daniel C. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

    Emerson, Ralph Waldo. The Collected Works. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1971.

    Hawking, Stephen. A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam Books, 1988.

    Walls, Laura Dassow, ed. Material Faith: Thoreau on Science. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1999.

    ___. Seeing New Worlds: Henry David Thoreau and Nineteenth-Century Natural Science. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1995.

    Whewell, William. Selected Writings on the History of Science. Ed. Yehuda Elkana. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984.

    ___. Theory of Scientific Method. Ed. Robert E. Butts. 1968. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co, 1989.

    Wilson, Edward O. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Knopf, 1998.

    This essay grew out of an extended correspondence with Lee Sterrenburg over the course of the summer 1998. My thanks to Lee for his encouragement - and for introducing me to Whewell and to “consilience” in the first place.

              Comentario en 6 DE AGOSTO 72 ANIVERSARIO DE UN HORROR LLAMADO HIROSHIMA por María        
    Papa Pío XII.A principios de agosto de 1945, a pesar de la rendición incondicionada de los japoneses, en Hiroshima y en Nagasaki fue exterminada la casi totalidad de los católicos del Japón. Avro Manhattan lanzó una amenaza pública a Pío XII: La bomba atómica... debería ser una advertencia para todas aquellas fuerzas que se ocupan del futuro de la humanidad, y los métodos de los principios no negociables de las épocas pasadas están superados para siempre... La Iglesia católica debería prestar atención a esta advertencia ... y debería buscar un nuevo camino. Faltan detalles porque el judeo mason Truman, además recibio una buena cantidad, de dólares, por parte de la casa satánica Rotshchild, a cambio de reconocer a Israel, y EE.UU fue el primer imperio en hacerlo, como el estado judio, en Palestina, que en definitiva era parte del plan masonico, para la toma del mundo, y asi poder reiniciar sacrificios, que fueron totalmente cancelados por, Nuestro Señor Jesucristo. san Daniel Profeta IX, setenta semanas, cumplidas totalmente por Nuestro Señor, y para siempre. El mundo anticristiano, da su versión: 14 de Elul - 20 de Agosto del 2013: El día que decidieron reanudar el contínuo sacrificio. En la tarde del Martes 20 de agosto del 2013, el día 14 de Elul del 5773, se realizó una ceremonia de preparación en Israel, con el objetivo de reanudar el “sacrificio perpetuo” que se efectúa a diario por los judíos. El ensayo fue supervisado por el rabino Yisrael Ariel, fundador del Instituto del Templo.
              Comentario en EL ANTICRISTO por Fernando Roqué        
    Sin desconocer los méritos del artículo del Prof. Tello Corraliza, no comparto, entre otras cosas, la identificación de Montini/Paulo VI con el Anticristo, aunque no quito un ápice a la enorme importancia que el mismo tuvo en la destrucción de la Iglesia Romana. En todo caso, como lo decía en mi comentario 'La Mistificación de la santidad, camino hacia la impostura final' -que vio la luz también en este mismo blog hace un par de años-, Montini forma parte de la serie de la impostura, que comienza con Roncalli/Juan XXIII y se cierra significativamente con un sexto, el falso papa Francisco, con lo que se completa un cierto 'orden' de perfección en el progreso del mal, necesario para la manifestación del Anticristo, culmen de la impostura, según San Ireneo, y en el cual se dará la RECAPITULACIÓN de todo el MAL, tanto en el orden histórico-antrópico como en el cósmico-angélico, como lo veía Santa Hildegarda. Es claro entonces que no se ha de identificar a ninguno de estos lobos rapaces con el Ánomos mismo (o Anticristo personal), aunque sí les corresponde, según la designación de San Juan, el apelativo de 'anticristos', cuya misión ha sido'disolver' o 'licuar' (lýein, en griego) la fe en Cristo, y así preparar eficazmente el camino al propio 'Anomos (o Anticristo personal). Por lo demás, en lo que se refiere a las profundas connotaciones teológicas del personaje de referencia, invito a los visitantes del blog a la lectura de dos trabajos del Dr Disandro sobre el mismo tema: el primero es la edición bilingüe y comentada de la visión del Anticristo, que se halla en la tercera parte de Scivias, la magna obra de Santa Hildegarda; y el segundo, un análisis preciso y hondo de la misma figura desde la visión de San Juan en sus cartas, con sus profundas resonancias para la Iglesia y el mundo. Este último, pues, va reproducido a continuación. EL ANTÍKHRISTOS Carlos A. Disandro Eminencia: Le atribuyo este título tradicional para el cardenalato, por lo menos desde el siglo XVI, para aventar toda presunción de agravio en este texto, escueta y esencialmente teológico. Aunque usted, por imperio de la Bula de Pablo IV (cuarto), del secular Derecho Canónico, etc., o simplemente por imperio de la Fe, es un “cardenal” depuesto, despojado de todos sus grados, dignidades, oficios, funciones y prerro- gatitas; subordinado a su “maestro”, el antipapa ocupante, como un anticristo de la cátedra romana, como un precursor inconfundible de EL ANTÍKHRISTOS. Así pues interesa primordialmente la sustancia de la FE y la doctrina congruente; luego las dignidades, oficios y funciones que en la ECCLESIA fungen según esa FE y para custodia y exaltación de esa FE en la SACRA TRADICIÓN. Consecuentemente, en última instancia perfílase la situación personal —la conciencia como dicen ahora— de cuya solidez y destino sólo es juez la intachable sapiencia divina, a la que por supuesto también está sometido, y gravemente sometido quien esto escribe, por mandato de mi maestro San Juan Apóstol, autor del Evangelio, que ustedes, dignidades canónicas DEPUESTAS, vilipendian, vacían y crucifican; de ese EVANGELIO, incriminado y burlado por Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Lustiger, Aramburu, Primatesta y tutti quanti. Y aunque limitado e indigno, en muchos pormenores, en muchos aspectos ostensibles y dolorosos, mi fuerza y autoridad proceden de esa ECCLESIA y de esa FE INTEMERATA y SUBLIME, que ustedes traicionan y entregan, como nuevos fariseos y saduceos, a los negadores del Señor, y de la que han apostatado junto con Juan XXIII, Paulo VI, Juan Pablo I y Juan Pablo II, el theríon-pontifex, descripto en el capítulo XIII. 11-12, del Apocalypsis. Esta es la primera claridad que quiero disponer sin ambages en un texto, seguramente insólito para su credulidad de apóstata convencido; primera claridad, a saber, que si lo llamo “eminencia” es por deseo de no confundirlo todo en el emocionalismo pseudomístico y adulterado que ustedes esgrimen, y por exigencia objetiva de su perfil en el “episcopado”, y del mío en la atribulada y atormentada feligresía, para quienes ustedes sólo persiguen la FE. Pero al mismo tiempo para marcar por encima de todo emocionalismo, humildades regresivas y farisaicas, que mi autoridad en la FE es superior a la suya, pues un apóstata no puede reclamar ninguna autoridad, que es lo que es POR LA FE, y no por la burocracia de los saduceos, apoderada de la Ecclesia. Esto es diáfano, incuestionable, absoluto. Hecho este deslinde imprescindible y objetivo, veamos el contenido y rigor de mi respuesta, pues ya estoy desglosado totalmente de su “autoridad” írrita y corrupta. Esa respuesta tiene en cuenta primordialmente su discurso del Jueves Santo, 23 de marzo de 1989 (LA PRENSA, 25.III.89, p. 6) y el texto que “institucionaliza” el “diálogo” entre el catolicismo argentino y la religión judía (ibidem, p. 6., con las informaciones ulteriores sobre este mismo “evento”), en todo lo cual usted como “cardenal primado” manda, impulsa, favorece y protege, según la apostasía ya mencionada, bajo la conducción del antipapa, tirano de la Iglesia perseguida, y la semántica de unos textos del concilio y comisiones varias, que son simplemente la traición a la FE, por imperio de los acuerdos con la logia B’nai B’erith. Sobre este punto, ya mismo, antes de progresar en mi discurso, le señalo: 1) que la edición abominable de Juan Pablo II y el judaísmo, 1979-1987, Ediciones Paulinas, Buenos Aires 1987, se hace con los auspicios y promoción del Distrito XXVI Argentina de la mencionada logia judía del más alto nivel iniciático y operativo; 2) que para su ilustración conviene repase cuidadosamente el capítulo La plus grande force organisée des temps modernes, en el libro de Yann Moncomble, Les Professionels de l’antiracisme, París 1987, pp. 231-279. Argentina es al parecer un “distrito” para ese poder, que usted acata y sirve. Innecesario agregar que repaso innumerables “discursos” y “actitudes” suyas, que no tengo por qué analizar. Simplemente considero un contexto total, una curva explícita que apostata de la Tradición. Debo aclararle que mi libro La herejía judeocristiana, Buenos Aires 1983, y en mi cuadernillo La Crisis de la Fe y la Ruina de la Iglesia Romana. Respuesta al Cardenal Joseph Ratzinger, Buenos Aires 1986, encontrará usted otras precisiones en lo que atañe a referencias inexcusables que ahora omito. Sin embargo, esos trabajos míos entre 1964 y 1986 cubren un período de singular agonía de la FE VIVIENTE; a ellos debo agregar mis Proclamaciones doctrinales 1-10 (entre 1977 Y 1989), y los opúsculos El mensaje de la Santísima Virgen en la Montaña de La Salette, 1987; El enigma de Monseñor Lefebvre, 1989; La Tradición en la perspectiva trinitaria y teándrica, 1989 1. Son hitos nada más, para que usted advierta el sentido del combate que empeño libremente en el estilo de San Atanasio (cf. San Atanasio y el combate de la Fe, capítulo de mi libro Filología y Teología, Buenos Aires 1973). Y bien, distingo en primer lugar, en sus alocuciones y en ésta en particular, una serie de generalidades que, al menos en el discurso y mensaje concretos, constantemente confunden la realidad teándrica de Cristo, la realidad teándrica de lo que usted llama “la obra de Jesús”, sin aclarar mucho su semántica inconfundible; y luego las benditas distinciones pastorales, y sus fundamentos ecuménicos y sociomórficos con que la “iglesia romana” encubre su apostasía y su inconvalidable connivencia con la sinagoga de satanás. Pero estos dos planos, diestramente manipulados por los herederos de los falsos papas Juan XXIII y Paulo VI, parecen adquirir rasgos de “sacra página” de este Neo-nuevo-testamento, y de “sacra doctrina infalible” pues, para la mistificación religiosa, implementada por el gran heresiarca Karol Wojtyla. Esa mistificación, con su imponente masa de textos, contrarios a la sencillez y Verdad del Evangelio y la Iglesia, converge, desde el concilio hasta hoy, con los poderes mundialistas que han sometido los pueblos cristianos a la tiranía de los saduceos y fariseos, en nombre precisamente de un Evangelio vilipendiado y adulterado. Pero en el primer plano de sus generalidades obsoletas, gastadas y estériles, se olvida usted de “EL ANTÍKHRISTOS”, sobre el que nos advierte precisamente San Juan; y en el segundo plano pretende usted, como todos los vaticanistas, cismáticos y heréticos insanables, confundir la Fe con autoridad (la de ustedes, entiéndase bien), por donde ¿cómo podría advenir el anticristo en una “iglesia” y una cátedra romana tan “magnífica y segura”, aunque sea ahora, con el polaco, la Babilonia, ebria con la sangre de los mártires y de los justos? Imposible. Sólo queda la solución de Martín Buber y Edmond Fleg, impulsada por las logias judías, a saber: el “mesías” por venir es el único mesías judío, el único “mesías” creíble por ende; el único aceptable (para ustedes, para mí no), precisamente EL ANTÍKHRISTOS, cuyo poder mundial ustedes preparan, alientan e idolatran so capa de cristianismo. Pues el KHRISTÓS (verdadero Dios y verdadero Hombre, el único Señor) ha venido ya y ha resucitado, y debemos avizorar “el reino del Antí-Khristos”, emergente de la “iglesia apóstata”. Y esto derrumba todo su discurso ya mencionado y toda la dialéctica del theríon-pontifex. 2 Por esto con mi respuesta más que desmenuzar sus lamentables conceptos y palabras, en esa y otras oportunidades, o comentar la increíble y nefasta presión judaizante, prefiero enfrentarle la quaestio fundamental: que “el Antíkhristos”, no puede destruir la esencia de la Iglesia, la Ecclesia del credo de Nicea, es verdad; pero puede sí reclutar en la apostasía a la jerarquía entera, con papas, cardenales y colegios episcopales; reclutar tanto a los poderes mundanos, a los judíos y sectarios, en fin, puede posesionarse de las cátedras de la FE —episcopi— y como un Lustiger cualquiera destruir la piedad, la vigencia del Mysterium Eucarístico, en fin la cultura del Misterio Agapístico. En otras palabras, puede adulterar, falsificar, sustituir la semántica de la FE, y negar in totum esa semántica y darla por abolida, pero no “fuera” de la iglesia, sino “dentro” y “desde dentro” de la iglesia. Puede y lo hace; prueba de ello son sus actos y sus palabras, que aunque mitrados atesoran y fomentan la apostasía. Prueba también la inconmensurable ruina de la Iglesia Romana, cuya voz no es maestra de la Fe, sino por el contrario tiniebla de la apostasía. Esa tinieblas cubre ya la entera dimensión de lo que convenimos en seguir llamando “iglesia católica romana”, vaciada de su FE, carente del Logos de la FE; ludibrio de las fuerzas satánicas que la ocupan, en lugar del Paráclito. No es que usted se haya referido a los “antíkhristoi” o a “el ANTÍKHRISTOS” en su discurso del Jueves Santo, sino por el contrario, que siguiendo la inspiración judaizante omnipresente y soberbia que esclaviza al entero colegio episcopal y purpurado romano, usted lo omite, como siempre; lo niega, lo desconoce, lo escamotea, como dato incuestionable de la FE. Todas sus palabras, argumentaciones y edulcorada eclesiología descansa en este presupuesto: no hay antíkhristoi, ni EL ANTÍKHRISTOS, y contraviene usted la enseñanza explícita de San Juan y de la Ecclesia verdadera, en tiempos precisamente de ostensible poder del Antíkhristos. Entonces si repetimos la sentencia: vana es nuestra FE sin la RESURRECCIÓN del Khristós, su corolario teológico, absoluto no epocal o de “revelaciones privadas”, como dicen ustedes, rezaría: si no afirmamos que es de FE el advenimiento histórico-concreto de EL ANTÍKHRISTOS, la Resurrección carece de entidad escatológica, es un flatus vocis del poder clerical o del confusionismo sectario de los protestantes, y torna a ser un eje de manipulación judía, frente al entero cristianismo, con todas sus confesiones y sectas. Es justamente la RESURRECCIÓN la que PROVOCA la historia intramundana, desde su centro a su telos, cuya cúspide es “el ANTÍKHRISTOS”. Estas son, Eminencia, aclaraciones forzosas par a no confundir la quaestio con una disputa interesante acerca de textos (filológica), con un rebrote de finitemporalismo místico y sectario, o con planteos de reduccionismo doctrinal ad usum indigenarum, vestidos de lamentables taparrabos (la teología jesuita desde el siglo XVI hasta ahora, al menos en América), ni confundirla tampoco con un emocionalismo místico o pseudomístico cuestionable y sustituible por otros pormenores de la piedad conformadora, como podría ser la devoción, muy respetable, del via Crucis. No. La Ecclesia en la medida que reniega de Cristo, en la medida de la APOSTASÍA, conocerá el poder del ANTÍKHRISTOS; y viceversa, en la medida en que oculte la realidad escatológica del ANTÍKHRISTOS, corromperá la FE y provocará su advenimiento y su poder. Por tanto, si el judaísmo es la negación de Cristo, Hombre verdadero y Dios verdadero, su larvada, oculta u ostensible infiltración y expansión en la Ecclesia, desde “papa” a los “descamisados” del mundo, desde “obispos” a los poderes de la tierra, a las potencias temporales, definirá la hora (kairós) del Anticristo, y éste se acercará physicamente, históricamente. De ello estamos advertidos, y esta advertencia tórnase signo de la FE, íntegra y vivida. No se trata pues de una propaganda sectaria, al modo de tantos herejes antiguos y modernos, que representan una invasión del apocalipsis judaico, distinto por naturaleza de la Revelación (apokalypsis) mystérica, teándrica y cristiana. No confundamos pues las cosas con las perspectivas de tantas y tantas sectas, criaturas prefiguradas del Anticristo. Eminencia, resumo pues estos preliminares, antes de entrar en el corazón de la quaestio, propiamente dicha. 1º) Todo Juan Pablo II y todo Juan C. Aramburu, “cardenal” primado (depuesto) de Argentina, presumen de facilitar el poder de la sinagoga de Satanás, descripta por San Juan en el capítulo VIII de su Evangelio; y por ende velan la revelación auténtica y cierta sobre EL ANTÍKHRISTOS, y defondan la FE. 2º) Para nada se menta la realidad physica, histórica, teológica, política del ANTÍKHRISTOS (ni del poder de sus predecesores, los antíkhristoi), dato inexcusable sin embargo de la FE Íntegra y Verdadera. Por ende trabajan por su advenimiento, no por el “reino” del Señor. 3º) La “iglesia” de Vaticano II, regida siempre por un ANTÍKHRISTOS, culminante ahora con éste, poderoso como theríon-pontifex, que usurpa manifiestamente la cátedra de Roma, esa “iglesia” pretende tiránicamente profundizar, expandir y afianzar la apostasía consumada de la entera congregación de los fieles. Prepara pues con su poder ecuménico el reino de “el” ANTÍKHRISTOS, según define San Juan. Eso es todo. Me propongo por ello, en la respuesta, retemplar la doctrina acerca del Anticristo, para deslindar Ecclesia et Synagoga Satanae y para reasumir en mis modestas palabras la secular vigencia de una autoridad venerable, la de San Juan Theologo, mi maestro en la ciencia del Logos. Y también para testimoniar, con qué precariedad por supuesto, que el Mysterio de la FE es invulnerable a los “antíkhristoi” o a “el” ANTÍKHRISTOS. 3 ANTÍKHRISTOS: he aquí una palabra, un título, una semántica, por ende una “función” y un “perfil” HISTÓRICO. Comencemos pues por ella. Por esto, como signo de la ya larvada apostasía, sabemos que Mélanie, que debió recordar en la literalidad del mensaje de La Salette, la palabra Anticristo, repetida en tres o cuatro párrafos distintos, sorprendida preguntó: “¿Qué es el Anticristo?”. Y también como signo, para toda la Ecclesia romana al borde de la apostasía, San Pío X, comienza su primera encíclica E Supremi Apostolatus (1903), subrayando la doctrina acerca del Anticristo (parágrafo 4 “Los hombres contra Dios”, en San Pío X, Escritos Doctrinales, Ed. Palabra, Madrid 1975. Texto bilingüe): Tanta scilicet audacia, eo furore religionis pietas ubique impetitur, revelatae fidei documenta oppugnantur, quaeque homini cum Deo officia intercedunt tollere delere prorsus praefracte contenditur! E contra, quae, secundum Apostolum eundem, propria est Antichristi nota, homo ipse, temeritate summa in Dei locum invasit, extollens se supra omne quod dicitur Deus (…). In templo Dei sedeat, ostendens se tamquam sit Deus (p. 18-20, de la ed. cit.). Cuya traducción literal es como sigue: “Y en verdad con desmesurada audacia, y con ese su odio por todas partes se ataca la piedad de nuestra religión, se combaten las doctrinas de la FE revelada, procurando suprimir todo vínculo sagrado entre hombre y Dios, y se lucha obstinadamente más bien para borrarlos; y en cambio lo que se yergue, según el mismo Apóstol, es connotación propia del Anticristo, el hombre mismo, con suma temeridad, ha inva- dido el lugar de Dios, exaltándose sobre todo aquello que recibe el nombre de Dios (…) De modo que se siente en el templo de Dios, mostrándose como si fuera Dios”. Y en el párrafo anterior había señalado cauta pero firmemente: “el prólogo de los males que debemos esperar en el fin de los tiempos, neve filius perditionis (…) iam in hisce terris versetur 2. Pero en fin comencemos por esa palabra, como cuadra a todo buen filólogo y teólogo cuyo ejemplo nos dan los padres y los buenos comentaristas y místicos hasta hoy. Si la palabra, el título con que Khristós se entrega a los hombres no es indiferente, tampoco podría serlo otra palabra o variatio semántica, que existe precisamente por referencia al centro contundente y explícito de toda significación. La relación también es verdadera, sobre todo en este caso que, como vamos a ver, desentraña el profun- do misterio de una historia que pende del poder del ANTÍKHRISTOS. Por esto, la rabinización de la Ecclesia romana, y en ella la adulteración del credo atanasiano, se manifiesta por la extinción de la lumbre semántica de ANTÍKHRISTOS, extinción que conlleva la extinción de Khristós, como quieren los fariseos y saduceos, antiguos y modernos. Y en esta doble sentencia he resumido ya la oscuridad de la iglesia hodierna —la de su supuesta autoridad y primado, que por mi parte niego resueltamente— y la oscuridad en que vive la FE. Pero ya lo advirtió el Mensaje de La Salette (cuestión privada para uste- des, como he subrayado, no para mí, que considero los “signos” como manda el Señor y el Evangelio). Pues justamente, como ya dije, el Mensaje de la Montaña, de La Salette, habla del Anticristo, en un siglo carnal y estúpido, que pone los fundamentos de este desprecio por la FE y por la semántica de la FE. Le transcribo un párrafo pertinente, que dice en traducción literal: “Habiendo sido olvidada la santa Fe de Dios, cada individuo querrá guiarse por sí mismo (…) Durante este tiempo nacerá el Anticristo, de una religiosa hebrea, de una falsa virgen, que tendrá comunicación con la antigua serpiente; su padre será “obispo” (…) Roma perderá la FE, y se transformará en la sede del Anticristo (…) La Iglesia será eclipsada (…) La FE sola vivirá” (op. cit. p. 21-28). Por cierto, Eminencia, al estúpido siglo XIX, bajo la conducción de la “ciencia”, las “logias” y la “revolución”, ha seguido este estupidísimo siglo XX, que tuvo su lumbre sin embargo en Pío X y Pío XII, a quienes nadie creyó ni obedeció, y menos obviamente el estamento de la alta clerecía, y la ignorancia del clero desinformado y dócil. Esta clerecía esgrime la teología de la obediencia, si conviene a sus designios de mistificación y adulteración u ocultamiento; o la teología de la subversión, si conviene a su apostasía y a su alianza con las fuerzas oscuras que gobiernan el mundo y a sus designios de poder. Por la primera dicen: “No se habla más del ANTÍKHRISTOS, se habla del ecumenismo y de la alianza con la sinagoga; por la segunda, instalan en la cátedra romana a “un” antikhristo, que erosiona y destruye la FE. ¡Y siguen llamándole Santo Padre a quien se debe obedecer desde luego! O tempora, o mores! Y dicen: —Es mejor obedecerlo aunque nos equivoquemos con él. Nosotros sabemos que es “ANTÍKHRISTOS”, pero deben acatarlo y seguirlo, porque la cátedra de Roma lo limpia—. Anathema sit! Pero existe un término —ANTÍKHRISTOS— que ya un niño de catecismo podría entender sin mucho libro, que en cuanto a su comprensión y extensión lógicas, en cuanto a su suppositio, como diría Juan de Santo Tomás, o a su semántica como enseño desde hace más de cuarenta años, depende de Khristós. Pero, Eminencia, debo reafirmar en una sola sentencia lo que separé por conveniencia expositiva: ni en Khristós ni en ANTÍKHRISTOS creen ustedes, enseñados por ese teósofo, antropósofo y gnóstico polaco, que funge con autoridad usurpada y caduca, es decir, írrita y sin ningún efecto canónico. El “antropósofo” Karol Woytila se permite entonces vilipendiar a la Iglesia perseguida, con su sexualismo y feminismo, horrenda alquimia de un anticristo. He ahí pues juntas “teología de la obediencia” y “teología de la subversión”, juntas en una sola Roma apóstata. Avancemos sin embargo en la ruta que le propongo, si es que usted no destruye con ira este quemante papel, quemante con las llagas de Cristo, de cuyo discípulo, repito tengo mandato explícito de repetir las palabras que son el núcleo o cifra de esta imperita respuesta a un cardenal primado depuesto, eo ipso aut ipso facto, como dice Paulo IV, hace cuatro siglos y medios casi. “Diles —manda el Theólogo— que recuerden ‘los’ antíkhristoi, en función de ‘EL ANTÍKHRISTOS’. Diles en fin que perecerán junto con su ‘maestro’ polaco, satánico en la destrucción de la Iglesia Crucificada, a cuyo pie lloro sin consuelo y busco me acompañes en América con tu palabra de fuego”. Quedo estupefacto y medito, y esta es mi meditación. Quisiera callar y no escribir, pero NON POSSUM. La voz de San Juanurge y lacera, y la tiniebla horrenda pletórica de rostros infernales, esa tiniebla espesa de mentiras, adulteraciones y concupiscencias rodea, como una muralla siniestra, al mundo y a la Iglesia, tiniebla consolidada, cultivada y regenerada constantemente por la apostasía. Allí crece el poder del ANTÍKHRISTOS, contra el que nos previene San Juan. 4 En el Nuevo Testamento el término ἀντíχϱιστος es exclusivo de San Juan, y más concretamente de sus epístolas I y II. Le anoto los lugares concretos, para que sus doctas comisiones —que estudian de todo, menos lo que atañe a la FE—; para que sus doctos helenistas, retemplen la enseñanza que deben al pueblo cristiano, sin falsificaciones ni manipulaciones semánticas, a las que fue acostumbrada América para la mistificación, diseminada y reconfortada por la Compañía de Jesús. Pues está demás decir que por no saber griego; la estéril iglesia argentina no puede entender a San Juan, y menos ahora en la innoble mescolanza ecuménica y su fraude constitutivo y corruptor. De cualquier modo, los lugares son en suma: I. 2. 18 y 22; II. 7 y I. 4. 3, muy importante por lo que sería la variante más antigua del texto —y la de mayor autoridad de acuerdo con la tradición manuscrita—, por lo que podríamos llamar la definición del Anticristo. ¿Quién impuso en la Iglesia romana una opción de la Vulgata, y quien impidió en todo caso el conocimiento del texto del Apóstol? Ahí empieza la sutileza del “reino del Anticristo”, que vela su perfil semántico inconfundible en las polémicas judaizantes de la primera iglesia, quizá incluso en vida del mismo San Juan. Estos son los textos que ustedes —“cardenal primado”, supuestos papas difuntos o no, o sea, Paulo VI en particular, desde luego el ocupante y usurpador actual de la cátedra romana, Karol Wojtyla, que cumple acabadamente en su “reino” la sentencia de I. 4. 3, y es en consecuencia “anticristo”, casi pleno; en fin textos que ustedes o desconocen, o escamotean, como los judíos y judaizantes de todas las épocas; o desfiguran y edulcoran sobre todo como dije por influencia del pacto actual con la Synagoga Satanae, y por obra de los nefastos “doctores” de la Compañía ignaciana. Estos son los textos sin embargo que la ECCLESIA no olvidó nunca en su cautiverio, por lo menos hasta San Pío X. No enseñar esta semántica y esta doctrina de San Juan es descalabrar, corromper y finalmente anular la FE, como proferición de la FE in Ecclesia, a fin de constituir una “iglesia” y un ecumenismo anticrístico que “ha disuelto al Salvador” (San Juan I. 4. 3). Se cumple también aquí lo de La Salette: “l’Eglise sera eclipsée”, porque es eclipsada según la definición cabal del “anticristo”. No se trata de describir catástrofes cósmicas —que existirán por supuesto—; se trata de la catástrofe semántica, que provoca el “anticristo”, para sustituir a Cristo, es decir, “eclipsar al Salvador”, con cualquier maniobra, manipulación, tiranía de la “obediencia” o de la “subversión”. Y no en vano el lema que San Malaquías adjudica a este pontificado, confirma el texto de La Salette: “de labore solis”, que en buen latín, como lo he explicado ya desde 1978, quiere decir “el eclipse del Sol”. Y no se precisa ser muy erudito para saber que en el lenguaje simbólico del culto, la mystica y la tradición exegética “sol” es igual a “KHRISTÓS”. El compuesto griego ἀντíχϱιστος conlleva ese prefijo anti- que justamente presenta dificultades para el imperito, por su densidad significativa, trasladada a la densidad semántica del compuesto. Pues el griego cristiano conservó una característica muy importante de la lengua griega desde sus orígenes, a saber, la posibilidad compleja de variaciones semánticas por las raíces, los sufijos, pero además por las variaciones insólitas inesperadas de los compuestos, que el latín no puede combinar como el griego. Dos líneas significativas comporta el prefijo: l) semejante a la que se conserva en latín y en las lenguas románicas, o sea, contrario, adversario, opuesto, etc. Pero en griego clásico, primero, y luego en el griego cristiano, derivado en mucha parte del griego helenístico, no basta esa acepción que anoto como número uno. Pues, por ejemplo, si los héroes son llamados antítheoi sería imperdonable traducir contra, adversarios de los dioses. No, los héroes ocupan en el mundo ensombrecido el lugar de los dioses, en el mito por supuesto, o en el paganismo como dicen los rabinos judíos y eclesiásticos. Esta acepción de anti corresponde pues notoriamente al griego clásico, y es muy importante para no confundir lo inconfundible. Pero ya he dicho que incluso en el griego clásico, helenístico-cristiano compórtase el prefijo con otros matices, que en el griego cristiano sobre todo, tratándose de sutiles modulaciones semánticas, impuestas o elucubradas en general por los grandes heresiarcas — como Arrio, Nestorio, Montini, Wojtyla— habrá que considerar con cuidado, sapiencia e inspiración. 2) La segunda línea sería pues en lugar de, en sustitución de y por consecuencia contra, adversus, etc. Ningún heresiarca ha pretendido “ser” en lugar de el Hijo de Dios; siempre han estado contra. La característica del anticristo no sólo es estar contra, sino maquinar con su poder para ser en lugar de Cristo in Ecclesia y en el mundo por supuesto. Pero San Juan, en las breves sentencias que exhibe en su texto, nos orienta hacia el segundo sentido de anti-, que es por otra parte el específicamente griego y el específicamente concurrente con la FE. Por esto hablo de griego cristiano, agapístico, no según los esquemas de las historias lingüísticas solamente, sino según lo que tantas veces he explicado, enseñado, advertido: QUE LA FE, POR SU CONDICION TEÁNDRICA, ES PROFERICIÓN de la FE, o sea, ES SEMÁNTICA. Todo lo demás que puedo mentar resulta adventicio, marginal o complementario para el campo semántico del prefijo, y por ende del compuesto. Y ahora viene, según este horizonte lingüístico-semántico, la visión histórica y teológico-profética del Apóstol, rememorada después del Apocalipsis y de las epístolas de San Pablo. De ellas no nos ocupamos ahora. Distingue San Juan entre antíkhristoi (en plural), los anticristos, o sea los que en el decurso de los tiempos pretenderán estar contra Cristo, pero sobre todo ocupar el lugar de Cristo, de variable modo incoativo, potencial, pero no absoluto. Y el ANTÍKHRISTOS (en singular con artículo) que es la cúspide de esa larga serie o curva misteriosa que, iniciada en la antigüedad cristiana, sigue sin pausa hasta la culminación, única y definitiva de “el anticristo”, o en “el anticristo”, dentro de la Ecclesia, y mediante la apostasía o adulteración de la FE, o sea, según mis explicaciones, adulteración,manipulación, anulación de la SEMÁNTICA DE LA FE. Los textos fundamentales, como dije, corresponden a las Epístolas I y II, y de ellas recobramos la fisonomía fundamental que ha desplegado la tradición hasta nuestros días. Y es esto lo que niega la iglesia apóstata de su “eminencia”, junto con su “papa” y “colegio de cardenales”, obsoleto, nulo, absolutamente nulo. Pues aunque sea de paso, quiero clarificar este horizonte: el colegio cardenalicio ha cesado de existir entitativamente y canónicamente. Luego, no hay más “eminencias”, como usted comprenderá. Pero ésta, siendo cuestión muy grave, es un asunto marginal ahora. Y en cuanto a su “papa”, se trata de un mero ocupante y usurpador de la sede romana. No es “vicario de Cristo”, porque en cuanto quiere ser “en lugar de Cristo” resulta que integra la diacronía de los antíkhristoi, según expliqué. Más cerca sin embargo de las notas esenciales del Anticristo. 1)Uno y otros (el y los) proceden de entre los fieles, o tenidos por tales. En la eskhate hora, llega antíkhristos, y ya muchos antíkhristoi han acontecido, con variable incidencia en los preparativos, prolegómenos y prólogo inmediato de EL Anticristo. 2) De entre nosotros han salido, pero no eran de los nuestros. Están y cumplen funciones en la Iglesia, pero no son de la Iglesia, y aunque ostenten títulos, dignidades, oficios y jurisdicciones carecen de autoridad, repito, porque están ipso facto depuestos. Se comprende entonces la intención de la Bula de Paulo IV y del Breve de San Pío V 3; se comprende el intento ilustrado y notable de Paulo IV, cuando encara directamente los estamentos de la más alta jerarquía, sin excluir la posibilidad de un papa no sólo devius a fide, sino simplemente nulo. 3)el mentiroso, que no sólo miente de la fe y la doctrina, sino que niega: —Jesús no es el Cristo—; ése mentiroso absoluto, ése pues es el ANTÍKHRISTOS, el que niega al Padre y al Hijo, nacido en la carne mortal (II. 2. 18-24). 4)Pero luego en el capítulo 4. 3-4 afirma enfáticamente el apóstol: el antíkhristos es ὁ λύει τόν Ἰησοῦν (el que disuelve a Jesús es decir, al Salvador de los hombres). Esa es la lectura original del texto griego, manipulado quizá desde muy antiguo. Es decir, disuelve su vínculo teándrico, divino-humano (verdadero Dios y verdadero hombre). Recordamos entonces la importancia del Concilio de Calcedonia, que corona el edificio de la FE TRINITARIA. He ahí lo que ataca y disuelve “el” anticristo. Karol está precisamente muy cerca de esto, más cerca que Nestorio o Lutero. Resulta por lo menos uno de los más grandes heresiarcas de la Iglesia, y desde dentro de la Iglesia. Pero ni Arrio ni Nestorio fungieron con autoridad apostólica, no digo de papa, pero ni de arzobispo ni patriarca. Y en cuanto a Lutero era un monje sin jurisdicción alguna, ni otra jerarquía que la de magister theologiae. 5)En la epístola II. 7 dice San Juan que “se han descubierto en el mundo muchos impostores, que no confiesan que Jesucristo haya venido en carne. Este tal es un impostor y un anticristo” (traducción Straubinger, que sería menester confrontar bien con el griego. Pero lo dejamos así: es suficiente). Tenemos pues por las epístolas I y II (San Juan) un perfil formidable de “los” anticristos y de “el” Anticristo. Por esto, de todo el contexto, en particular de la sentencia ho lyei ton Iesoun, el Anticristo es coronación de los que sustituyen a Cristo, dentro de la Iglesia. Esta historia comienza en la Synagoga, y aun antes con la muerte de los profetas. Sigue en la Iglesia Primera y en todas sus edades hasta hoy, pese a las advertencias inequívocas de papas legítimos cercanos (Paulo IV, León XIII, Pío X) y culmina con un anticristo el más poderoso que jamás produjo la Iglesia: Karol Wojtyla, “quien disuelve a Jesús”, y con él la Fe, la semántica de la Fe y la Sacra Tradición, que son, a imagen de Cristo, forzosamente teándricas. 5 Resumo para no confundir el camino y extraviarnos en pormenores, importantes, pero complementarios: 1) el término es propio de San Juan, y más concretamente de Epístolas I y II. Ello no significa que el “personaje” y su perfil y función, no estén mentados y significados en otros textos importantes del Nuevo Testamento, en particular San Pablo. Pero de esos textos no me ocupo aquí, porque son otros términos, y otras particularidades semánticas. La advertencia vale para subrayar que no practico ninguna omisión, que por otra parte no afecta para nada la determinación semántica que aquí planteo, esencial para la integridad y completidad de la FE. 2)San Juan distingue entre antíkhristoi (plural) y “el” ANTÍKHRISTOS (singular). Los primeros forman una serie, una diacronía de maldades, perversiones, negaciones y ocultaciones, fungentes en personajes concretos, históricos inconfundibles. El Anticristo (singular) constituye una coronación, una madurez, una sustitución, lisa y llana, de Cristo (anti-Cristo), una subversión absoluta y esencial; o en términos congruentes una sincronía de poder mundial, de mistificación mundial y religiosa, de impiedad concreta y tiránica, recubierta con la imagen del Cordero, y por ende una FE traicionada y subvertida en su expresión temporal, histórica, concreta, es decir, una “revolución totalitaria” tiránica en la proferición de la Fe. En suma, Cristo es desplazado y eclipsado por el antiCristo; la Pistis, por la anti-Pistis; la Ekklesía por la anti-Ekklesía; la Parádosis (Traditio), por la anti-Parádosis, el Cáliz por el anti-Cáliz, etc., usado siempre el prefijo en el sentido griego. los anticristos (plural) y “el” Anti-Cristo (singular) proceden “de entre nosotros, aunque no eran ni son de los nuestros”, o sea, proceden de adentro de la Iglesia, y más concretamente de sus jerarquías, estamentos y funciones que atañen al cuidado de la FE y la Sacra adición. El Anti- Cristo es un parto de la iglesia apóstata y adúltera. 4) Las notas fundamentales del Antí-Khristos, son tres: a) sustituye la autoridad del Logos encarnado, es anti- en sentido griego. Lo niega por tanto absolutamente; b)disuelve la unidad teándrica de Cristo (no en la realidad desde luego, sino en el magisterio) y distorsiona y disuelve la Fe (en lo que he llamado la Semántica de la Fe); c) por su errática y diabólica acción y poder ataca el Mysterio Trinitario, y por ende consuma la apostasía de la “iglesia”, que él dirige de propia autoridad. El Antí-Khristos es pues Autoridad que funge contra la Fe. Tales son las enseñanzas, explícitas o implícitas, del Apóstol San Juan, confirmada, venerada y exaltada en veinte siglos por la via crucis de la Iglesia y de la Fe. Nosotros podemos pues clarificar estos tiempos oscurísimos del siglo XX (in fine) con la lumbre de San Juan y definir en el precario discurso humano lo mismo que estampó el genio pictórico de El Greco, en sus retratos de San Juan Joven, a saber: del cáliz que sostiene el Apóstol, generalmente con la mano derecha, surge un dragón en miniatura, o bien literalmente se baña un dragón, que encuadra por su tamaño pequeño entre los bordes del cáliz, pero sobresale nítidamente de él, mientras la mano izquierda del Apóstol lo señala, con gesto tranquilo, firme, pero extrañado, y mientras los ojos profundos y melancólicos miran directamente el rostro del espectador posible del cuadro 4. He ahí pues la profecía y enseñanza del Apóstol, transformada en magistral y terrible imagen pictórica de un genio religioso greco-hispánico. En lugar de la Sangre de Cristo, el dragón campea en su ámbito preferido. ¿Quienes pueden ser los que le dan acceso al vaso sagrado, sino LOS QUE TIENEN PODER SOBRE EL CUERPO Y LA SANGRE DE CRISTO? Porque tienen ese poder, pese a la apostasía, por eso el dragón ocupa el Cáliz de Cristo. No es que el Santo Grial esté mancillado por un pecado. Simplemente está colmado del Maligno, del Ponerós, como se dice en el Padre Nuestro. 6 Eminencia, todo lo que expongo muy sumariamente y desde luego muy precariamente, brilla sin duda con la doctrina incorruptible de San Juan. Y según ese brillo y esa lumbre, se perfilan por contraste las poderosas tinieblas de Roma apóstata, que usted sirve en la apostasía, para arrastrar a todo el pueblo fiel, como la cola del dragón a desprevenidos viajeros o peregrinos, sedientos del Cáliz del Señor. Pues usted es ministro del dragón, es decir, de quien inviste “los signos del Cordero, pero habla como el dragón” (San Juan, Apocalipsis, capítulo XIII. l1: et habebat cornua duo similia Agni, sed loquebatur sicut draco). Estamos pues en la apostasía que alcanza a generar un Theríon-Pontifex (que se autotitula Papa Juan Pablo II). Es insanable la Ecclesia por recursos humanos. Por eso en medio de la desazón que cunde, me propuse: 1º) proclamar la semántica de la FE, la PARÁDOSIS, y denunciar la apostasía oficial de Roma; 2º) demostrar que sin la revelación que procura definir la impostura del Anti-Cristo, es imposible revivir la FE, y por ende es imposible combatir la apostasía. Completemos por eso, Eminencia, la desdichada Argentina. Los capítulos mysticos, teológicos, doctrinales, escriturísticos, litúrgicos; los capítulos de clarificación semántica cobran sentido en función de esta Argentina desarrapada y violenta, adulterada y cínica, en las garras del dragón; cobran sentido a la luz de la sentencia joánica: Antí-Khristos es el que disuelve a EL SALVADOR DE LOS HOMBRES. ¿Qué hacer? Mi voz será sofocada y mi persona vilipendiada. Importa poco eso, o nada. La Semántica sin embargo comporta el Mysterio teándrico de Cristo, y vale per se y no por quien la profiera; vale además absolutamente; una vez proferida perdura, en el aire cósmico que la recepta y la entrega al Espíritu Paráclito, para que la trasiegue, la plenifique e ilumine, y la haga un viviente, cuando todo parece morir. La semántica se incardina en la Espiración del que Procede, y opera el milagro de la lumbre en el aire invisible, pero audible, que nos liga a los antiguos. Pues la Semántica Divina es “oír”, es “lo audible”, lo que en la vibración sonora y luminosa regenera el ente originario, el Paraíso de la luz teándrica; y por ende el hymnein de los ángeles. La Ecclesia vive, ha vivido y vivirá de esta audible lumbre intemerata. Ningún poder tiene en ella “el” Anticristo, apenas una Sombra, que funge en las maldades de los hombres, por interpósita insidia del Maligno y Mentiroso, descripto ya por nuestro Maestro San Juan Theólogo, en el capítulo VIII de su Evangelio Consolador, como el Espíritu. CARLOS A. DISANDRO LAUDETUR SANCTA TRINITAS
    Yo misma, el anti-papa emérito en funciones es Patriarca de los Iluminati, el gran error que veo en algunas personas de la Iglesia de la cual es usted parte como el sr. Villasana, es la incapacidad para ver, y el intentar imponer a los demás, lo que ha sido probado por sacerdotes fieles al Señor y la orden de realizarlo, como una misión extrema, fue dada por un verdadero Papa como S.S PÍO XII, por primera. única y última vez, en toda la historia de la Iglesia católica apostólica romana.No conocemos nosotros demasiados detalles, sólo el sufimiento al que fue sometido el Papa, la traición que lo rodeaba, las amenazas que recibía de la secta satánica y la causa de su homicidio, de quien debio cuidarlo y seguramente no era otra cosa, que una monja espía, pascualina, a la cual echaron, tambien su confesor el judeo mason Bea, y la posible vengaza, del general de la compañía, al que reprendió severamente Todo indica que la mayor traicion llegó desde los EE.UU. y con la perfida, bomba atómica, en manos y poder, de los mayores enemigos de la Iglesia .y seguramente los que son parte de la simiente malefica, de la cual saldra el monstruo, e hijo de perdicion segundo, conocido por la Iglesia como el anticristo. Desde el vaticano II, nada pasa en el mundo, sin la conformidad de ese papado judeo masonico y en poder de los mayores enemigos de Nuestro Señor Jesucristo, a los que el Padre Lugi Villa denominó que todos serían elegidos, por satana y decir satana es decir su simiente, y la gran leviatan, en la tierra. No hay uno de sus argumentos que certifiquen nada y son sólo suposiciones y negaciones tipicas de quienes no entienden los tiempos, ni desean entender y clarificar, el libro de Apocalipsis de san Juan, el cual todos, y en primer lugar la Iglesia debemos predicar, y entender. Orden dada por el Concilio de Toledo.creo fue en el año 300, de la era domini.
    Me sabe mal opinar sobre el estatus de Catalunya, que yo no soy ‘de casa’, pero un par de años atrás vi a otra persona que sabía que ‘no es de casa’ manifestarse el Diada a favor de la independencia de Catalunya, entonces bajó mi reticencia para opinar sobre el tema desde el otro punto de vista.

    Se oye mucho que si David Cameron le puede permitir a Alex Salmond un voto sobre la independencia de Escocia, ¿por qué Mariano Rajoy no permite un voto para Catalunya?

    Cómo un inglés la respuesta es super sencilla.

    En Gran Bretaña no hay ninguna discusión entre independistas e unionistas sobre la historia de Escocia.  Todo el mundo reconoce que durante siglos Escocia era un país independiente.  En 1737 el Parlamento Escocés votó para unir Escocia con Inglaterra para formar la unión de naciones de Gran Bretaña.  Claro que los Escoces tenían el derecho para votar sobre la independencia.  Me da alivio que votaron “No”.

    En España nadie está de acuerdo sobre la historia.  Hay Catalanistas que reivindican que Catalunya era un país durante 500 años desde Guifre el Pelòs hasta Martin el Humano, mientras que Españolistas como Mariano Rajoy dicen que Catalunya nunca jamás ha sido un país.

    Desde mi punto de visto, los dos lados pueden hacer argumentos históricos legítimos a favor de la unidad de España o la independencia de Catalunya.  A fin de cuentas, me parece, creer en uno u otro, es cuestión de sentimiento emocional.

    Estimo mucho la identidad Català, pero el sentimiento emocional de éste inglés es Españolista hasta la medula.

    España es un gran país.  Sin España Europa sería musulmán.  Sin la Europa Cristiana no tendríamos la Europa democrática.  La democracia se radica en los valores judeo-cristianos de amor y perdón.  La tiranía florece en el mundo musulmán porque los valores de Islam se radican en el odio y la venganza.  Lo más que nos desanclamos de los valores cristianos, lo más que nos vamos a la deriva hacia la tiranía.  España era entre los dos países (Polonia el otro) que abogaban inclusión de referencia a las raíces Cristianas de Europa cuando se redactaba la Constitución Europea.

    Cuando llegué a España en 2002 en el aeropuerto de Málaga, dejé una Gran Bretaña que se había entregado al terrorismo de la IRA, a un país que rompía los cristales de las oficinas de ETA-Batasuna y les arrastraba a la calle a los funcionarios-terroristas, gracias a la Ley de Partidos.  De inmediato me sentía en casa.

    Ahora en mi barri, me doy cuenta de que los únicos partidos que defienden la democracia contra la violencia de Can Viés son Españolistas.  PSOE, PP y C’s.   ERC son cómplices por su denegación de condenar la violencia de Can Viés, CDC alzó la bandera blanca por miedo y porque no tienen los principios para defender la democracia.  Â¿Qué tipo de ‘amor per Catalunya’ es claudicar y colaborar con extremistas violentos?  No es un tipo de
    ‘patriotismo’ o modelo de gobernación que reconozco.  Me sorprendió este Diada que cuando los tipos de CDC se presentaron en el Fossar de les Moreres como los herederos de 1714, no hubo terremoto con los enterrados dándose vueltas por la presencia de traidores. Los herederos de 1714 son los que defienden la democracia en 2014 contra los violentos, no las desvergonzadas que alzan la bandera blanca.

    El empuje de CDC hacia la independencia, no es por patriotismo, es por un berrinche presupuestario.  Proporcionalmente Madrid paga más al cofre de España que Catalunya.  Pero no hace ruidos tacaños e insolidarios en estos momentos de crisis por aportar su cuota justa.  Más vale que CDC sobreimpone un triángulo azul con estrella blanca sobre un billete grande de 500€ y lo alce por la asta como la bandera nueva de la independencia.  El proyecto soberanista de CDC no tiene que ver con amor per la patria, se trata de la vanidad e cinismo de hombres poderosos.

    Es tan estúpido decir que 9-N es “anti-democrático” como decir que creer que la democracia nacional tiene precedencia a la democracia autonómica es “anti-democrático”.

    Pero si se quiere aseverar que la democracia Català tiene precedencia al orden Constitucional de España, no lo haga salvo que a fin de cuentas estas plenamente dispuesta para hacer la guerra.

    Es preocupante que entre los Catalanistas con los que hablo, ven poco o ningún posibilidad de ‘problemas’ si llega el día de que Catalunya haga declaración de independencia, pero entre los Españolistas dentro y fuera de Catalunya, tanto de izquierdas como de derechas, me dicen que si Catalunya declare la independencia “habrá guerra”.

    Tengo la sensación de que la actitud que impere entre muchos separatistas, por cierto del estirpe CDC, es que ‘frente a nuestra sofisticación chulísima a estos chorizos palurdos de España, vamos a conseguir la independencia por los listos que somos’.  Este estupidez va a acabar con guerra.  Temo que ya el hybris de CDC ha destapado la caja de Pandora.  Al dar la razón a ERC, las próximas autonómicas en Mayo están en pleno camino a un Govern ERC/CUP/ICV/PODEMOS que si no garantice la guerra, aumente el riesgo con creces.

    Un mundo mejor es posible.  Un mundo peor també.
              Kopjik International Edition        
    Wanna know about KOPJIK ? The new Yiddish international web-site Tagged: , їдиш, イディッシュ�", еврейский язык, идиш, идишки, мовою їдиш, немско-еврейски, Hiti, iddish, idesh, idich, idiş, γερμανοεβραϊκή διάλεκτοσ, jüdisch, jewish, jida, jiddis, jiddisch, jiddish, jiddskt, Jiddysk, jidish, jidisht, jidiš, joedisk, judío, judeoalemán, judiska, juif, Yiddish, yiddishay, Yidis, židovský
              So a North Carolina Store is boycotting Action Comics.        
    I guess this Bleeding Cool article says that Superman is a sinner, or is promoting sinning.

    What was clear, to me at least, is that GD was a grunt sound. But these guys are convinced otherwise. One Christian voice of reason did however make a good comment after the article which I'd like to highlight and thank him by promoting his reaction here:


    I pastor a fairly large church in Columbus Ohio... I cannot comprehend a follower of Jesus taking issue with Action Comics #1-- Throughout the Bible God measures humankind by their care for the fatherless and the widow, alien and stranger.

    Superman is an "alien" who cares for all of them. What better honor to the Judeo-Christian belief than taking up the cause that the Book of James equates with "True Religion"

    Look at the heroes of old, Hercules, Gilgamesh, etc... they were not exactly advocates for the most vulnerable in society. This take on Superman is refreshingly Christian... and I recommended the reboot to my entire congregation.

    GD could just as easily be a split second prayer to the almighty.

    And if it is God Damn... well if God Damns anything it is the evil forces that oppress humankind, cause love not to flourish, and value materialism over justice. It's not the Lord's Name in Vain if the recipient is the forces of evil, be it greed that destroys the environment, human trafficking, abusive labour practices, etc.

    Grant Morrison and I might one day (if I'm lucky) have an interesting discussion about the supernatural, and humankind's quest for heroes... We might disagree on many points... But I cannot help but commend this most refreshing take on the Superman Myth.

    Thank-you Jesus for the Creativity of Grant Morrison.

    Jeff Cannell
    Senior Pastor
    Central Vineyard Church


              Occult Disney: Bedknobs and Broomsticks        
    bedknobs_and_broomsticks_xlgThe 1971 Disney film ‘Bedknobs and Broomsticks’ was one that I watched as a very young child and I remember being somewhat ‘bewitched’ by it at the time. Rewatching it years later it is clear that the film is oozing with occult themes and iconography. While it may be considered nothing more than a simplistic pop-culture based take on the occult and witchcraft, the stereotypical isolated witch living with her broom and a black cat. There is also a deeper undercurrent of occult symbolism going on that deserves some attention that I doubt viewers at the time may have been aware of. This is in keeping with Walt Disney’s legacy of films that contained similar occult themes that continues up to today. See my post from back in 2009 where I go in to Walt Disney and some of his earliest films/shorts. Though it was made a number of years after Walt Disney’s death (1966), according to Springmeier (who sources Disney Magazine 1996, p 96) this was apparently Walt’s “final pet project” which would be not be a surprise considering its themes. I do know that Walt bought the rights to the book in the early 1960s giving credence to that (imdb).vlcsnap-2013-04-18-12h34m22s108I briefly touched on this film in the ‘To the Devil a Daughter’ post a few days ago which delves into Astaroth the demon. As I stated, Astaroth (in ‘Bedknobs’, Astoroth) is described as an ancient Sorcerer pictured in the introductory sequence holding a lantern (illuminating the hidden, or “occult” knowledge), a symbolic owl is on his shoulder (symbolising secret societies, esoteric knowledge, Minerva), covered in noteworthy symbols giving the sign of silence.
    The film’s plot differs wildly from the original books by Mary Norton.
    “For those who think Walt simply recreated fairy tales on the screen, if one examines the changes that are made from the original storylines, they are changed to make them more useful for mind-control.” – Deeper Insights Illuminati Formula
    I believe Disney continued to do this after Walt’s death and can be seen from the fact that Disney has inexplicably added a demonic name, Astaroth (Astoroth in the film, I do not believe the demonic name features in the books), that is one of the “Principle demons that are popular to place into Monarch systems,” along with its relevant symbolism. As well as the occult aspects of the symbols I have picked out in this film, all of them could and probably are used as triggers in mind control programming.
    bedknobs Astaroth wizard sorcerer vlcsnap-2013-04-18-12h34m22s108Astoroth’s magickal robe has occult astrological symbolism all over it, some of the symbols are also reminiscent of the symbols on the Seal of Astaroth in The Lesser Key of Solomon (see further down). These symbols on Astaroth are interesting choices (see below), such as the circled point which can represent the sun and eye among other things. vlcsnap-2013-04-17-23h01m12s172The All Seeing Eye makes an appearance to synch with the circled point on Emelius Browne (David Tomlinson) who is revealed as a charlatan stage magician. You will also notice the planet Saturn in these two pictures. On the image of Astoroth, I believe the astrological symbol for Saturn appears on Astoroth’s left arm (it seems likely that that is what the symbol is supposed to represent, feel free to correct me on any of these symbols). Also on Astoroth are: Jupiter, Venus  (more on that shortly), Aries (rams head, this symbol may be taken from the Seal of Astaroth also), possibly the arrow is for Sagittarius (combined with Aries?) and the ascending lunar node symbol.vlcsnap-2013-04-17-22h55m29s72bedknobs and broomsticks emelius browne 7811860766_d5e3377ec6_k
    The film begins and ends in the town of ‘Pepperinge Eye’ (the witch’s hometown) which is (in order to confuse the Nazis), perhaps symbolically covered (a hidden eye).
    The circled point also denotes an Entered Apprentice Freemason (the first degree). The singular witch in the film, Eglantine Price is working her way up through her witchcraft degrees (which she subsequently finds out to be set up by a fraud). She states that she has now reached the “First Degree… Apprentice Witch.” Note in the medieval tapestry introduction (a mock Beyeux Tapestry) the man using a compass with a square drawn in, perhaps a nod to the Masonic compass and square. Also the reptilian/lion type creatures biting their own tales (like the ouroboros) in lower border, some of these border images are just copies of the original Bayeux Tapestry. vlcsnap-2013-04-17-22h41m46s36The owl and Venus symbolism on Astaroth is notable because because Astaroth derives from the Babylonian goddess Ishtar (below) who was considered the divine personification of the planet Venus. Also called Astarte by the Greeks (Ashtoreth in the Hebrew Bible), the Sumerian Inanna, and many other representations of the goddess. Note in the above picture the twin owls flank the solar symbolism along with the solar, lunar symbols.
    The Venus symbol can also be seen on the Seal of Astaroth with the vertical line extended, the pentagram is associated with Venus also.
    Astarothjpgvlcsnap-2013-04-18-00h12m47s62 CROPPEDASTAROTH
    Aspects of the Seal can be seen on a page in the film's ‘Spells of Astoroth’ grimoire (a fairly accurate recreation of the Seal from ‘The Book of Ceremonial Magic’, above right) that the witch is trying to search for in London, this confirms that Disney was using this occult knowledge as a direct source for their film. Perhaps these are included to trigger those with demonic programming in their Monarch system.
    vlcsnap-2013-04-18-00h12m47s62vlcsnap-2013-04-17-23h02m16s223vlcsnap-2013-04-17-22h41m32s141Here are a few more noteworthy scenes from the tapestry introduction. Note the witch apparently using human skulls in her brew creating bats with skull heads. The harpy, some kind of scarlet woman riding a goat/ram, the personification of the wind (one of the five elements) and the sun. Also note the piscine humanoid.vlcsnap-2013-04-17-22h41m37s201The occult symbol (possibly a variation of Venus’ astrological symbol) points towards the “Satanic” looking Jester made up to look like Baphomet with his goat legs. This “Satanic Jester” is in fact Lucifuge Rofocale, “the demon in charge of Hell’s government by order of Lucifer.” This depiction of Lucifuge that Disney has used comes from the Grand Grimoire. He is in control of Lucifer’s “finances”, so to speak (see Book of Ceremonial Magic which describes Lucifer giving him control of the purse). The Grand Grimoire contains instructions for summoning Lucifuge for the purposes of making a “deal with the devil”. Some may consider that Disney has done just that by including these occult themes in many of their films.
     lucifuge rofocale
    vlcsnap-2013-04-17-22h41m52s98vlcsnap-2013-04-17-22h48m06s253More rams by what may represent the Tree of Life. Below we have again more paganism with Pan and the nymphs around the sacred Tree of Life.vlcsnap-2013-04-17-22h48m54s219vlcsnap-2013-04-17-22h42m00s174vlcsnap-2013-04-17-22h42m09s8vlcsnap-2013-04-18-12h36m18s6The King of Naboombu  wearing the Star of Astoroth sitting on his throne between twin pillars and under an arch decked in royal garb. Although it is not mentioned in the film, we know his name is King Leonidas (named after the Spartan King) because in all promotional material this is the name given to him. Leo obviously meaning Lion in astrological terms, Leonidas meaning “son of the lion”, phonetically resonating 'sun’ and ‘lion’ again. The lion is also a symbol of royalty seen in the British coat of arms and others throughout history, check out Michael Tsarion’s take on this kind of symbolism which some may find enlightening and we will get into more Atonist symbolism later.
    The film resonates King Solomon in several ways, the Seal of Solomon is comparable to the “Star of Astoroth” in the film not only because they are both magickal pentacles but Solomon’s Seal is sometimes drawn as a pentagram rather than a hexagram.
    bedknobs-3Note the occult Vesica Pisces symbol used by Disney on the cover of the DVD as well as the moon (which Ishtar/Astarte/Ashtoreth is associated with).
    Further relating to Solomonic Magick is the central theme of the flying bed, its bedknob imbued with magical properties that allow the bed to turn into, what is effectively a variation of Solomon’s magic carpet (the magic carpet also features in Disney’s Aladdin). Some sources state that the flying carpet’s power comes from Solomon’s signet ring with the Seal on it. The ring also was said to have given Solomon the ability to command demons and talk to animals, which again is reminiscent of Astoroth’s ability to converse with animals through anthropomorphic magic. The Star of Astoroth, that they spend much of the film seeking, gives the witch the power to make inanimate objects move on their own, embodying them with spirit. The spell to perform this magic is written around the star, similarly it is said that the power of Solomon’s Seal is given by the sacred name of God written on it rather than the hexagram Seal on the signet ring itself.Flying-Carpetvlcsnap-2013-04-18-12h33m38s193vlcsnap-2013-04-17-23h04m01s57Another indirect reference to Solomon comes in the Portobello Road musical number where they go in search of the other half of Astoroth’s grimoire. One of the children, Carrie (played by Cindy O’Callaghan) is trying on jewellery and an elder lady says to her, “Who do you think you are, the Queen of Sheba?” This could obviously be quite a stretch but the synchronicity fits with Solomon and Freemasonry, if I elaborate on this somewhat tenuous connection.
    Balkis (the Queen of Sheba) was said by some to have had a relationship with Solomon, some sources stating they bore a child, Menelik. In Masonic lore, one legend states that Balkis may have indirectly caused Hiram Abiff (whose tribulations make up the rituals of the three degrees of Freemasonry) to be killed. One of the reasons she visited Solomon was to see his temple which Hiram was the principle architect behind its construction. She apparently was in awe of Abiff’s talents and sought a relationship with him. Solomon was unhappy with this of course and hinted to three jealous, disgruntled masons (who Abiff refused to teach the Master Masons’ secrets) that his removal would be acceptable to him so they kill him in varying symbolic ways (with different masonic tools and such, varying between chapters of the craft).vlcsnap-2013-04-17-23h03m26s233Perhaps a double meaning in the above scene, if viewed through the prism of MK? Again, this could be a trigger.vlcsnap-2013-04-18-00h15m55s170
    The flying bed (resonating Solomon’s magic carpet) is used by the witch and the rest to access another dimension, the “Isle of Naboombu” where the aforementioned King Leonidas rules and has the Star of Astoroth. Naboombu may derive from the Assyrian and Babylonian god of wisdom and writing Nabu, pictured below on a door to the Library of Congress John Adams Building and in the British Museum. In the end it is discovered that the spell was written in the child’s picture book all along.
    Incidentally, the Star Wars planet of Naboo probably also derives from Nabu and both have piscine/amphibian humanoids living under water (the Gungans in Naboo), as well as an intelligent civilisation living above water (as above, so below; although there are no anthropomorphic animals above ground on Naboo). While down in the depths the humans win a dance contest and receive a trophy with a clamshell on it, perhaps symbolising Venus bringing us back to Venus/Ishtar/Astarte/Astaroth (the clamshell is also symbolic of the rising sun). The two handles as fish is reminiscent of the symbol of Pisces.
    vlcsnap-2013-04-19-14h23m44s174vlcsnap-2013-04-18-00h17m28s92Naboombu appears to be shaped like a crescent moon, one of Astarte’s most common symbols was the crescent moon.vlcsnap-2013-04-18-11h44m37s201
    On the island the group are invited to a “Savage Soccer Match” in which the King makes the rules up as he goes along and enjoys seeing both sides maul each other purely for his own amusement. There wasn’t much purpose to this scene other than to see what kind of leader the King of was and gives them the opportunity to steal the Star of Astoroth from him. The royal lion’s throne in the royal box contains occult symbolism with the (red, white and blue) horns above it and draped across the fence is a royal blue material with a (football) sun cross drawn on to it (also Mickey Mouse in the top right). vlcsnap-2013-04-18-11h41m56s121The royal tent where the King resides is red and white striped (same colours as the Knights Templar/St George flag) and note the goat head (or other horned beast), the solar crossed circle (and more sun symbolism in the picture), circled pentagram, pyramid shape and various other symbols like the fleur-de-lis on the numerous banners. The olive branch is a symbol of Atonism (remains of Akhenaten holding the olive branch). Curiously, the olive branch has 13 leaves, like the olive branch on the Presidential Seal. A lot of this sun symbolism originates (or rather stolen from previous solar cults) from the fundamentalist solar cult of Atonism (see the Tsarion link for more info on, source of below images) as Akhenaten quashed the polytheism of old in favour of worshiping solely the sun disk Aten, arguably giving birth to the template for monotheistic religions of today (though monotheism as a belief system was much older). According to Tsarion, the lion is also a symbol of Aten (Akhenaten pictured below as a sphinx).
    akhenaton olive akholiveAkhenatenSphinxvlcsnap-2013-04-18-11h41m41s253
    The Sun-Lion symbolism was also used heavily in the 1994 Disney film, ‘The Lion King’ (above, notice how only the lion’s left eye is ever properly visible, probably to symbolise the Eye of Ra-Horus, the former Akhenaton appropriated as Aton because of Ra’s symbol of the sun-disk). The film is a mixture of allegories for Joseph and Moses. Some, such as Sigmund Freud have claimed that Akhenaton was, in fact the biblical Moses, and as we have seen Akhenaten pictured as the lion (see further up) this further explains the Atonist/Solar symbolism in the film. Remember in the Lion King when Simba (the future ‘Lion King’/Moses) is baptised by the magician/shaman Rafiki - by breaking a round (sun) fruit over the sun (sunlight is flashed on screen when it is cracked) and using its juices to baptise him, symbolically baptising him in the sun’s light - he is held up to the sky, the clouds part and the sun’s rays shine down on the future ‘Lion King’ (the scene depicted in the above right poster). Atenism is a prominent feature in some of Disney’s films, hence their use of the solar lion as king in their films.
    Ishtar Gate Pergamon_Museum_Berlin_2007112
    A lion at Ishtar Gate above.
    This is obviously just my personal perception and should be taken with a pinch of salt, but I viewed the “Savage Soccer Match” to be analogous to the Second World War, which the film is set around and is always in the background of the film (the children are sent away from the city to escape the war and in the end the Nazis invade). In my opinion wars, to a degree are exercises of mass human sacrifice for the elite bloodlines, particularly World Wars which may appear to be genuine conflicts between two opposing sides and ideologies. Often those at the top (such as the royal houses) have the same vested interests and are actually working together funding both sides (see the Rothschilds) for the purposes of shaping humanity in the way they require. Another example would be the British Royals and the Nazis (Prince Phillip and Freemason King Edward VIII, the British Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Royal Family are themselves predominantly of German descent).
    The King wears the Star of Astoroth around his neck during the royal match. Astaroth is related to blood sacrifice due to his biblical associations with Ba’al (Moloch) in which they are equated; Judges 2:13 "And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth", Judges 10:6 "And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth..." Ba’al is also arguably a sun-god so you could bring in the lion/sun symbolism here too. Ishtar and Astarte (from which Astaroth derives) both had lions as one of their identifying symbols so this is probably another reason why the lion was chosen apart from the lion’s typical depiction as “king of the beasts”.
    “The game’s over, I WIN!” The Royal Lion announces as both sides of the match are left to mercilessly fight with no real clue what is going on, even the referee (Emelius), until the King decides it’s over. At the end of the film he leaves to fight in the actual war where he’ll similarly have no clue about the real reasons why he has been sent to die in mass ritual sacrifice.
    Towards the end of the film the Nazis invade from the sea, note above in the tapestry introduction the solar Swastika symbol. The witch saves them by using the spell she learned from the Star of Astoroth to make medieval suits of armour come alive (they used real medieval armour, with real history of murder and death) controlled by the witch who resonates the goddess Britannia here (whose symbol is again, the lion). Some, like the Freeman Perspective argue that Britannia is another version of the goddess (Ishtar/Astarte/Venus/etc).
    As the witch animates the medieval suits of armour using the spell she acquired from the Seal of Astoroth, the trumpets come alive and sound a call to arms, with the Royal Arms of England draped off them. This motif originates from King Richard I who committed atrocities (blood sacrifices) in the Crusades. He was associated with the Knights Templar (he was friends with the Grand Master at the time Robert de Sablé). Richard I was famously known as the Lionheart, from the Merovingian royal/”Illuminati”/Atonist bloodline, hence the Atonist solar lion, using three is also significant. Richard the Lionheart’s anti-Muslim crusades are relatively similar to Akhenaton’s barbaric persecution of Amenists and polytheistic beliefs.
    One Nazi officer in the witch’s house wearing the Iron Cross (cross patteé). The Nazis are eventually driven out by the invincible suits of armour controlled by the occult powers of the goddess/demon Astoroth (Ashtoreth/Astarte/Ishtar).

    Hi all, Moldylocks has been in the news again. Promoting the same communist lies and fantasies and we've also been learning about her uh... Career. YEECH!

    An email from a friend explains the horrid story of Moldylocks real name Emily Rose Nauert AKA Venus Rosealma, AKA Emily Rose Marshall (her mom's maiden name) aka, moldylocks.

    Hey Brian, I've been looking up what happened, with this Moldylocks character. I just loved the cartoons you posted about her BTW. I mean I can't believe such a person really exists! My God!

    Those aren't dreadlocks BTW, that's her actuall hair. She hasn't washed it in years.

    This came from Reddit:

    Louise has taken part in pornography under the name Venus Rosealma and has been featured on, a website and caters to an audience with a preference for hairy vaginas.[17] In her performances, Louise is recorded using a toy to pleasure herself.[2] She has stated that she has an affinity towards pain and is exploring that side to her.[44] Louise has appeared in 3 movies, 10 photo sets, and has taken 1286 explicit images.[27] After Louise came to internet prominence, her porn ranking rose to 14888.[43]

    I took a huge interest in this story, and researched her a lot. I took about 30 screenshots of her Twitter account (avatar a tie-died “peace” symbol, and her Twitter name included the Buddhism symbol), which was active from early 2013 to mid 2014, before she deleted all her tweets a couple of days ago.

    Her tweets evince that Emily Rose Marshall (born Emily Rose Nauert–the “Louise Rosealma” name is a fabrication) was by age 15 everything we hate about leftists. This environmentalist pothead was also vegetarian, an admirer of Hillary years ago, pro-abortion, feminist, pro “gay pride”, and she laughed when Satanists defiled Fred Phelps’s grave. She started calling herself “pansexual” around 16, and still lists herself as that on her Facebook page.

    She was voted Most Desired Girl by a cohort of her classmates, and always had a boyfriend, immediately replacing the ones she discarded. She tweeted about her “cutie booty”. In 2014, after everybody told her not to pierce her septum, she did it anyway, reveling in others’ horror at her new bullring. She also experimented with cornrow hair and lashed out with contempt at people who pleaded with her not to style her hair into “gross” dreadlocks. 

    EDITOR'S NOTE: Those aren't dreadlocks. She doesn't bathe or wash is the problem...

    This all started when she was about 15 by the looks of things but it may have gone on sooner as early as around 13. That was when her parents divorced...

    Her parents split when she was around 13, father moved out of state. Apparently he was a queer who went with another man instead of the woman he married and dumped the daughter behind. 

    She had obvious daddy issues... 

    Also, she chose to stop going by her birth surname and started going by her mother’s maiden name. Fathers day 2014 she tweeted “f*******k fathers day!”
    She tweeted early and frequently about the usual Leftist issues and Rabbit worldview: “f**k white America… is what she posted in one. In middle school she said "I was that hippy freak that never had washed hair lolololol…"

    EDITORS NOTE: No she didn't! I told you so!!

    She tweets, "Don’t let your parents, school, religion, or government tell you what to believe… isn’t everything more fun when you don’t have permission?" And, "I’m wearing my Satan shirt so that one Christian chick at the bus stop doesn’t offer me anti-porn pamphlets again [no irony here, move along! -ed]… empty your mind and let the universe fill you… Socialism is sexy…. Sick of seeing people use the Buddha as decoration…. Black guys are hot…. How to get a thigh gap: put a guy’s head between your legs… sharing porn links with my best bud… I want to go on an adventure with people who love inconsistency as much as I do… Man is the only species that has to pay to live on the planet" 

    Holy rabbit tears, Batman

    To top  it off, she was raised in a pampered high living lifestyle in Thousand Oaks California.

    So yes, this woman is a lot like these other people you've written about. Broken household full of divorce and buggery, public school indoctrination, no morals ETC. That one retard Muslim in Denver for instance, dad divorces and hangs with a hippie whore, mom becomes a dyke, teacher says, be a communist and the effeminate catholic priest says all religions are equal and that white christian militiamen bombed the towers instead of Muslims.

    You've also got that John Lindh Taliban idiot who's been raised in FairFax near SF, after the parents divorce, dad went queer, the mom became a new age beatnik, boy was raised in a nasty household with no morals or male guidance, became a Muslim since, ALL THINGS ARE RELATIVE EXCEPT AMERICA BEING EVIL!! LOL!

    It just goes on and on and on. I think if we ever take back this country G-d willing, we should round up these leftists and deport them to Africa. See how they like Islam and Marxism then! LOL! First, do some psych evals on them, take them apart and see what made them go off like that. Betcha it'll be the same. Divorce, spoiled upbringing, no morals, no Judeo-Christian faith, just a broken family and kids who were let down by everyone around them.
              Of Myth and Magic My spoiler-free review of Paternus by Dyrk Ashton         

    I was talking to my second daughter (she's a quaternary scientist you know) about the fact that we are currently 10,000 years into an interglacial - a pause between ice ages - after the last 100,000 year ice age came to an end.

    I had heard that apparently the flood story is not unique to judeo-christianity. While not going as far as an idea of Noah and his Ark, other faiths and peoples have similar accounts of a global flooding disaster.  Arguably this common thread came from the melting of arctic ice sheets as far south as Ireland and consequent rises in sea-levels that submerged settlements ranging from Doggerland in the North Sea to the shores of a much reduced Black Sea. It would not then be so surprising that the flood myth passed into oral histories across the world.

    In Paternus, Dyrk Ashton draws a similar thread of connectivity and common cause on which he strings the beads of every world myth I have ever heard of and roots them in a common foundation. The wide ranging source material is drawn together from places spread across the entire globe and times delving billions of years into the Earth's past to deliver a crescendo of a story condensed into a bare 24 hours of pretty constant action.

    The many threads make for a complex tale. As with Keifer Sutherland's 24 TV show, the reader follows stories playing out in parallel in scattered locations.  Layers of myth and faction unfold in terse action sequences delivered in the present tense through inevitably multiple points of view.  The supreme deity within this diverse pantheon borrows shamelessly from Greek Zeus and Norse Odin's proclivities and weaknesses. Though borrows is perhaps an unfair term - embodies/personifies/unites might all do more justice to the fascinating "melange a beaucoup" that Ashton has created.

    At times I thought Ashton must have augmented the well known but well disguised characters from myth with creations of his own invention, all spawned from the same central premise that explains and celebrates the diversity of ancient mythology.  However, every time I tried googling one of Ashton's ancient truenames, the search threw up a genuine mythic anticedent.

    There is a romantic core to the story - which is where it opens.  A young couple dancing uncertainly around their strong but unexpressed mutual attraction. At those points the story felt a little bit clunky. But whatever thoughts the two might harbour for each other, they are soon swept aside by the tide of times as powerful opposing forces face off and suit up for the latest instalment in a long running and potentially world-ending conflict.

    The action really hots up about a quarter of the way into the book and once it gets started it just doesn't seem to stop, as Ashton's battles rage from location to location like a James Bond movie.

    All in all, an enjoyable, rip-roaring tour de force through every pantheon you could imagine.

              Christian_Szegedy on Utilons vs. Hedons        

    " Even with more "neutral" topics like a junk food tax, arguments like "I don't want the government telling me what to eat" seem far more common than "But some people really like deep fried lard!"

    I think this is mostly rationalization:

    In a practical sense, we have a very strong drive to pleasure and enjoyment, but our Judeo-Christian tradition (like most other religions as well, but let's keep it simple) makes a sport of downplaying pleasure as a factor in human happiness, even making it into something dirty or at least suspicious.

    Fortunately, when the time of enlightenment came, it did not reestablish pleasure as a desirable goal, but opened a great back door for rationalization: the very concept of freedom. The long ascetic tradition going back several thousand years put a very strong barrier to publicly admitting this significant part of our driving force. Freedom was promoted instead. Of course "freedom" is a very fuzzy word. It can refer to several more or less disconnected fuzzy concepts like independence of foreign power, free practice of religion, personal liberties, etc.

    Still "Freedom" is also a wildcard for saying: "Don't mess with my hedons!".

    Of course, I won't admit that I am softie and care about all those nice convenient or exciting stuff, but don't dare to dispute my freedom to do whatever I want! (Unless it harms anyone else.)

    So the concept of freedom is an ideal invention for our anyways irrational and hypocritical society: it allows public discussion to covertly recognize the value of individual pleasures by referring to this established, noble, abstract concept that fortunately made it into the set of few keywords that command immediate respect and unquestioned reverence.

              Israeli Democracy - Look, who is to the P.M.'s left?        
    Bibi Netanyahu, Israel's P.M. reviews his left flank
    The impractical segmentation of millions into two states or their inclusion on a single, statewide Israeli voter register is no doubt problematic. Despite global diplomacy, no leaders of Jews, Muslims or Christians can preach enough rhetoric to turn opinions of Israel's divergent population. Among Jewish representative leaders of Israel, liberalism and conservatism continues to direct competing and often conflicting policy. But, the millennial battle of extremes has a new contender for the crown and its fast approaching your democracy too.

    Radicalism exploits everything often confusing constituents who don’t quite know how to respond. In the staunchest democracies voter sentiment is affected by national intelligence, propaganda that is selectively disclosed and it may come as a shock, but radical extremists do elicit sympathies from moderates. Radicals can and will penetrate democracy's' Achilles heel and win support for their cause. Regardless of their sordid morals, much of which is forgotten days or weeks after an initial often violent shock, radical ideals flourish on apparent social injustices compelling enough for liberals to support.

    An ancient Talmudic law suggests, when established Israel’s principle sovereign body, the Great Sanhedrin, a court with 70 members and a President cannot declare a murderer guilty unless there is at least one dissenting member. In this court liberal dissent is a prerequisite, the antidote to a prevailing conservative radicalism. Unlike the courts presently convened by radical Islamist's to benefit their ideal the Jewish court is protected by the power of this radical antidote in the negative veto.

    Radical Islamic militants exploit a general permission granted by Prophet Muhammad in Medina around 1400 years ago. He permitted a jihad to convert (generally wealthy) people to Islam as a justification for his poverty stricken followers stealing their possessions. Today this criminal behavior is justified by militants who believe these teachings transcend the moral and criminal laws of most countries. The idea behind a Great Sanhedrin is one radical Islamist's shun, because their Shiite vs Sunni insurgency relies on fractional justice to settle their messianic bloodline.The winning leader of this intra-Islamic purge is supposed to usurp any competing Judeo Christian Messiah. This is the beating religious heart of present day radicalism and will continue regardless, until such stage as the final outcome of this Biblical lineage is absolutely determined.
    These very ancient, interconnected, middle eastern bloodlines are compelled to fulfill their inherent endgame and so it is for the Jews of Israel. The seemingly weird progression of events since September 11, 2001 and the Arab Spring have led to the present Islamic State rhetoric and action, what next? A democratic states' symbolism is an important contributor to the psyche of the nation, especially those that remain vulnerable to the influence of radical extremists. For Israel the complex machinations affecting liberal / conservative democratic bias is exacerbated by the unique dimension of the Jewish religion and Jews to realize their messianic quest.

    A nations pomp and ceremony emerges from its history and culture. Since its re-established in 1948 Jewish Israels hurriedly adopted a structure that has not matured sufficiently to represent its Jewish character or ensure democratic Jewish sovereignty. For example, shifting some of Jerusalem's city boundaries by less than a few kilometers would ensure the election of an Arab Mayor or, incorporating all people west of the Jordan on the electoral role would reduce the Jewish majority to approximately 53%. Therefore, Israel’s continuing Jewish sovereignty is a question that causes its leaders to express delicate diplomacy's to win international acclaim and domestic popularity. Jewish sovereignty is not democratically guaranteed and it is far too precious an ideal to squander especially in light of the radical alternative.

    We must ask hard questions about the future of Israel's national symbolism and its governing structure. Does it honestly embrace and signal its intention to ensure its Jewish ideal? For example, will Israel’s Chief Rabbi, or equivalent ever be seated to the Prime Ministers right at official state functions? Since Jewish sovereignty is a prerequisite at least this symbolism ought to be strengthened!  Placing the seat of Israel’s Chief Rabbi, presently held by a representative of the divided Sephardic and Ashkenazi communities (soon to be consolidated), to the right of the PM would honestly declare the Jewish Sovereign intent of Israel’s Jewish citizens. As this level of intellectual honesty is achieved radicalism will begin to face a new reality because Israel will finally be on the home stretch to its Jewish Sovereign guarantee of its free world democracy, then every citizen can vote in the permanent, single Jewish State of Israel.

              Dub, Scratch, and the Black Star. Lee Perry on the Mix        
    Erik Davis

    Having abandoned the Jamaican tropics for the snowy peaks of Switzerland, the legendary reggae producer Lee Perry - aka Scratch, the Upsetter, the Super-Ape, Pipecock Jackson, Inspector Gadget, the Firmament Computer, and a cornucopia of other monikers and aliases - now makes his home in one of the quietest corners of Europe. A version of this piece originally appeared in 21C, issue 24, 1997It’s an odd but somehow fitting environment for Perry - not because precision clocks and banks have much to do with the intense, spooky, and profoundly playful records he’s known for, but because Lee Perry had always been something of a stranger in a strange land.

    Though still capable of turning out brilliant tunes like “I Am a Madman” and “Secret Laboratory (Scientific Dancehall),” Perry’s current output pales next to the pivotal music he made in the 1960s and 70s, especially the Rastafarian psychedelia he cooked up at his Black Ark studios in the mid 1970s. During that incredibly prolific period (he produced over 1000 sides in ten years), Perry fused his eccentric spiritual vision with powerful protest music, made some of the most surreal experiments with dub reggae, and sculpted the first (and arguably greatest) records by Bob Marley and the Wailers. Utilizing low-tech studio equipment with a brilliance and panache that continues to astound record producers and music fans today, Perry earned a place alongside Phil Spector and Brian Wilson as a visionary studio wizard who transformed pop music production into an art form all its own.

    These days, it’s Perry himself who is the work of art. He appears in public festooned with pendants, parts of machines, bits of tape, patches, buttons, and reflective mirrors. Everywhere he goes, it seems, he leaves a collage of scribbled notes, cryptic graffiti, scrap-metal idols, paintings of lions and food. Responding to interviewers with a flurry of rhymes, riffs, and puns, Perry turns innocent questions into a cosmological launching pad, revealing what John Corbett describes as “a world of hidden connections and secret pacts:” (128) multinational conspiracy theories, Old Testament prophecies, scatological rants, Rastafarian poetry, incantations of the Jamaican folk witchcraft known as obeah.

    All this takes Perry to the edge of madness - at once his apparent mental instability and his intensely performative, almost shamanic, relationship with the chaos of creation. As Corbett points out, New World black culture has long linked the rhetoric of madness with excellence and innovation - musicians especially are praised for being “out of control,” “crazy,” “wild.” While Perry’s hermetic language games and comic-book metaphysics certainly owe something to his daily intake of what one observer described as an “inordinate amount of high quality herb,” his mischievous irony also shows all the signs of the trickster incarnate. Even his “madness” may be a trick. Some colleagues report that when it’s time to talk business, Perry drops the loopy patois and cuts to the chase; the head of Heartbeat Records says that he “plays fool to catch wise.”

    Perry is also a kind of Caribbean techgnostic, deploying his almost supernatural imagination within the technological context of the modern recording studio. With its soundboards, mics, effects processors, and multiple-track tape manipulations, the studio is clearly a kind of musical machine. However passionate and spontaneous pop songs may sound on the radio, the music itself is as much a product of engineering as of performance. Despite their crude equipment, reggae producers like Perry, King Tubby, and Bunny Lee became artists in their own right - especially when it came to dub, the instrumental offshoot of reggae concocted entirely in the studio.

    Modern Jamaican music begins with signals and machines. In the mid to late 1950s, when a diminutive Lee Perry first arrived in Kingston from the sticks, the popularity of mento - an upbeat and topical Afro-Caribbean music similar to Trinidadian calypso - was giving way to a rage for American rhythm&blues. At that time, powerful and increasingly independent U.S. radio stations were turning away from the old national radio networks towards an inexpensive and popular alternative: DJs playing records for local markets. For the first time, signals were beamed directly at African-American communities. And when the weather was right, Jamaican kids churning through their radio dials would tune into Southern radio stations, and they went especially wild for the gritty, saucy sounds of New Orleans R&B.

    From this enthusiasm sprang Jamaica’s “sound systems” - mobile discos that would invade halls and auditoriums with high-wattage amplifiers, turntables, DJs, imported American vinyl, and massive speaker stacks. Besides transforming the invisible figure of the radio DJ into a performer, sound systems also gave their American grooves an unmistakable Jamaican twist by severely pumping up the bass. Amplifying their woofers to the max, sound systems transformed R&B’s low end into a veritable force of nature - the kind of bass that does not just propel or anchor dancers but saturates their bones with near cosmic vibrations.

    In the late 1950s, the sound systems were ruled by a host of colorful characters like Duke Reid, who lorded over his “Treasure Isle” dances with a cartridge belt, an enormous gilt crown, and a shotgun that he would occasionally brandish when the competition between sound systems boiled to a head. These fierce rivalries had an obviously economic edge, but their roots lie in the competitive performance traditions of many West African cultures. The fight over customers waged by sound system producers was also a style war, their fabricated alter egos, costumes, and elaborate verbal boasts taking on an almost ritualistic - yet constantly reinvented - dimension. Such style wars show up in various guises across the African diaspora, from the taunts and “disses” of rappers to the yearly carnival competitions of Trinidad and Brazil, when various roving “bands” try to top each other and woo the crowd with music, dance, and costume. As Lee Perry said, “Competition must be in the music to make it go.” (Grand Royal 1995: 69)

    Jamaica sound systems were unique in that this premodern, almost “tribal” competition was played out across the modern landscape of mechanically reproduced recordings. Rivalries were not so much a “battle of the bands” as a kind of technological and information warfare: who had the heaviest bass, who had the hottest records. In the 1950s, many DJs considered their imported sides exclusive, buying up all available copies of a new record or flying to the States to buy fresh discs. Spies would show up at rival sound system parties, peering at the record labels over the DJ’s shoulder, and in response, DJs would scratch off labels or stick on false ones.

    Here was an environment where a trickster like Lee Perry could thrive. Rejected by Duke Reid, who was spooked by something in his eyes, Perry went to work for Clement “Sir Coxone” Dodd’s rival “Downbeat” system, where he served as a talent scout, runner, gofer and occasional monkey-wrencher. Perry told one interviewer how he once put out the rumor that a certain fellow was selling really “dread sides.” Duke Reid went and bought them all without listening to them first. “And they all old stuff, duds!” For such antics, Duke’s men once stormed a Downbeat party and started punching people out, knocking Scratch unconscious.

    With the decline of R&B in the US market and Jamaica’s independence from Britain in 1962, homegrown mutations begin to dominate sound systems. The most prominent was ska, a hopped-up, horn-driven and very danceable music whose intense offbeat punches one apocryphal story attributes to the interference patterns that sliced up radio signals from the States. Perry started churning out ska at Coxone’s Studio One, cutting edgy and punchy songs like “By Saint Peter” and “Chicken Scratch” - the latter earning “Scratch” his most lasting nickname.

    Perry always had something of a persecution complex, and frequently turned on former friends and business partners. In part this reflects the cut-throat environment of the Jamaican record industry, where what Dick Hebdidge describes as “tough and wily” producers often acted like pirates. But with Perry - who once knowingly sold thousands of copies of Bob Marley and the Wailers’ Soul Revolution II with the wrong record inside - one can also see the mischievous and occasionally malicious hand of the trickster. Perry certainly incorporated personal attacks into his “mad” persona: a number of Perry songs badmouth former associates or mumble threats concerning obeah men, while the 1985 cut “Judgment Inna Babylon” accused the head of Island records of literally being a vampire.

    After splitting acrimoniously from two top studios, Perry started up his own Upsetter studios in 1968, and soon released a tune attacking his former boss Joe Gibbs. Anticipating today’s sampling craze, “People Funny Boy” included a crying baby in the mix in order to show how “upset” Perry was. But “People Funny Boy” also slowed down and reshuffled the usual rock steady rhythm, a bass-heavy rhythm that by the late 1960s had replaced the more simplistic beats of ska. In doing so, Perry helped engineer the beat that would come to dominate Jamaican music in the 1970s: reggae.

    Though reggae recalls the relaxed rhythms of the old secular mento music, it has a meditative sustenance that some compare to religious church music or the Nyabhingi drumming of Rastafarian gatherings. Perry claims he just wanted to top his rivals with a new sound that had a “rebel bass” and a “waxy beat - like you stepping in glue.” But the inspiration he cites was a Pocomania revivalist church he passed one night after drinking some beer:

    (I) hear the people inside make a wail and say, ‘let’s make a sound fe catch the vibration of the people!’ Them was in the spirit and them tune me spiritually. That’s where the thing comes from, ‘cos them Poco people getting sweet. (Grand Royal 1995: 62)

    Pocomania was one of a number of independent revivalist churches that sprung up during Jamaica’s “Great Awakening” of the 1860s, churches which exuberantly fused African and Protestant performance styles, images, and traditions. Pocomania leaned to the African side of things, its Pentecostal-style services owing an obvious debt to African possession ceremonies. Worshippers would dance counter-clockwise to powerful drums while breathing very deeply; this “trumping” would sometimes brings on possession - the “little madness” that lent the church its name.

    So at the root of the reggae we have a little Lee Perry madness, a tale of catching vibrations and tuning into spiritual trance. But Perry played a far more direct role in developing the religious dimension of reggae when he began writing and recording songs with Bob Marley and the Wailers. The Wailers were a talented Studio One group known for sweet vocals, American soul covers, and a rebel stance. As residents of Trenchtown, Kingston’s most notorious slum, the Wailers were associated with Jamaica’s “rude boys” - tough, poor and restless urban kids who flaunted authority (and sometimes the law). By the late 1960s, Marley and the Wailers were also turning toward Rastafari, a rebellious and extraordinary religious counter-culture that wove together Black Pride, an “Ethiopian” reworking of Biblical tenets, and a prophetic opposition to “Babylon” - the Rastafarian archetype of the modern nation-state, with its police, economic injustice, and corrosive lifestyles. Perry collaborated with the future superstar on some of his earliest and most powerful songs, tunes that mixed sharp social commentary (“a hungry mob is an angry mob”) with an ardent yearning for Jah.

    Since the trappings of Rastafari have been packaged by the international reggae market and embraced - often superficially - by legions of white college kids, punks, and hippies, we should scratch a bit beneath the surface of this vital New World religion. Like America’s Black Muslims, the roots of Rastafari lie with the ethno-religious worldview sculpted by the Jamaican reformer Marcus Garvey. Founding the Universal Negro Improvement Association in 1914, Garvey attempted to uplift and unite New World Africans by emphasizing the superiority of the black man and the glories of African civilization. Anticipating the Africentricity of today, Garvey preached the love of a black deity, a “God of Ethiopia.” He also called for repatriation to the motherland, even founding a shipping and transportation company called the Black Star Line with the intention of transplanting New World blacks to Liberia.

    But Garvey never visited Africa, and his vision of Ethiopia had more to do with the visceral power of the religious imagination than with the concrete geo-political realities of an African continent struggling with the ravages of European colonization. By Garvey’s time, Black Christian churches had already embraced the Biblical Ethiopia as a potent allegorical image of spiritual fulfillment, the millennial “Zion” that offered both a redemptive future and a glorious origin. Though Garvey’s call for repatriation offered black folks an apparently concrete solution to the nightmare of abduction and slavery, the Africa he offered was a landscape of religious desire - a virtual world.

    When Garvey quit Jamaica for the United States, he reportedly left his followers with this potent prophecy: “Look to Africa for the crowning of a Black King; he shall be the Redeemer.” In 1930, when Haile Sellasie - aka Ras Tafari - was installed as King of Ethiopia, Garvey’s Jamaican followers believed they had found their living god, and Rastafari was born. Ethiopia has been Judeo-Christian longer than most nations on the earth, and Sellasie’s bloodline was supposed to stretch back to King Solomon, his official titles - like “King of Kings” and “Lion of the Tribe of Judah” - drawn directly from Biblical prophecy. Reading their own political and cultural desires into theses Rorschach blots of messianic allegory, Rastafarians transformed the distant king into the Book of Daniel’s bearded Ancient of Days, “the hair of whose head was like wool, whose feet were like unto burning brass.”

    As with Elijah Mohammed’s Black Muslims, the early Rastafarians also racialized their theology. As the religious scholar Leonard Barrett explains, “the White’s god is actually the devil, the instigator of all evils that have come upon the world, the god of hate, blood, oppression, and war; the Black god is the god of ‘Peace and Love’ ” (Barrett 1977: 108). Though contemporary Rastafarians speak of “One God” more than a black god, it’s important to note the loosely “gnostic” elements here. Along with the Manichaean tension between the two gods, we have the old gnostic vision of a dark tyrant god who rules over souls in exile. According to Barrett, the early Rastafarians believed that slavery was initially a punishment for their sins, but that “they have long since been pardoned and should have returned to Ethiopia long ago” (111). Only the evil trickery of the slavemaster prevents them from returning to the heavenly home where their living King awaits.

    Both the separatist practices and the emotional core of Rastafarian life can be traced to this deeply felt sense that the Rastaman is in Babylon, but not of it. As Silja Joanna Aller Talvi writes, “From the Rasta’s perspective, the whole world is full of Babylon, and Babylon systems are constantly seeking to oppress (or ‘downpress’) and exploit the African.” Rejecting the authorities of this world, Rastafarians attempt to create a separate “God-like culture,” in part by embracing the organic world of nature as a kind of anti-modern alternative to Babylon. Most Rastafarians are vegetarian, eat only “ital” (fresh and healthy) food, and reject commercial products and medicines; many also grow their hair in dreadlocks - the “natural” shape of long kinky hair that’s washed but neither combed, cut or treated. Though Rastafari was spawned in the slums, many “locksmen” abandoned the urban hustle for lives as fisherman or simple farmers; those who remained were shunned by most respectable Jamaicans as “Blackhearts” or boogiemen.

    Though the movement had a handful of charismatic leaders early on, and today includes organized sects like the Twelve Tribes of Israel and even members of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, most Rastafarians abhor institutions, grounding their faith in their own direct participation in the divinity and holiness of Jah. As Ras Sam Brown said, “The Rastafarians movement is not a movement with a central focus” (Barrett 1977: 173). Somewhat like the early gnostic sects, most Rastafarians also believe that the Bible is an intentionally “mistranslated” document whose scrambled signals must be read selectively and allegorically in the light of personal revelation.

    One of the brightest guiding lights of Rastafari is the flame of the “chalice,” stuffed with sticky marijuana buds that crackle during inhalation. Addressing the sacramental use of marijuana among Rastafarians, Barrett argues that “the real center of the movement’s religiosity is the revelatory dimensions brought about by the impact of the ‘holy herb.’” Long a Jamaican folk medicine, marijuana was probably introduced to the island by indentured East Indian Hindus, who gave the plant its popular name “ganja” and may have inspired its religious use (many of India’s wandering mendicant “sadhus” also wear dreadlocks, eat vegetarian food and smoke hashish in a religious context). For all their glassy, bloodshot stares, it’s wrong to think of Rastafarians as “stoners”; hardcore adherents consume ganja as a sacrament and rarely use other drugs or alcohol. One Rasta explained the role of ganja in strongly gnostic terms, though it is a gnosticism shot through with Rastafari’s powerful social consciousness:

    Man basically is God but this insight can come to man only with the use of the herb. When you use the herb, you experience yourself as God. With the use of the herb you can exist in this dismal state of reality that now exists in Jamaica…When you are a God you deal or relate to people like a God. In this way you let your light shine, and when each of us lets his light shine we are creating a God-like culture. (Barrett 1977: 217).

    Barrett explains that to the Rastafarian, “the average Jamaican is so brainwashed by colonialism that his entire system is programmed in the wrong way…To rid his mind of these psychic forces his head must be ‘loosened up,’ something done only through the use of the herb” (216). As one Montego Bay “dread” described the plant ally, “It gives I a good meditation; it is a door inside” (130).

    Of course, music can also serve as a door inside. The chants and “churchical” beats of traditional Nyabhingi drumming played a vital role in Rastafarian “Grounations,” communal celebrations notable for their ital feasts, ganja smoking, and mystical theologizing. Though not directly influencing the reggae beat, Nyabhingi’s meditative rhythms did infuse reggae with the sense that music can help “loosen up” the shackles of everyday consciousness, sparking the inner light of righteous contemplation.

    Bob Marley was not the first musicians to bring Rastafari into Jamaican dance music, but with earthy hymns like “400 Years,” “African Herbsman” and “Duppy Conqueror”, he and Perry injected folkloric nectar into their spare and sinewy arrangements with divine panache. Like American soul, but even more so, reggae would rapidly become a commercial product of the popular recording industry that nonetheless derived much of its power and appeal from a deeply religious set of images and desires. By no means was all reggae Rastafarian, but with “message” producers like Perry leading the way, Jamaica would produce perhaps the juiciest spiritual protest music of the 1970s. By the time of his death at the end of the decade, Bob Marley would rear his lionlike mane over a global stage as the first Third World pop star, his plaintive “redemption songs” spreading the message of Rastafari across a shrinking planet desperate for spiritual heroes.

    Though Marley’s records were cleverly packaged by Island’s Chris Blackwell for a white rock audience, much of their appeal derives from the unshakable authenticity of the man, the righteous integrity he shared with many of reggae’s stars. In the ’70s, the cries and beats of Jamaica’s new “roots music” seemed to spring, not only form the hearts of suffering black folks, but from the island soil itself. You could hear these roots in the music’s moist guitars and stoned pace, its “natural mystic” vibrations, and its crunchy, spongy beats (Marley called it “earth-feeling music”). And you could feel the roots as well in the virtual Africa that hovered on the messianic horizon of the music, an ancient motherland and future kingdom built from the gnostic longings of souls exiled in the brave New World of Babylon.

    But dub music, reggae’s great technological mutant, is a pure artifact of the machine, and has little to do with earth, flesh, or authenticity. To create dub, producers and engineers manipulate preexisting tracks of music recorded in an analog - as opposed to digital - fashion on magnetic tape (today’s high-end studios encode music as distinct digital bits rather than magnetic “waves”). Dubmasters saturate individual instruments with reverb, phase, and delay; abruptly drop voices, drums, and guitars in and out of the mix; strip the music down to the bare bones of rhythm and then build it up again through layers of inhuman echoes, electronic ectoplasm, cosmic rays. Good dub sounds like the recording studio itself has begun to hallucinate.

    Dub arose from doubling - the common Jamaican practice of reconfiguring or “versioning” a prerecorded track into any number of new songs. Dub calls the apparent “authenticity” of roots reggae into question because dub destroys the holistic integrity of singer and song. It proclaims a primary postmodern law: there is no original, no first ground, no homeland. By mutating its repetitions of previously used material, dub adds something new and distinctly uncanny, vaporizing into a kind is doppelgänger music. Despite the crisp attack of its drums and the heaviness of its bass, it swoops through empty space, spectral and disembodied. Like ganja, dub opens the “inner door.” John Corbett even links the etymology of the word “dub” with duppie (Jamaican patois for ghost). Burning Spear entitled the dub version of his great Marcus Garvey album Garvey’s Ghost, and Joe Gibbs responded to Lee Perry’s production of Bob Marley’s “Duppie Conqueror” with the cut “Ghost Capturer.” Perry described dub as “the ghost in me coming out” (Toop 1995: 129). Dub music not only drums up the ghost in the machine, but gives the ghost room to dance.

    Though he became one of its most surreal experimenters, Lee Perry did not invent dub reggae. That honor goes to Osbourne Ruddock, aka King Tubby, an electrical engineer who fixed radios and other appliances in Kingston in the 1950s and who built his own sound system amplifiers to get the big bass sound. A musical genius, Tubby was also a gearhead, a tinkerer, an experimental geek. After discovering that he could remix the backing track of a popular tune into a new piece of music, Tubby played these “dub plate specials” to enthusiastic crowds at his Home Town Hi-Fi dances, where Tubby would stand behind his customized mixing console, tweaking the beats on the fly while the DJ U Roy “toasted” over the rhythms.

    Jamaican trends spread like wildfire, but Tubby stayed ahead of the dub game by working with top producers like Bunny Lee and Lee Perry while endlessly tinkering with what Prince Buster called the “implements of sound.” Tubby constantly toyed with his four-track console, jury-rigging echo delay units and created sliding faders that allowed him to bring tracks smoothly in and out of the mix. He also just played tricks with the machine, generating his famous “Thunderclap” sound by physically hitting the spring reverb unit, or using frequency test tones to send an ominous sonar through the depths of dub’s watery domain. Though Tubby gave his records names like Dub from the Roots and The Roots of Dub, he had genetically engineered those roots into wires.

    However, dub did restore the roots of reggae’s own “dread ridims” by conjuring the ghost of West African polyrhythms via the unlikely mediation of the machine. Though modern Jamaican dance music adheres to the same 4/4 beat that drives most popular music, reggae was already unusual in accenting the second and fourth beats of the measure and in “dropping” the initial beat, all of which produced the music’s unmistakable pulse. By anchoring the beat with the bass guitar rather than the drum kit, reggae also freed up the drums to explore subtler and more complex percussive play. As Dick Hebdidge points out, by the end of the ’70s, drummers like Sly Dunbar were playing their kits like jazz musicians, improvising on cymbals, snares and tom toms to “produce a multi-layered effect, rather like West African religious drumming” (Hebdidge 1987: 82).

    Dub launched these already tangled ridims into orbit, using technological effects to thicken the beats and to stretch and fold the passage of time. Besides stripping the music down to pure drums and bass and adding raw percussion, Dubmasters introduced counter-rhythms by multiplying the beats through echo and reverb while splicing in what the producer Bunny Lee called “a whole heap a noise.” And by abruptly dropping guitars, snares, hi-hats and bass in and out of the mix, they created a virtual analog of the tripping, constantly shifting effects of West African polymetric drumming. Though the hallucinogenic effects of dub are usually attributed to its “spacey” effects and the role of ganja in both its production and consumption, the almost psychic pleasures of the music also arise from its silly putty beats and their ability to yank the rug out from under your deeply ingrained sense of a central organizing rhythm.

    By giving flight to the producer’s technical imagination, dub sculpted a sort of science-fiction aesthetic alongside reggae’s crunchy Africentric mythos. As Luke Erlich wrote, “If reggae is Africa in the New World, dub is Africa on the moon” (Corbett 1994: 23) Just look at the cover art: Mad Professor’s Science and the Witchdoctor sets circuit boards and robot figures next to mushrooms and fetish dolls, while Scientist Encounters Pac-Man at Channel One shows the Scientist manhandling the mixing console as if it were some madcap machine out of Marvel comics. It’s important to note that in Jamaican patois, “science” refers to obeah, the African grab-bag of herbal, ritual, and occult lore popular on the island. And as Robert Pelton points out, the figure of the scientist is not so distant from the spirit of the trickster that runs throughout this tale: “Both seek to befriend the strange, not so much striving to ‘reduce’ anomaly as to use it as a passage into a larger order…like the scientist, the trickster always yokes just this world to a suddenly larger world” (Pelton ????: 268).

    And Lee Perry continued to serve as reggae’s trickster king. Not only did he make some remarkably spare and intense forays into dub, but he applied dub’s spectral aesthetics to the rest of his increasingly surreal, popular, and unorthodox productions. In 1974, the producer built Black Ark Studios, destined to become the launching pad of reggae’s most surreal and moving tunes. A year later, he acquired a demo version of a unique phaser from the States; using it alongside with a Roland Space Echo - a primitive drum machine with loads of reverb - Perry whipped up multi-layered cakes of noise, polyrhythms, ghostly percussion and sounds lifted from other records. He took advantage of anomalies, especially of his limited 4-track. As the producer Brian Foxworthy explains, Perry would fill up the four available tracks and then mix them onto a single track on another machine, freeing up three tracks to add more effects and percussion. Like xeroxing a xerox, each go-around added more noise to the signal, yet the very “decay” of the signal adding a moist, organic depth to the music. It’s a classic example of the trickster’s mischievous relationship to disruption and chaos. As Foxworthy told Grand Royal magazine, “Tape saturation, distortion and feedback were all used to become part of the music, not just added to it” (Grand Royal 1995: 64).

    Black Ark was more than Jamaica’s most innovative studio; it was the visible vehicle of Perry’s passionate otherworldly imagination. It’s walls were covered with portraits of Selassie, magazine collages, lions and Stars of David, and visitors would sometimes find Scratch planting records and tapes in the garden. As Bob Mack writes, “By the mid-70s, Perry’s Black Ark had become the cultural/spiritual center of hip Kingston and birthplace of reggae’s most conscious black pride anthems, all of which were either written or coaxed out of the artist by Perry (who at that point was beginning to infuse all his productions with the complex set of Christian, African, Arthurian, and Jamaican folk references that comprise his current cosmology)” (Grand Royal 1995: 62). Soon after Haile Selassie died in 1975, Perry and Marley helped reaffirm the faith for millions by cutting the ardent “Jah Lives.”

    Even the name of Perry’s studio was archetypal, resonating with any number of prophetic crafts: the Ark of the Covenant, Noah’s craft, Garvey’s Black Star Line - all messianic revisions to those vessels that abducted Africans into slavery. But the Black Star that Perry followed lied in the depths of space. In an interview with David Toop, Scratch discussed Black Ark in such extraterrestrial terms:

    It was like a space craft. You could hear space in the tracks. Something there was like a holy vibration and a godly sensation. Modern studios, they have a different set-up. They set up a business and a money-making concern. I set up like an ark….You have to be the Ark to save the animals and nature and music (Toop 1995: 114).

    Perry’s unique fusion of premodern myth and postmodern machines not only shapes his lyrics (in one of his weirdest songs, Perry warns “scavengers,” “vampires” and “sons of Lucifer” that “Jah Jah set a super trap / to capture you bionic rats”), but infuses his technological practice. Exploiting equipment that was archaic even for its day, Perry became a dub alchemist, weaving magnetic, tape, wires and circuit boards into the playful web of his magical thinking. Indeed, Perry spoke about his relationship to technology in explicitly animistic terms:

    The studio must be like a living thing.. The machine must be live and intelligent. Then I put my mind into the machine by sending it through the controls and the knobs or into the jack panel. The jack panel is the brain itself, so you’ve got to patch up the brain and make the brain a living man, but the brain can take what you’re sending into it and live (Toop 1995: 113).

    Improvising his cuts on the fly, Perry would whirl like a dervish behind his SoundCraft mixing board, blow ganja smoke directly onto the recording reels, even drink the alcohol used to clean the tape heads when he ran out of Dragon Stout. This erratic behavior came to a head in the late 1970s, when Perry started glimpsing UFOs, kicked anyone with dreadlocks out of the Black Ark, and covered its walls with deranged scatological prophecies. In 1979, during what could generously be called a bout of severely eccentric behavior, Perry trashed and burned his studio, and according to some reports wound up briefly in a mental institution.

    The question of Perry’s sanity opens up the tangled relationship between tricks, madness, art, and the prophetic imagination, but what is most important about Perry and his astounding musical legacy is how they highlight an often ignored strain of New World African culture: a techno-visionary tradition that looks as much toward science fiction futurism as toward magical African roots. One finds this fusion in the experimental cosmological jazz of Sun Ra, who also pioneered the use of synthesizers and African percussion; in Jimi Hendrix’s “electric church music,” which psychedelicized the guitar with feedback and studio effects; in the juicy cosmic technofunk of Parliament-Funkadelic mastermind George Clinton, which, as Cornel West writes, “both Africanizes and technologizes Afro-American popular music” (West ????: 93). Hip hop music also began with a totally unexpected redeployment of turntable and mixing technology (introduced to the South Bronx by the Jamaican DJ Kool Herc), creating what Tricia Rose calls “an experimental and collective space where contemporary issues and ancestral forces are worked through simultaneously” (Rose 1994: 59). Though predominantly secular, hip hop nonetheless hosts an intense subgenre of rappers who belong to the Five Percent Nation, a street-wise offshoot of the Nation of Islam. In contrast with the worldly concerns of gangsta rappers, acts like Brand Nubian, the Poor Righteous Teachers, Paris, and Lakim Shabazz fuse hard-hitting political prophecies, righteous moralizing, and bizarre numerology into a forceful amalgam of Black Pride and imaginative Africentric “science.”

    This loosely “gnostic” strain of Afrodiasporic science-fiction emerges from the improvised confrontation between modern technology and the prophetic imagination, a confrontation rooted in the alienated conditions of black life in the New World. According to Greg Tate, who sees science fiction as continuing a vein of philosophical inquiry and technological speculation that begins with Egyptian theories of the afterlife, “black people live the estrangement that science fiction writers imagine” (Dery 1995: 208). As Perry’s own scathing protest music proves, the prophetic art that arises from this condition of perpetual exile does not simply “escape” from the pragmatic demands of politics. But neither does it deny the ark of the imagination that lies on the other side of the inner door, a tricky craft capable of navigating through the shadowed valleys of this world, guided by a black star whose very invisibility renders its virtual possibilities infinite.

    Works Cited

    Barrett, Leonard (1977).The Rastafarians.Boston: Beacon.

    Corbett, John (1994).Extended Play: Sounding Off from John Cage to Dr. Funkenstein.Durham: Duke.

    Dery, Mark (1995). “Black to the Future” in Flame Wars, ed.Mark Dery.Durham: Duke.

    Grand Royal, issue 2, 1995.

    Hebdidge, Dick (1987). Cut’n’Mix. London: Comedia.

    Pelton, Robert (????). ????????????????????????????????????

    Rose, Tricia (1994). Black Noise.Hanover: Wesleyan.

    Talvi, Silja Joanna Aller.Unpublished thesis.

    Toop, David (1995). Ocean of Sound. London: Serpent’s Tail.

    West, Cornel (????).“ ‘Out of Motown” in Semiotext(e) 12, vol IV no 3.

              La Entomología Médica. Una mirada al pasado.2        

    Una mirada al pasado

    Historia de la Entomología Médica

    C.E. Machado-Allison

    La historia de la entomología médica puede ser relatada de modos muy distintos. El enfoque clásico ha sido el seguimiento formal de las referencias, directas o indirectas, de las observaciones y descubrimientos sobre el papel de los insectos y otros artrópodos en la transmisión de enfermedades, o en la generación de molestias físicas al hombre. Así, Herms (1934) en su clásico "Medical Entomology" cuya primera edición apareció en 1915, ubica en el Antiguo Testamento, versión King James, la primera referencia escrita sobre los insectos como un factor de perturbación para los seres humanos. Sin embargo, casi que con certeza, podemos asegurar que existe una historia no escrita, transmitida en forma oral, en muchas culturas. Obviamente nuestra visión no puede ser otra que la derivada de la tradición judeo-cristiana y la llamada cultura occidental.

    En el "Papiro Ebers", unos 1500 años antes de Cristo, existe una descripción razonable de algo que parece ser paludismo y luego Hipócrates, aproximadamente 400 a.C. describe con lujo de detalles esta enfermedad. Entonces las fuentes son duales, por una parte los artrópodos per se, por la otra el conocimiento de las enfermedades cuya transmisión por parte de los insectos sería demostrada siglos después. Una evidencia de ese conocimiento, usualmente no registrado, fue consignado por el famoso explorador inglés Livingstone (1813-1873) quien relató que el Jefe Sebituane de los Makololo le señaló:

    "Tu ganado ha sido picado por la mosca tsé-tsé y seguramente morirá".

    Obviamente este jefe era poseedor de un conocimiento tradicional que apuntaba a la existencia de un elemento causal, no mágico, de la enfermedad del sueño y además que las moscas del género Glossina jugaban un importante papel en la misma. Es posible especular, en este y otros casos, que el conocimiento tradicional orientó las pesquisas posteriores.

    En ese mismo contexto no son raras las referencias al uso de repelentes y otras formas de evitar la agresión de insectos hematófagos, mosquitos en particular. Por ejemplo Gumilla (1791) relata que hacia 1716 encuentra que los indígenas de las riberas del Orinoco utilizaban una pasta elaborada a partir de Bixa orellana (ajiote, onoto) como forma de protección, así como los indígenas de América del Norte empleaban el aceite de pescado como repelente y muy probablemente las vestimentas blancas y largas de los árabes hayan jugado un papel similar al de los mosquiteros en los oasis donde pululaban hordas de mosquitos (Machado-Allison, 1987).

    Gumilla describe, quizás con exageración, la relación de los indígenas con los insectos vulnerantes:

    "Lo mismo es dexar el golfo y entrar por el Orinoco, ó por cualquier otro rio de tierra caliente, para entrar en una fiera batalla con varias clases ó especies de mosquitos, que todos tiran a chupar la sangre, y algunos mucho mas. Durante el día, pueblan el ayre y se llena la cara, las manos y quanto hay al descubierto, de mosquitos grandes que llaman zancudos…a mas de estos, persiguen al hombre otros exercitos de mosquitos llamados jejenes…otros del tamaño de granos de pólvora fina, que llaman rodadores. Estas tres especies de mosquitos, a mas de la sangre que hurtan, dexan una comezón rabiosa. Pero la cuarta plaga…"

    y sigue Gumilla describiendo un pequeño infierno tropical donde a los mosquitos, suma tábanos, niguas, garrapatas, moscas responsables por miasis o gusaneras e incluso describe a los "pitos" o chipos como son conocidos los triatominos en Venezuela.

    Casi en el terreno de lo anecdótico tenemos algunas referencias adicionales sobre los insectos, enfermedades y molestias causadas. Núñéz de Cáceres en 1823 se refiere a las pulgas de Caracas entre otras situaciones desagradables de la ciudad. Humboldt en su famoso viaje a Venezuela (1799) toma muestras de pulgas y niguas que serán luego descritas en Europa. Una interesante recopilación de este período fue realizada por Tello (1968).

    Existe otro enfoque, menos explorado, y el mismo se refiere al impacto que estas enfermedades han tenido sobre la historia universal. En un trabajo previo (Machado-Allison, 1987) recopilamos algunos eventos importantes, tanto que cambiaron el curso de la historia y donde los mosquitos jugaron un papel protagónico. Entre ellos vale la pena recordar la muerte de Alejandro Magno a causa del paludismo y la desintegración de su breve imperio, las consecuencias de la muerte de Cromwell en 1658 en plena revolución inglesa. No menos interesante es el proceso de independencia de Haití donde frente a la sublevación de los esclavos, Inglaterra decide aprovechar la situación y aumentar su presencia en el Caribe enviando a Whitloke con una tropa de aproximadamente 80.000 hombres. La fiebre amarilla los derrota y el proceso independentista avanza con Toussant L' Overture y cuando Napoleón decide reconquistar Haití envía al General Leclerc quien es derrotado por los mosquitos y la guerrilla al mando de Dessalines.

    Otros ejemplos de la importancia de las enfermedades transmitidas por insectos han sido recogidas en los textos de historia. Apenas como ejemplo Perícles es una de las víctimas de la epidemia de peste de 429 a.C., así como Claudio en la del 269 d.C. La peste recorrió Asia y Europa varias veces determinando cambios históricos importantes. El imperio de Justiniano (527-565 d.C.) casi colapsa por la peste y se supone que Atila, en el año 452 después de conquistar Roma se retira debido a la malaria. San Beda, uno de los cronistas mas interesantes del medioevo, cita epidemias de peste en Inglaterra en los años 664,672, 678 y 683. Las cruzadas nacen después de una feroz epidemia en 1094 acompañada de una profunda desorganización social en Europa y concluyen con la muerte de Luis IX en Túnez debido a la malaria. El Decamerón es escrito durante la epidemia conocida como la "muerte negra" que recorrió Asia y Europa determinando la muerte de un tercio de la población entre 1347 y 1370. Algunos registros británicos indican que en algunas ciudades fallecieron dos de cada tres habitantes.

    El tifus, transmitido por los piojos, es probablemente una vieja enfermedad que se hace muy evidente al aumentar la densidad de la población y el contacto físico entre las personas en condiciones de hacinamiento y pobreza. En 1528 el tifus barre con el ejército francés en Nápoles y en la guerra de 30 años, en particular hacia 1648, el tifus causa muchas más víctimas que las batallas. Napoleón es derrotado en Rusia en 1812 por una combinación de piojos, guerrillas y frío. Sus tropas traen de vuelta una epidemia de tifus que afecta buena parte de Europa hasta 1816. El tifus y la fiebre de las trincheras fueron importantes durante la primera guerra mundial (1914-1918) y sin duda la malaria fue un enemigo común de los japoneses y los aliados en Burma, el sudeste asiático, Filipinas y algunas islas del Pacífico durante la segunda (1938-1945).

    No menos importante es la historia del Canal de Panamá y el nacimiento de esta nación, así como los resultados de la guerra hispano-americana que marca la independencia de Cuba. En ambos casos la fiebre amarilla y Aedes aegypti constituyen factores importantes en la geopolítica de la época. Lesseps con el apoyo financiero y político de Francia inicia las obras del canal de Panamá en 1880. Tras ocho años de trabajos y miles de muertos por fiebre amarilla, el proyecto es abandonado. Buneau-Varilla le vende la idea a los Estados Unidos. Luego Panamá se separa de Colombia y en 1905 Gorgas logra sanear el área y el proyecto concluye con éxito. El éxito de Gorgas tuvo como antecedente inmediato la secuencia de investigaciones que iniciadas por Carlos Finlay (1833-1915), culminan en la demostración fehaciente del papel de Aedes aegypti en la transmisión de la fiebre amarilla por el equipo formado por Reed, Lazear, Agramonte y Carroll en La Habana. La creación de la "Comisión para el Estudio de la Fiebre Amarilla" y el financiamiento de los Estados Unidos a la misma fue determinada por las epidemias registradas entre 1895 y 1900 que determinaron mas bajas entre los soldados españoles y norteamericanos que las balas (Machado-Allison, 1987).

    Las enfermedades transmitidas por artrópodos fueron una de las grandes barreras a la expansión colonial europea en Africa y Asia. El elevado número de víctimas de la malaria, la enfermedad del sueño, filariasis, peste bubónica y otras enfermedades, motivó, particularmente en Inglaterra, el desarrollo de la medicina tropical. Este interés por el trópico se traduce en inversiones tanto en capital humano como en expediciones y estudios efectuados durante el período victoriano, animados a su vez por la revolución industrial. Esto determina que Africa, India y el sur de Asia fueran el escenario de los primeros descubrimientos importantes en el campo de la entomología médica. La revolución industrial llega tarde a la península ibérica donde entre la inquisición y otros factores bien estudiados, el desarrollo de la ciencia y la tecnología estuvo a la zaga de los restantes países de Europa.

    Primero el desarrollo de un servicio de medicina colonial y luego la creación de escuelas de medicina tropical junto al financiamiento de viajes de exploración o comisiones para investigar ciertas enfermedades, fueron acciones políticas explícitas desde mediados del siglo XIX hasta la gradual disolución del Imperio Británico. De allí el importante papel que jugaron los investigadores ingleses, Manson, Ross, Christophers, Bruce, Leishman y otros, que la historia identifica como los padres de la entomología médica.

    Es casi inexistente la información en el mundo occidental, entre Hipócrates y Mercurialis, sobre el papel de los insectos en la transmisión de las enfermedades. Entre las ideas mágicas y la teoría miasmática transcurre un prolongado lapso. La teoría miasmática toma cuerpo en los siglos XVII y XIX. La misma estuvo animada por una lógica muy razonable para aquellos tiempos: la incidencia de muchas enfermedades era elevada en sitios considerados como "insalubres", tal como áreas con abundantes descargas de aguas servidas, o zonas de periódica inundación. Se postulaba, en consecuencia, que algo producido en esas "miasmas" era conducido por el aire y de ese modo se adquirían las enfermedades. La teoría mismática es formalmente postulada en Grecia y deriva de las escuelas de Cos y Cnidos, de los cuales Hipócrates y Galeno son los principales exponentes. Al origen miasmático, los griegos sumaron la predisposición individual asociada a los hábitos personales y una tercera causa, que es el contagio (Le Rich & Milner, 1971). Es interesante observar que hasta los experimentos de Pasteur, es decir por más de 2.000 años, estas tres ideas dominaron la historia de la medicina.

    El contagio, antigua hipótesis para cierto número de enfermedades, tiene su propia historia. Así como los griegos apuntaron hacia las infestaciones con piojos, la peste y algunas infecciones oculares, luego entre los árabes destaca Rhazes o Ráses (850-923) que incluye la viruela y otras enfermedades eruptivas. Mas elaboradas son las apreciaciones de Gui de Chauliac en Avignon sobre la peste y sus distintas manifestaciones (neumónica y bubónica) y Fracastorio de Verona a comienzos del siglo XVI, quien sostenía que cada enfermedad era causada por un agente distinto, concebido como un elemento químico y además planteaba tres formas de abordar el tratamiento: destrucción de esos factores o "gérmenes" mediante calor o frío; su eliminación del cuerpo humano y su neutralización empleando medicinas.

    La obra de Fracastorio de acuerdo a Le Rich y Milner es realmente monumental en la comprensión de las enfermedades y es además un punto de partida muy importante en el desarrollo de la epidemiología. Las contribuciones de Fracastorio son complementadas por Sydenham (1624-1689) que es considerado como el padre de la epidemiología por sus agudas observaciones sobre disentería, gota, malaria, viruela, sarampión, sífilis y tuberculosis. Sin embargo aún con estos avances, siguió dominando la teoría miasmática hasta que Pasteur y los héroes de éste relato, los entomólogos demostraron el papel de diversos microorganismos en muchas enfermedades y sus formas de transmisión.

              Â· EL FONOLL, UN PUEBLO NUDISTA.        


       En un paraje de belleza insólita en la provincia de Tarragona está el único pueblo naturista de España, donde el nudismo es común en sus visitantes: desde magistrados, miembros de la Guardia Civil y diputados hasta un ex franciscano.

       La mañana viene pespunteada de nubes. Casi todos los veraneantes de El Fonoll se han ajustado camisetas y pantalones cortos, a su pesar. Amenaza lluvia en este pueblo recuperado del interior de Cataluña, exactamente en la zona del municipio de Passanant (a 50 kilómetros de Tarragona y a 95 de Barcelona), situado en un valle privilegiado que descansa sobre el pecho de una loma. 
       Llegar por vez primera hasta aquí requiere cierta dosis de paciencia, capacidad de aventura y resistencia a las curvas. Es el peaje necesario para conocer el único pueblo naturista de España, concebido como tal.
       Sale de nuevo el sol, y la ceremonia de los cuerpos comienza su danza mansa, despereza su naturalidad, esa extraña naturalidad de vivir desnudo, como los hijos de la mar. En El Fonoll hay una liturgia perpetua del cuerpo y una comunión permanente con los principios naturales. Es otra forma de entender las vacaciones de verano. Familias, parejas, lobos esteparios y grupos de amigos escogen cada año El Fonoll para pasar unos días en contacto permanente con el bosque, en una finca de 140 hectáreas en cuyo corazón late este pueblo que llevaba más de 60 años abandonado, selvático y virgen a fuerza de olvido, a golpe de balas de la Guerra Civil, que aquí se sintió con fuerza.
       Fue Emili Vives quien, hace cinco años, empujado por su afán naturista y su vocación nudista se propuso darle vida al inmenso espacio natural que había adquirido. Poco a poco fue recuperando las casas que apenas conservaban algún muro de carga en pie.
       En su primer propósito estaba lo que hoy ya comienza a perfilarse en El Fonoll, una reserva de libertad capaz de acoger a 200 personas los fines de semana, con todo tipo de servicios, aprecios más que asequibles: seis casas familiares (equipadas) con capacidad para cinco personas, 12 apartamentos de dos, 20 minúsculas viviendas, un terreno de acampada, actividades deportivas, zonas de reunión, gimnasio, biblioteca, supermercado..., aunque todavía queda mucho por hacer, por ejemplo, que el agua corriente llegue hasta el lugar de acampada. Aunque todo se andará.
       Eso sí, sólo hay una norma insalvable para quien llega a este pueblo que vuelve a vibrar: ir desnudo. Y en esto no hay concesión.
       Desde lo alto del camino que conduce a El Fonoll, un enjambre de cuerpos apuntala la excepción del entorno, asaeteado de higueras, arces, cervales, roble valenciano, fresnos y pino rojo y piñonero.
       Los días se resuelven en una normalidad inusual. Pero es la normalidad que Emili Vives buscó tanto tiempo, al fin lograda, como un sueño con mimbres de imposible que se ha hecho verdad. «El naturismo es una filosofía muy completa. Un naturista no es sólo nudista, también suele ser vegetariano, ecologista y busca alternativas naturales para la salud, por ejemplo. Eso sí, cada cual escoge lo que más le apetece, aquí no hay restricciones, no pertenecemos a ninguna religión. La libertad individual es el primer y casi único principio».

       En los cuatro años que lleva funcionando El Fonoll, más de 12.000 personas han pasado por el pueblo para participar de esta forma de vida en la que el respeto, el silencio y la Naturaleza se abrazan. Gentes de muy distinto ámbito. ¿Quién se atrevería a pasar unos días compartiendo su desnudez con sus vecinos? «Mucha más gente de la que se cree opta por el nudismo. Además, aquí somos muy cuidadosos con los visitantes. No admitimos a cualquiera», aclara Emili.

       Eso sí, el eclecticismo se impone en ese imaginario libro de registros que es la memoria de Vives. Un teniente de la Guardia Civil, magistrados, algún diputado de Esquerra Republicana y hasta un ex franciscano son habituales en El Fonoll. ¿Un miembro de la Benemérita y un magistrado? «Pues anda que un ex franciscano», exclama alguien. «Es que aquí viene la gente a desconectar. El entorno es idóneo. Puedes pasear por el campo hasta hartarte, charlar con quien quieras, dar de comer a los animales de la granja, realizar rutas a caballo por el monte, sumergirte en un baño tonificador de arcilla. Además, la paz es absoluta», señala Emili Vives.

       El silencio. El silencio puede ser atroz y festivo a un tiempo; limpio y frondoso a la vez. La iglesia del siglo XIII, en la parte baja del pueblo -cosa insólita-, se convierte en vigía pagana de este espacio, coto de libertad. Sobresale en ella una cruz de absis en piedra que parte uno de sus ventanucos y que, aseguran, es única en el románico de Cataluña. De ahí hacia arriba se despereza el pueblo, ribeteado todavía de algunos muros sin restaurar. «Este es un proyecto lento y estoy solo para llevarlo hacia adelante. Eso sí, tengo bastantes ideas maduradas, como la de levantar un pequeño hotel que cumpla con todas las necesidades de los viajeros más exigentes. Nudista, por supuesto», aclara el creador de esta iniciativa.
       Ana y Enric, de Barcelona, llevan tres años asistiendo a El Fonoll cada verano. «Somos ya veteranos en esto. Hace años que nos interesamos por la biocultura y ello, en nuestro caso, se relaciona directamente con el nudismo. No sé por qué, para algunos, desnudarse fuera de la playa está considerado anormal. Hay demasiados tabúes sobre el tema. Sobre todo en algunos adolescentes, pero el pudor es un sarampión que se cura con la edad», comentan.
       La tarde está casi vencida en el pueblo y, si la temperatura lo permite, después de la cena se realizará alguna excursión nocturna. Con la luz de la luna no sólo se transforma el paisaje, también la sinfonía desordenada del bosque se hace otra. La oscuridad está sucesivamente arañada de aves nocturnas y otros cometas de la noche. «No imaginas el placer que supone hacer una excursión a la luz de la luna. Casi más que por el día», explica Vives.
       ¿Y en esas excursiones no se cruzan con otros paseantes vestidos? «Alguna vez, pero por el día. Generalmente los textiles no se asombran demasiado porque saben de los gustos de los que estamos aquí». Textil es el término con el que los nudistas se refieren a cualquier persona con ropa. Es una suerte de código ecologista que por momentos alcanza semejanzas con los diálogos de las novelas de ciencia ficción.
       Aquí los textiles no están bien vistos. Es decir, que cualquiera que se acerque a El Fonoll, aunque sea para pasar un solo día, debe ir desnudo. «Aquí no queremos mirones. No nos gusta ser el centro de ningún espectáculo», advierte Pere, otro de los habituales del pueblo en vacaciones. «A mi mujer y a mí nos parece más natural ir desnudos. A nosotros nos estorba la ropa. Sin embargo, no soy vegetariano», asegura con cierta sorna. «Mira, si hubiesen hecho un Gran Hermano naturista la gente asumiría mucho mejor el nudismo. El problema estriba en la educación judeocristiana que nos han impartido».
       La cena en El Fonoll es otro momento de convivencia, para quien quiera. Se repasa el día, se habla de las actividades que ha hecho cada uno... Por ejemplo, sobre lo aprendido en algunos de los seminarios que suelen impartirse: sobre medicina natural y plantas medicinales, sobre dietética, sobre danza y expresión corporal, sobre sexualidad...
       Pero también hay bromas. Lo solemne queda apartado, como en un pacto tácito. «¿Habrá algo más natural que ir en pelotas?», comenta un huésped. La pregunta queda en el aire. La respuesta parece obvia, pero siempre hay una primera vez. Aunque sea este un pueblo sin pudor, ni pecado concebido. Aunque la noche se acode en el bosque vestida de desnudez.

    Itinerario de un sueño conseguido

       Hace cinco años, Emili Vives, ingeniero, compró El Fonoll. Mejor, la finca en la que está El Fonoll. Cuando le dijeron que aquel pueblo estaba abandonado, puso en marcha los resortes del deseo, cumpliendo así una de sus ilusiones. «La primera vez que llegué aquí me tumbé en el césped, miré al fondo y tuve claro que lo dejaba todo para empeñarme en este proyecto».

       Así fue, delegó en sus negocios y se puso a rehabilitar este espacio. «Aún queda mucho por hacer, tengo iniciativas que me llevarán años, pero cuando echo la vista atrás veo que he ido cumpliendo mis objetivos». Desde entonces, sus convicciones naturistas se convirtieron en un modo de vida. Ahora estimula a que los demás compartan y comprendan las ventajas del desnudo.

       ·  ·  ·

              Mengapa Tidak Mau Ingkar Kepada Thaghut?        
    Menjadi seorang muslim adalah menjadi seorang muwahhid (ahli Tauhid). Tauhid merupakan pesan abadi para utusan Allah سبحانه و تعالى kepada umat manusia dari zaman ke zaman. وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَسُولاأَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ Dan sesungguhnya Kami telah mengutus rasul pada tiap-tiap umat (untuk menyerukan): "Sembahlah Allah (saja), dan jauhilah Thaghut itu." (QS. An-Nahl [16] : 36) Pesan ini dibawa oleh setiap Nabi dan Rasul Allah sepanjang masa. Setiap umat telah mendengar pesan abadi para Rasul Allah ini. Suatu pesan yang ibarat coin bersisi ganda. Ada sisi keharusan menyembah Allah سبحانه و تعالى semata dan sisi lainnya ialah menjauhi Thaghut. Adapun menurut istilah syariat, definisi yang terbaik adalah yang disebutkan Ibnul Qayyim rahimahullah: "(Thaghut) adalah setiap sesuatu yang melampui batasannya, baik yang disembah (selain Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala), atau diikuti atau ditaati (jika dia ridha diperlakukan demikian)." Definisi lain, thaghut adalah segala sesuatu yang diibadahi selain Allah (dalam keadaan dia rela). Menurut Syaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahab rahimahullah di dalam kajiannya mengenai Tauhid bahwa Thaghut itu mencakup banyak hal. Namun pimpinannya ada lima, yaitu: Iblis atau syetan Penguasa yang zalim Orang yang memutuskan perkara dengan aturan selain apa yang telah Allah سبحانه و تعالى turunkan Orang yang mengaku mengetahui perkara yang ghaib selain Allah سبحانه و تعالى Orang yang diibadati selain Allah dan dia rela dengan peribadatan itu. Orang tidak dikatakan beriman kepada Allah sehingga dia kufur (ingkar) kepada thaghut, sebab kufur kepada thaghut adalah separuh dari kalimat Tauhid لآ إله إلا الله. Dan ingkar kepada thaghut harus mencakup segala jenis thaghut, bukan sebagian saja. Bila seorang muslim beriman kepada Allah سبحانه و تعالى seraya mengingkari segala bentuk thaghut yang ada, niscaya sempurnalah imannya. Ia disebut seorang muwahhid (ahli Tauhid) sejati. مَنْ قَالَ لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللَّهُوَكَفَرَ بِمَا يُعْبَدُمِنْ دُونِ اللَّهِ حَرُمَ مَالُهُوَدَمُهُ وَحِسَابُهُ عَلَى اللَّهِ Rasulullah صلى الله عليه و سلم bersabda: “Barangsiapa mengucapkan Laa ilaha illa Allah dan ingkar terhadap penghambaan kepada selain Allah, maka terpeliharalah hartanya, darahnya dan hisabnya (perhitungan amalnya) terserah Allah.” (HR. Muslim 1/119) Jadi, utuhnya Tauhid seorang muslim adalah ketika berpadu di dalam dirinya keimanan akan Allah سبحانه و تعالى dibarengi dengan berlepas dirinya dari penghambaan kepada apapun atau siapapun selain Allah سبحانه و تعالى alias thaghut. Inilah yang sering disebut dengan pasangan al-wala’ (loyalitas/kesetiaan) dan al-bara’ (disasosiasi/berlepas diri). Tidak dikatakan beriman seorang yang mengaku muslim bila ia hanya wala’ kepada Allah سبحانه و تعالى namun tidak bersedia untuk bara’ dari thaghut. Perumpamaannya seperti seorang yang ingin sehat dan bugar tetapi dengan jalan memakan makanan yang menyehatkan, bergizi lagi mengandung nutrisi tinggi sambil tetap membiarkan diri mengkonsumsi makanan-makanan yang mengandung racun, toxic dan merusak tubuh. Bagaimana ia akan benar-benar menjadi sehat dan bugar? Mustahil. Demikian pula dengan seorang muslim yang ingin diterima Allah سبحانه و تعالى . Mustahil hal itu akan bisa terwujud bila di satu sisi ia menyerahkan wala’-nya kepada Allah سبحانه و تعالى , mengaku meyakini kebenaran ajaran dienullah Al-Islam serta menjadikan Nabi Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم sebagai teladan namun pada saat yang sama ia tetap menyerahkan wala’-nya juga kepada pihak thaghut, meyakini kebenaran ideologi, aturan dan hukum thaghut serta menokohkan para sosok pemimpin thaghut dalam kehidupan sehari-hari. Mustahil keinginannya untuk diterima Allah سبحانه و تعالى sebagai seorang muslim alias hamba yang menyerahkan diri kepada Allah سبحانه و تعالى bakal tercapai....! Itulah rahasianya mengapa setiap khutbah jumat para khotib dari atas mimbar senantiasa mewasiatkan jamaah untuk bertaqwa dengan sebenar-benarnya taqwa kepada Allah سبحانه و تعالى . Karena hanya dengan itulah seorang manusia berpeluang untuk menemui ajal dalam keadaan menjadi seorang muslim. يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا اتَّقُوا اللَّهَ حَقَّتُقَاتِهِ وَلا تَمُوتُنَّ إِلا وَأَنْتُمْ مُسْلِمُونَ “Hai orang-orang yang beriman, bertaqwalah kepada Allah sebenar-benar taqwa kepada-Nya; dan janganlah sekali-kali kamu mati melainkan dalam keadaan sebagai muslim.” (QS. Ali-Imran [3] : 102) Seorang muslim yang di satu sisi ber-wala’ kepada Allah سبحانه و تعالى namun di lain sisi juga ber-wala’ kepada thaghut adalah seorang muslim yang berdusta. Sebab pihak yang ber-wala' kepada thaghut berarti menjadikan thaghut tersebut menjadi wali-nya (pemimpin, pelindung dan penolongnya). Dan itu berarti ia tidak bisa disebut seorang yang beriman. Padahal ia tidak mau disebut sebagai seorang kafir. Di dalam Al-Qur’an Allah سبحانه و تعالى menyatakan bahwa yang ber-wala’ kepada Allah سبحانه و تعالى berarti menjadikan Allah سبحانه و تعالى sebagai Wali-nya (pemimpin, pelindung dan penolongnya). Dan mereka itulahlah orang-orang yang beriman. Sedangkan yang ber-wala’ kepada thaghut adalah kaum kafir. Bagaimana mungkin di dalam diri satu orang ada dua identitas yang bertolak-belakang? Mustahil. اللَّهُ وَلِيُّ الَّذِينَ آمَنُوايُخْرِجُهُمْ مِنَ الظُّلُمَاتِإِلَى النُّورِ وَالَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَوْلِيَاؤُهُمُالطَّاغُوتُ يُخْرِجُونَهُمْ مِنَالنُّورِ إِلَى الظُّلُمَاتِ “Allah Pelindung orang-orang yang beriman; Dia mengeluarkan mereka dari kegelapan (kekafiran) kepada cahaya (iman). Dan orang-orang yang kafir, pelindung-pelindungnya ialah thaghut, yang mengeluarkan mereka dari cahaya kepada kegelapan (kekafiran).” (QS. Al-Baqarah [2] : 257) Manusia yang bersikap ganda dalam menyerahkan wala’-nya berarti telah mendustakan pengakuan dirinya sebagai seorang yang beriman. Bagaimana bisa ia di satu sisi ber-Wali-kan Allah سبحانه و تعالى tetapi pada saat yang bersamaan ber-wali-kan thaghut? Bagimana mungkin di satu sisi ia ingin hidup dalam cahaya (iman) yang terang benderang padahal setiap saat ia justeru semakin menuju kepada kegelapan (kekafiran)? Sungguh, ia adalah seorang pendusta...! Inilah sebabnya Allah سبحانه و تعالى tidak membiarkan manusia sekadar mengaku kalau dirinya beriman lalu tidak mengalami ujian lebih lanjut. Ujian di dalam kehidupan di dunia merupakan sarana untuk menyingkap siapa yang jujur dalam pengakuan keimanannya dan siapa yang berdusta. أَحَسِبَ النَّاسُ أَنْ يُتْرَكُواأَنْ يَقُولُوا آمَنَّا وَهُمْ لا يُفْتَنُونَوَلَقَدْ فَتَنَّا الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِهِمْفَلَيَعْلَمَنَّ اللَّهُ الَّذِينَصَدَقُوا وَلَيَعْلَمَنَّ الْكَاذِبِينَ “Apakah manusia itu mengira bahwa mereka dibiarkan (saja) mengatakan: "Kami telah beriman", sedang mereka tidak diuji lagi? Dan sesungguhnya Kami telah menguji orang-orang yang sebelum mereka, maka sesungguhnya Allah mengetahui orang-orang yang benar dan sesungguhnya Dia mengetahui orang-orang yang dusta.” (QS. Al-Ankabut [29] : 2-3) Dewasa ini kita sedang menjalani era penuh fitnah (ujian). Belum pernah ummat Islam mengalami era yang lebih pahit daripada era sekarang. Bayangkan...! Allah سبحانه و تعالى menguji kaum beriman dengan mengizinkan kepemimpinan dunia secara global diserahkan kepada kaum kuffar. Berarti perjalanan dunia dewasa ini sedang disetir oleh para thawaghit (bentuk jamak dari kata thaghut). Aturan dan hukum yang diberlakukan juga merupakan aturan thaghut hasil rumusan para thaghut. Sementara aturan dan hukum Allah سبحانه و تعالى tidak diizinkan untuk diberlakukan, malah dilabel sebagai aturan yang kuno, tidak sesuai dengan zaman modern dan dipandang zalim. Na’udzubillaaahi min dzaalika...! Hampir setiap hari kita dengar kabar bahwa di Amerika serta Eropa kaum kuffar dan para pemimpinnya menolak the Shariah Law(syariat hukum Allah سبحانه و تعالى). Kalau itu hanya terjadi di negeri-negeri mereka, kita masih bisa maklumi. Tetapi pahitnya, hal ini sudah menjadi trend (kecenderungan umum) di negeri-negeri berpenduduk mayoritas muslim juga. Tidak sedikit kaum muslimin yang terang-terangan menolak diberlakukannya syariat hukum Allah سبحانه و تعالى . Dia mengaku ber-Wali-kan Allah سبحانه و تعالى tetapi ia lebih rela tunduk kepada hukum thaghut..! Kondisi dan derajat ujian yang ummat Islam hadapi dewasa ini sudah sangat mirip dengan gambaran hadits Nabi صلى الله عليه و سلم sebagai berikut: لَتَتَّبِعُنَّ سَنَنَ الَّذِينَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْشِبْرًا بِشِبْرٍ وَذِرَاعًا بِذِرَاعٍحَتَّى لَوْ دَخَلُوا فِيجُحْرِ ضَبٍّلَاتَّبَعْتُمُوهُمْ قُلْنَا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِآلْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى قَالَ فَمَنْ Rasulullah صلى الله عليه و سلم bersabda: "Sungguh, kalian benar-benar akan mengikuti kebiasaan orang-orang sebelum kalian sejengkal demi sejengkal dan sehasta demi sehasta, sehingga sekiranya mereka masuk ke dalam lubang biawak pun kalian pasti akan mengikuti mereka." Kami bertanya; "Wahai Rasulullah, apakah mereka itu Yahudi dan Nasrani?" Beliau menjawab: "Siapa lagi kalau bukan mereka." (HR. Muslim 4822) Kita tidak bisa pungkiri bahwa kepemimpinan global dunia sedang di tangan masyarakat barat. Mereka tidak lain merupakan the Judeo-Christian Civilization (peradaban Yahudi-Nasrani). Kemudian kita saksikan begitu banyak kaum muslimin beserta para pemimpinnya mengekor kepada peradaban mereka dalam hampir segenap aspek kehidupan di dunia. Padahal sikap demikian sama saja dengan sikap wala’ ganda. Di satu sisi ingin ber-Wali-kan Allah سبحانه و تعالى tetapi di lain sisi membiarkan diri juga menjadikan thaghut sebagai wali pula. Allah سبحانه و تعالى jelas-jelas melarang hal ini. Malah Allah سبحانه و تعالى menggambarkan mereka yang bersikap demikian sama saja telah menjadi bahagian dari golongan mereka, yang berarti keluar dari identitas sebagai kaum muslimin....! يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوالا تَتَّخِذُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَىأَوْلِيَاءَ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍوَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْإِنَّ اللَّهَ لا يَهْدِي الْقَوْمَ الظَّالِمِينَ “Hai orang-orang yang beriman, janganlah kamu mengambil orang-orang Yahudi dan Nasrani menjadi wali-walimu (pemimpin-pemimpinmu); sebahagian mereka adalah pemimpin bagi sebahagian yang lain. Barang siapa di antara kamu mengambil mereka menjadi pemimpin, maka sesungguhnya orang itu termasuk golongan mereka. Sesungguhnya Allah tidak memberi petunjuk kepada orang-orang yang zalim.” (QS. Al-Maidah [5] : 51) Dan mereka yang mengekor kepada kaum kuffar —baik dari kalangan ahli Kitab maupun kaum musyrikin— berarti telah menyediakan kehidupannya untuk diatur berdasarkan hukum thaghut padahal mereka mengaku beriman....! أَلَمْ تَرَ إِلَى الَّذِينَ يَزْعُمُونَأَنَّهُمْ آمَنُوا بِمَا أُنْزِلَ إِلَيْكَوَمَا أُنْزِلَ مِنْ قَبْلِكَيُرِيدُونَ أَنْ يَتَحَاكَمُوا إِلَى الطَّاغُوتِوَقَدْ أُمِرُوا أَنْ يَكْفُرُوا بِهِوَيُرِيدُ الشَّيْطَانُأَنْ يُضِلَّهُمْ ضَلالا بَعِيدًا “Apakah kamu tidak memperhatikan orang-orang yang mengaku dirinya telah beriman kepada apa yang diturunkan kepadamu dan kepada apa yang diturunkan sebelum kamu? Mereka hendak berhakim kepada thaghut, padahal mereka telah diperintah mengingkari thaghut itu. Dan syaitan bermaksud menyesatkan mereka (dengan) penyesatan yang sejauh-jauhnya.” (QS. An-Nisa [4] : 60) Sungguh, setelah memperhatikan berbagai peringatan dan penjelasan Allah سبحانه و تعالى di atas yang begitu terang, hanya satu pertanyaan yang menggelayut di fikiran seorang muslim-muwahhid sejati: mengapa gerangan masih ada orang yang mengaku dirinya muslim namun tidak mau mengingkari thaghut? Wallahu a’lam bish-showwaab.
              Liberals, Scientism, and the Politics of Pleasure        
    Behold the anthem of modern liberalism (Though you’ve probably already seen it, WARNING: vulgar and insanely stupid. After viewing, you’ll probably want to shower, pray, and spend some time with a Rubik’s Cube.):

    So I now know who Rachel Bloom is. Tragically, I can’t imagine a worse introduction. As a result of this sorry, sad, sick episode (everyone involved should be forced to turn in any degrees or diplomas they possess), this video, Nye, and Bloom have all been thoroughly—and deservedly—ridiculed. That’s what happens when one surrenders three whole minutes of a television program—that is supposedly devoted to “exploring scientific issues”—to a segment that appears to have been written, produced, and choreographed by delinquent 12 year-olds. (Please tell me they are the only ones who will do that.)

    Nevertheless, no one who pays much attention to the words and works of liberalism should be too surprised by this. Though, admittedly, I think most of today’s liberals wouldn’t allow themselves participation in such blatant, cartoonish, stupidity. (If this is not the case, the country’s in even worse shape than I imagined.) I suppose Nye and Bloom’s efforts are just further evidence that we are indeed a culture nearly bereft of shame.

    Equally shameful were the recent actions of a Philadelphia public high school assistant principal. After encountering a couple of pro-life teenagers on a public sidewalk outside the school where he works, Zach Ruff—dean of academics and student life at STEM Academy in Downingtown, PA—became unhinged. Ruff did not like his students being presented with a biblical, pro-life message. Upon seeing posters of aborted children, Ruff told the young pro-life messengers—16-year-old Conner Haines and his 19-year-old sister Lauren—“They’re not children, they’re cells! ...You’re at a science-based school, those are cells!”

    When Conner Haines mentioned Jesus, repentance, and the forgiveness of sin, Ruff called the Bible a “book of fiction” and yelled, “Public school, we don’t believe in that here!” Ruff added, “I’m as gay as the day is long and twice as sunny. I don’t give a f*** what you think Jesus tells me and what I should and should not be doing.” Ruff went so far as to wag his finger in Conner’s face and said, “Shut your mouth and don’t talk to my students. You do not have permission to speak and engage.”

    Wow. How “tolerant.”

    Imagine that. Another liberal screaming at conservatives to shut-up. I wonder if Ruff ever attended UC Berkeley. Do you think he believes Rachel Bloom and Bill Nye have “permission” to spew their filth? And take note of his profound grasp of “science.” According to the latest spokesman for “the party of science,” this is not a child.

    Nearly as stupid as Nye’s video—but perhaps more shocking considering the source—is a new Harvard University “factsheet” on gender dysphoria that is urging students to “fight transphobia.” The propaganda piece declares “Get the facts about gender diversity.” Some of the “facts” it presents:
    [G]ender expression, identity, and self-understanding can change from day to day… gender can be expressed through any, all, and/or none of the following ways: speech, mannerisms, clothing, reflecting on one's gender identity, sharing one's gender identity with family, friends, and/or co-workers, make-up, grooming, name and/or sex on legal documents, hormone therapy, and surgery…there are more than two sexes.
    The piece concludes by implying that failure to comply and call people by their preferred name or pronoun is a “form of systemic violence.” How ironic. Campus liberals complaining about violence.

    Notice again how the issues surrounding sex and sexuality lead liberals to absurd behaviors. Because of the ongoing debates over the moral issues in our culture, liberals often like to paint conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—as prudes obsessed with sex. Nothing could be further from the truth. Neither Christians nor conservatives (of course, not mutually exclusive) picked the fights over abortion, homosexuality, marriage, gender, and so on. Not so long ago, for the most part, our culture and our laws reflected sound moral thinking on such issues. It was only after loud, vocal, and well-funded liberals decided that we must abandon the Judeo-Christian ethic on such matters and fight for the “right” (as Bloom sang: Sex how you want it, it’s your g-dd-mn right!) to do whatever one wishes in the sexual realm that we have found our country mired in debating what was once clearly understood: it’s wrong to kill a child in the womb, the only rightful place for sex is within marriage, marriage is the union of one man and one woman, one’s gender is biological and fixed, and so on.

    For decades now, liberals have focused much of their perverse political efforts on these matters, and when possible—with real science, it’s getting harder to deny the reality of things such as life in the womb—cloaked such politics with so-called “science.” As I noted (more than once) several years ago, Nye and those like-minded aren’t devoted to science, they are adherents of “scientism.” As I said in 2013, scientism is not science, it is, rather, an abuse of the scientific method and scientific authority. Scientism is best described as a false religion, with many denominations: Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism, hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on.

    For far too many liberals, science isn’t an end unto itself. In other words, too often liberals aren’t looking for answers, they’re looking for an excuse or an opportunity to further the perverse (or big government) liberal agenda. Thus, “science” becomes merely a means to a political end.

    For this reason, C.S. Lewis warned, “I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent.” Much of the “science” championed by the modern left drips with pretentions. And whether the global warming agenda, the LGBT agenda, the abortion agenda, the education agenda, the socialist agenda, and so on, tyranny looms behind virtually every political effort of today’s left that purports to be supported by “science.”

    Exhibits A, B, and C of this tyranny are the litigious homosexual community vengefully suing Christians who don’t want to participate in a perverse redefinition of marriage, riotous campus liberals attempting to shut down speech with which they disagree, and “the debate is over” liberals who want to silence dissent on the “settled science” of man-made global warming.

    Of course, the political champion of scientism is the political arm of modern liberalism: the Democrat Party. Sadly, tens of millions of Americans have been duped into voting for democrats for two reasons in particular: the promise of “free stuff” (as Rush Limbaugh puts it, it’s hard to compete with Santa Claus), and the lure of having legal protection for most anything they can imagine to do sexually.

    In other words, today’s Democrats, for the most part, are peddling pleasure. Aided by like-minded fools in the media and the courts, their job is made even easier. Conservatives—especially Christian conservatives—must not be deterred. Given the foolish fantasies sold by lying leftists, this fight is not easy. Whether faced with threats, violence, protests, fines, jail, and so on, we must persevere and remain powerful voices for truth in these grave matters.

    (See this column at American Thinker.)

    Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
    At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
    Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America

              BULA CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO         

    Paulo IV

    Sigue aquí el texto latino de la Bula, con traducción castellana y esclarecedora introducción a cargo del Dr. Carlos A. Disandro. Tras la difusión contemporánea de este documento y su contenido durante la segunda mitad de los años ’70, arreciaron los argumentos contrarios a su vigencia, puntualmente analizados, sistematizados y contestados, en lo que merecía una repuesta, por el propio Dr. Disandro en su trabajo Paulo IV y Benedicto XV: Precisiones Doctrinales, que se publica también en este blog para su mejor consulta por nuestros lectores. Las chicanas de nibelungos contra esta versión, la primera al castellano, no merecieron en cambio del autor de ella ni merecen análisis alguno. En todo caso el lector con versación en latín cuenta aquí con el texto oficial en este idioma. Y el que no la tiene puede confrontar con diversas traducciones a nuestra lengua y a otras modernas.




    1. Las remociones doctrinales ilícitas, contrarias a la Fe y la Tradición, acometidas por el progresismo dia­léctico en la Iglesia; las remociones cultuales, surgi­das de esos mismos trasfondos, principio de una grave destrucción de los ritos y del lenguaje litúrgico; y en fin la guerra semántica que afecta la totalidad orgánica de la Iglesia —mística, culto, doctrina, teología disciplina, etc.— proceden simplemente a dar por abolido un pasado venerable —y que es además intocable— porque pretenden establecer “otra” iglesia: la intramundana, la que sale de la historia evolutiva y de la convergencia ecuménica de una supuesta religiosidad universal. No debe extrañarnos pues que la confusión, apoderada del corazón del santuario, se extienda a márgenes imprevisibles, carentes a veces de una comprensión cabal de la Fe.
    Tal sería la cuestión —marginal— suscitada tanto en círculos tradicionalistas como progresistas, acerca de la admisión de cardenales excomulgados, en Cónclaves legítimos, por la precisa mención de tal circunstancia en la Constitución Apostólica de Pío XII Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, del 9 de octubre de 1945, que subrogó disposiciones disciplinariascanónicas precedentes, en particular la Constitución Apostólica de Pío X Vacante Sede Apostolica, del 25 de diciembre de 1904 (en la que también se encuentra tal admisión). La cuestión cobra en círculos tradicionalistas especial relevancia por el texto de las puntualizaciones de Mons. Lefebvre, con motivo del “cónclave” que eligió al papa Luciani (falso papa para nosotros), situación que se repitió desde luego con el segundo “cónclave” del año 1978 que eligió al papa Wojtila (falso asimismo para nosotros).
    En efecto, Mons. Lefebvre para reforzar su opinión sobre posibles criterios de nulidad del cónclave, hace notar que el motu proprio de Paulo VI ingrvescentes aetatem (sin efecto para nosotros por ser Paulo VI falso papa), al des­pojar de su derecho al voto a ciertos Cardenales por ra­zones de edad, incurría en una contradicción, pues —dice el comunicado— incluso los cardenales excomulgados tienen grave obligación de votar. Pero el argumento de Mons. Le­febvre, digámoslo francamente, es débil, en todo sentido, pues el motu proprio montiniano resulta complemento de la Constitución de Paulo VI de eligendo pontifice, que subro­gó la de Pío XII (ya mencionada), subrogación que sigue planteando de todas maneras, ella misma, forzosos proble­mas de fondo. En efecto, ES EL SISTEMA MONTINIANO DE USAR DE LA DISCIPLINA CANÓNICA PARA ABATIR LA DOCTRINA Y LA TRADICIÓN, lo que importa y lo que pone al descubierto el ca­rácter írrito de tales decisiones o subrogaciones. De cualquier modo salió a luz la cuestión de “cardenales excomul­gados”, legítimamente presentes en un Cónclave legítimo (según disposición de Pío X y Pío XII, pontífices legíti­mos), en la línea de documentos precedentes que ahora no interesan. Pero todo esto ocurría en un contexto canónico absolutamente distinto.

    2. Entretanto a comienzos de 1978, antes de la muerte de Paulo VI, habíamos publicado en Córdoba (Argentina) la Bula de Paulo IV Cum ex apostolatus officio, y habíamos hecho co­nocer, por primera vez en castellano, el motu proprio de San pío V Inter multiplices, que confirma y renueva las disposi­ciones de la Bula antedicha de Paulo IV. Había aparentemente una contradicción: quienes afirmábamos la vigencia de la Bu­la y del motu propriomencionados, enfrentábamos una resolu­ción de Pío XII, que parecía dirimir, en favor de los progre­sistas, la cuestión de “cardenales DESPOJADOS del derecho al voto”. Y desaparecían nuestros argumentos sobre la ilegiti­midad y carácter írrito del Cónclave, integrado por una am­plia mayoría de cardenales montinianos. Pero todo esto en realidad, o configura un sofisma que confunde todos los pla­nos conceptuales, como vamos a ver, o simplemente traduce una ignorancia descomunal en cuanto a las relaciones entre DOCTRINA Y DISCIPLINA.

    3. No contenta con esto, la propaganda confusionista que parece haber invadido masivamente toda la cristiandad, qui­zá como testimonio o preludio de la gran apostasía explí­cita, comenzó a reforzar los argumentos contrarios a la Bula, sosteniendo. que la misma había sido derogada por el Código Canónico de Benedicto XV. Planteábanse así dos cues­tiones complementarias que parecían favorecer al tradicionalismo mitigado y por ende al progresismo: que una bula a perpetuidad podía ser abrogada (con que caía un argumen­to canónico en favor de la Bula Quo primum); y segundo, que un Código disciplinario podía dirimir como legislación positiva de la Iglesia una cuestión que se refiere al co­razón mismo de la doctrina. La disciplinacobraba así primacía sobre la doctrina, y se cumplía también, de modo subrepticio pero eficaz, uno de los grandes anhelos del progresismo: incluir todas las disputas, antiguas y mo­dernas, en el contexto de una ley disciplinaria. Es lógico que el cambio de ésta podría entrañar un cambio de doctrina, diestramente velado en la operación de trasbor­do teológico y semántico. Pues si hasta el Culto resulta ser disciplina (para los progresistas por cierto) no se veía desde luego por qué Paulo VI no podía dictar, refor­mar, anular o confirmar su novus ordo contra la TRADICIÓN, EN NOMBRE DE LA DISCIPLINA. Pues para la mentalidad his­toricista, judeo-cristiana del progresismo, en el terreno de la disciplina acontecían todas las aboliciones, emersio­nes o cambios congruentes, en tanto que la Doctrina tradu­ciría el nivel sincrónico alcanzado en tales procesos evo­lutivos (de la disciplina).

    4. He aquí expuestos con la mayor crudeza posible el “nue­vo ruido” contrario a la verdadera Tradición, las falsas sonancias que quieren sepultar (si ello fuera posible pa­ra siempre) la inconsútil resonancia de la Tradición, que es como la túnica de Cristo, sin ruptura, y por ende sin ensamblaje semántico de acomodación y cambio, de abolición, cambio o aggiornamento. Subrayo esta cuestión teológica: en la Iglesia el vínculo de la DOCTRINA con la DISCIPLINA sigue el curso de la FE INVIOLABLE, de la PARÁDOSIS (tra­ditio) apostólica, para cuyo cuidado, vigilancia y profe­rición existe el Pontificado. Pensar en un pontífice encar­gado de subvertir este vínculo, es una magna contradicción de nuestros tiempos apóstatas, singularmente vigentes en el largo y nefasto reinado de Paulo VI.


    1. Para responder adecuadamente a tales requisitorias, es preciso señalar en primer término que conocemos perfec­tamente el tenor de los documentos esgrimidos por el enemigo o el adversario teológico para asustar a los tibios, y que al mismo tiempo advertimos la torcida utilización de antecedentes, sentencias y textos, nítidos de suyo y coherentes tanto con la Bula de Paulo IV y el motu proprio de Pío V, como con el sensus teológico de la tradición canónica. Insisto: se trata de una cuestión doctrinal, y no meramente disciplinaria, y por ello en la Introducción a la edición del texto latino de dicha Bula discerníamos precisamente la DOCTRINA de PauIo IV, en el cabal reque­rimiento teológico de la cuestión. Y por otra parte conviene destacar (en la contraofensiva que definimos) cierta impudicia en afirmaciones, al parecer contundentes, pero que implican un eficaz engaño, que es menester circunscribir sin atenuaciones. ¿Dónde y por qué se interrumpió la legitimidad en el paso de Pío XII a Paulo VI, si la e­lección de éste aconteció en un cónclave legítimo, signa­do por la Constitución de Pío XII Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis? Aquí se yergue precisamente la Bula acusadora (anterior y superioral documento disciplinario del gran pontí­fice moderno): si la Bula por cualquier procedimiento ca­nónico pudo ser y fue anulada (por ejemplo por el Código Canónico de Benedicto XV) los progresistas pisarían en terreno firme de continuidad, fuera de otras consecuencias TEOLÓGICAS importantes ya mencionadas; pero si la Bula no pudo ni puede ser anulada, por ese y por ningún otro procedimiento canónico legítimo, entonces nosotros consolidamos nuestro criterio dirimente acerca de un supuesto pon­tificado (el de Paulo VI) y enfrentamos a sus sucesores (írritos) QUE SON SUCESORES EN LA VACANCIA Y DE LA VACANCIA. Como se ve no modifica en nada esta grave cuestión TEOLOGICA la mención de una disposición disciplinaria (en cuanto a restringir o ampliar un castigo en los cardenales excomulgados), ni de ella surge ninguna sustentación mayor e incuestionable para la VACANCIA DE ROMA DURANTE EL SU­PUESTO PONTIFICADO DE MONTINI. Aclaro sin embargo que aun­que el problema de la Bula es importantísimo, no es el ú­nico expediente para dirimir tal VACANCIA del período mon­tiniano y post-montiniano. Pero aquí nos ocupamos de una precisa cuestión, y nada más, a saber, relación de la Bu­la de Paulo IV y el Código de Benedicto XV; permanencia de la Bula, complementada por las Constituciones Apostólicas de Pío X y Pío XII, si nos atenemos precisamente al Canon 160.

    2. Para clarificar de modo definitivo estas cuestiones conviene rememorar brevemente los hitos que nos llevan al umbral de Juan XXIII, en lo que atañe a la elección con­clavística canónica. Para evitar disputas sin atingencia con el asunto aclaremos una vez más lo siguiente: que Pau­lo VI in totum se presenta con rasgos de ruptura de la tradición, e inaugura para nosotros de modo cierto la VACANCIA DEL PONTIFICADO ROMANO, y por ende en la vacancia (tesis mayor) se anulan ipso facto todas las supuestas cuestiones emergentes de sus documentos, los cónclaves que siguieron a su muerte (de los antipapas Luciani y Wojtyla), etc.
    Los hitos aludidos se refieren entonces en cuanto a la elección del Pontífice Romano a la Constitución Apostólica de San Pío X, ya indicada, del 25 de diciembre de 1904; al motu proprio de Pío XI Cum proxime del lº de marzo de 1922, y a la Constitución Apostólica de Pío XII, que des­de 1945 hasta el primer cónclave de 1978, regló la disci­plina electiva del pontífice. Lo que viene después es, co­mo dije, otra cosa.
    En segundo lugar, la cuestión del vínculo entre Código de Derecho Canónico de Benedicto XV y Bula de Paulo IV, que algunos afirman, incluso entre los tradicionalistas, habría sido abolida por el citado corpus jurídico moderno. Pero esta afirmación carece de todo fundamento, tanto en la letra como en el espíritu de esta legislación eclesiás­tica. Veamos en primer lugar esta cuestión confusa para examinar luego el problema de los cardenales excomulgados.

    3. El Código no considera para nada las cuestiones inclui­das en la Bula, y no podría hacerlo además porque regla, diríamos, sobre derecho común. Tampoco hay ni puede haber referencia de ninguna clase a tales alternativas canónicas de la Fe, en los documentos que implementan el Código: la Constitución Providentissima Mater Ecclesia, que promulga­ba el Código, del 27 de mayo de 1917; y el motu proprio Cum iuris Canonici, del 15 de setiembre de 1917 (con el que Benedicto XV crea una comisión cardenalicia para la interpretación auténtica del Código). Quede esto defini­tivamente aclarado. Ya he puntualizado que en cuanto a las disposiciones disciplinarias, el Canon 160 reconocía explícitamente como ley disciplinaria eclesiástica para la elección pontificia la Constitución de San pío X del 25 de diciembre de 1904 (siguiendo los lineamientos que el predecesor de Benedicto XV había dispuesto en esta materia de ordenamiento canónico). Nada tiene que hacer aquí la cuestión dirimida por la Bula, y San Pío X, menos que nadie, hubiera abierto el camino a la herejía y a la apos­tasía en el cuerpo jerárquico romano. Ahora bien, tratán­dose de una disposición disciplinaria precisamente, aquel­la Constitución de 1904, fue subrogada en 1945 por la Constitución Apostólica de Pío XII Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, sin que se modificara en absoluto la coherencia legislativa hasta aquí subrayada, y la referencia de la disciplinaa la doctrina. Esta Constitución de 1945 integra el corpus como legislación particularísima, ya que Romano Pontífice hay uno solo. Tal fue creo el pensamiento de Pío X al es­tablecer, en un documento especialísimo, y reglar discipli­nariamente la elección del Papa, y tal fue el sentido de la subrogación por Pío XII. Ese ordenamiento canónico (de San Pío X y de Pío XII) signó la elección de todos los pontífices (legítimos o no) hasta el caso del papa Lucia­ni. O sea Benedicto XV, Pío XI, Pío XII, Juan XXIII y Pau­lo VI advinieron al pontificado según aquellas normas, mo­dificadas precisamente por Montini DENTRO DE LA GENERAL SUBVERSIÓN DOCTRINAL DE SU PONTIFICADO. Aquí comienza pues otra época, otra etapa que está como dijimos fuera de nuestra consideración, por invalidación propia de la vacancia montiniana.

    4. Ahora bien ¿cómo podían el Código o las Constituciones Apostólicas aludidas establecer la nulidad de la Bula que se refiere a explícitas condiciones de la Fe en la jerar­quía? La Bula no es una disposición particular para la elección pontificia, sino una explícita exigencia del vín­culo entre ortodoxia de la Fe y condición cardenalicia o jerárquica. Ni el Código ni otro documento cualquiera a­nula NI PUEDE ANULAR LA BULA, es decir, anular la predi­cha connaturalidad del vínculo, implícito en la Tradición, explícito en el documento del siglo XVI. La puede perfec­cionar, sí, amplificar o plenificar, pero no la puede a­bolir.
    Lo que motiva la confusión probablemente (me refiero a los de recta intención crítica), originaríase tal vez en una interpretación canonista, extralimitada respecto del marco propio DISCIPLINARIO del Código. Pues el Canon 6, después de subrayar que el código vigentem huc usque disciplinam retinet, dispone en el inciso lº la abrogación de todas las leyes, ya universales, ya particulares que se opongan a las prescripciones de este código, a no ser que acerca de las leyes particulares se prevenga expresa­mente otra cosa. Y en el inciso 6º finalmente se establece que si alguna de las demás leyes disciplinares que hasta ahora se hallaban vigentes, no se contienen ni explícita ni implícitamente en el Código, ha de afirmarse de ellas que perdieron todo su valor. Los partidarios de la abro­gación de la Bula —tradicionalistas mitigados naturalmen­te, pues para el progresismo herético esta cuestión care­ce de relevancia— colocan la Bula en el contexto del inciso 1º (en el Código en efecto no se previene expresamente lo contrario), o en el marco del inciso 6º, por cuanto no se contendría ni explícita ni implícitamente en el Códi­go. Pero todo esto es una notable confusión, repito, en­tre el sentido disciplinario del Código y el orden teoló­gico de la Fe, propuesto por la Bula para impedir la abominatio in loco sancto. Pues ningún documento de la Iglesia, de ningún tenor y naturaleza o emanado de cualquier autoridad canónica, podría legislar contra el principio, de efecto realísimo en la vida mystica de la Iglesia, a saber: que los electores/elegibles del Romano Pontífice deben ser íntegros custodios de la Fe, y que un Romano Pontífi­ce, elegido hipotéticamente en condiciones que contrarían ese principio, carece de investidura y sus actos son nu­los. Ese principio es SUPERIOR A TODO CÓDIGO y A TODO EL CÓDIGO DE BENEDICTO XV, que dispone disciplinariamente de­bajo de él (o sea en. consonancia con el principio), para las complejas circunstancias históricas en la vida orgá­nica de la Iglesia (que es la vida de la Fe), pero que no puede anular y ni siquiera limitar la vigencia y efectos de aquel principio.

    5. Los canonistas son intérpretes de la facticidad his­tórico-jurídico-eclesiástica, que reglan, armonizan, se­paran, o definen en el caso la ley, y en la ley LA VIDA DE LA FE; pero no son teólogos, ni detentan una autoridad que haga del Canon Jurídico UNA FUENTE DE LA VIDA SOBRENA­TURAL. Ningún Código de derecho eclesiástico y ningún Ca­non de semejante naturaleza es SACRAMENTUN, porque tampo­co lo es ni puede serlo la ley divina del Antiguo Testa­mento. El orden de la Gracia es de otro contexto y otra significación, y la vida de la Iglesia es en el aspecto que aquí consideramos custodio de la organicidad sacramen­tal, de la Traditio apostólica, que es sí una facticidad, pero no meramente histórica. Si todos los sacramentos a­puntan a conservar, enriquecer y profundizar la vida de la Fe, con cuánta mayor razón las disposiciones discipli­narias, QUE ESTÁN y DEBEN ESTAR AL SERVICIO DE LA VIDA SACRAMENTAL. Por eso la Bula de Paulo IV puede ser amplia­da, precisada, plenificada o completada, pero no puede ser anulada, porque se inserta directamente en el princi­pio sacramental que es la naturaleza misma de la Iglesia, no en el plano dispositivo de la norma jurídica que regla conforme a tiempos y costumbres, que ordena según dispen­sación de justicia y de gracia, y que sanciona o exime se­gún una autoridad superior al entero código. Si el princi­pio jurídico es del orden de la causa formal en la socie­dad civil —ya lo formula magistralmente Cicerón en su definición de res publica—, no integra la causa formal de la Iglesia, Sacramentum Trinitatis, y por ende trascenden­te a toda disposición jurídica, aunque ésta sea de impor­tancia fundamental en la sincronía histórica. La Bula ilus­tra y previene sobre aquel nivel teándrico (Mysterium Ec­clesiae), ¿cómo podría caducar por un código, en que cada canon apunta a dirimir el caso fáctico? ¿Cómo podría, explícita o implícitamente, dar por abolido el principio de que para ser Cardenal legítimo (es decir, fungente de la pleni­tud jurídica de su entidad mystica, no meramente excomulga­do por otras razones que veremos), o que para ser elegido Romano Pontífice o para que éste conserve la legitimidad asumida, es menester la Traditioapostólica?

    6. Pero hay otros pormenores que ilustran nuestra inter­pretación y que aquí esbozamos sumariamente. En primer lu­gar, el llamado Código de Benedicto XV es en realidad como sabemos obra de San Pío X, en diez años de intensa prepa­ración (Seguimos la ed. Miguélez-Alonso-Cabreros, Código de Derecho Canónico. Bilingüe y Comentado, Madrid 1947, es decir, puesto al día durante el pontificado de Pío XII, y anterior por tanto a todos los aggiornamentide Juan XXIII y Paulo VI. Debe consultarse esta segunda edición, que incluye las modificaciones ya mencionadas de Pío XII. Seguimos en la parte histórica la introducción de esta e­dición. Valga esta única referencia para todo el contexto ulterior de estas Precisiones doctrinales).
    Y bien, Benedicto XV lo promulgó, es verdad, muerto Pío X, pero la orientación de los trabajos fue concebida y ejecutada, en su casi totalidad bajo la prudente vigi­lancia de Pío X. Precisamente en la lucha antimodernista, difícilmente hubiera escapado a Pío X la cuestión graví­sima (DOCTRINAL, TEOLÓGICA), planteada por la Bula y el Motu proprio del siglo XVI (en cierto modo una anticipación del denodado combate de San Pío X). Recordemos brevemente la historia del Código. “Narra algún biógrafo del gran Pontífice Pío X que la misma noche de su elevación a la Cátedra de San Pedro, el 4 de agosto de 1903, pensaba ya en la obra que habría de ser la más gloriosa de su pontificado. (Ed. cit. pág. XXIII). El 19 de marzo de 1904 publicó el motu proprio Arduum sane munus, que instituía el organis­mo encargado de la tarea de codificación: una comisión cardenalicia, presidida por el mismo Papa. Las consultas, redacciones y reelaboraciones llegaron a conclusiones de­finitivas entre los años 1912-1914. Del proyecto global, completo, se enviaron copias a todos los obispos, para disponer las últimas modificaciones pertinentes. Viene la guerra 1914-1918, y muere Pío X. Benedicto XV concluye y completa el proyecto. La promulgación del Código acontece el 27 de mayo de 1917 con la constitución Providentissima Mater Ecclesia (ed. cit. pág. XLI-XLIII), en la que Benedicto XV rinde puntual homenaje a su predecesor y hace muy oportunas reflexiones sobre la legislación de la I­glesia, según el espíritu de San Pío X y luego, por el motu proprio Cum iuris canonici del 15 de setiembre de 1917 (ed. cit. pp. XLV-XLVI) instituye una comisión car­denalicia “para interpretar auténticamente los cánones del Código”. Allí reconoce nuevamente la autoría fundamental de Pío X, cuya DOCTRINA es en REALIDAD FUNDAMENTO DE ESTA DISCIPLINA. ¿Cómo podría pues abrogar la Bula de Paulo IV? Aclaremos nuevamente que en ninguno de los documentos men­cionados de Benedicto XV hay ni puede haber la más mínima alusión a la Bula, o al caso de los cardenales discrimina­do en el texto del siglo XVI. Y esta puntualización se im­pone en vista de algunos antecedentes de Benedicto XV (car­denal Della Chiesa, cuya amistad y contactos con el carde­nal Rampolla lo podrían tornar equívoco). El vínculo de Código y Bula es pues nítido.

    7. Un último argumento, y muy importante por cierto, com­pleta estas precisiones, en cuanto al Código de Benedicto XV. El Código tiene un proemio DOCTRINAL (olvidado al pa­recer por los ruidosos propagandistas contra la Bula de Paulo IV), proemio que no integra por supuesto el corpus de disposiciones canónicas (es decir, distribuidas analí­ticamente en artículos e incisos), pero que le da el sen­tido supra-jurídico, el verdadero sentido TEOLOGICO EN LA VIDA DE LA IGLESIA. En efecto, cuando se abre la edición correspondiente, antes del libro primero (ed. cit. pp. 1 ss.) que contiene exclusivamente las normas generales, distribuidas en seis títulos, nos topamos con LA PROFE­SIÓN DE FE CATÓLICA, que es en sustancia una reiteración del juramento anti-modernista (ed. cit. pp. XLVII-XLVIII). Precisamente la Bula de Paulo IV ESTÁ EN EL NIVEL DE LA PROFESIÓN (O PROFERICIÓN) DE LA FE, en cuyo nivel se iden­tifican o complementan, sin que OBSTE A ELLO EL TRANSCUR­SO DE LOS SIGLOS, justamente porque se TRATA DE LA INMUTA­BLE TRADITIO APOSTÓLICA. Afirmar pues que el Código, en cualquiera de sus capítulos, cánones, incisos (explícita o implícitamente) considera abolida la Bula, sería como afirmar que esas mismas instancias textuales del mismo Código podrían abolir algún punto de la PROFESIÓN DE FE QUE ES EL PÓRTICO, o sea la condición de todo lo demás.

    8. Y bien, esta profesión reitera el CREDO APOSTÓLICO de la unánime e incambiable Parádosis (traditio), y agrega luego algunos párrafos que parecen haber olvidado los pro­gresistas delirantes (que buscan en disposiciones jurídi­cas menores la abolición, imposible, de un CONTEXTO DOCTRINAL MAYOR), y que tampoco mantienen al parecer para cier­tos “tradicionalistas”, incoherentes desde luego, la ESTRIC­TA VIGENCIA TEOLÓGICA, es decir, viviente en la organicidad viviente de la Iglesia, que ES VIDA DE LA FE. Transcribo dos o tres párrafos, muy conocidos, pero muy tapados por el ruido de la iglesia montiniana:
    “Firmísimamente admito y abrazo las tradiciones apos­tólicas y eclesiásticas y las demás observancias y consti­tuciones de la misma Iglesia. Asimismo acepto la Sagrada Escritura conforme al sentido que le ha dado y le da la santa Madre Iglesia…” (p. XLVII).
    “Acepto y admito los ritos aprobados por la Iglesia Católica para la solemne administración de todos los Sa­cramentos. Acato y recibo todas y cada una de las cosas que acerca del pecado original y de la justificación fue­ron definidas y declaradas en el santo Concilio de Trento. Igualmente confieso que en la Misa se ofrece a un Dios ver­dadero, propio y propiciatorio Sacrificio...”
    “También admito y profeso sin la menor duda cuanto han enseñado, definido y declarado los sagrados cánones y los concilios Ecuménicos…”
    “Y al mismo tiempo todas las cosas contrarias, y cua­lesquiera herejías por la Iglesia condenadas y rechazadas y anatematizadas, yo igualmente las condeno, rechazo y a­natematizo…” (p. XLVIII).
    ¡Extraños progresistas que para abatir la Fe recurren a un documento, máxima defensa de la Fe; pero más extraños “tradicionalistas”, que atemorizados por el vano ruido de la tiranía eclesiástica de estos veinte años de ruina y confusión, olvidan las verdaderas murallas con las que es posible mantener la ciudadela de la Fe!
    ¿Qué significa pues este proemio solemne en un corpus general y casuístico, conforme a la tradición del derecho romano y a la costumbre y disposiciones seculares de la Iglesia? La pregunta ya está respondida: la DISCIPLINA es ante todo vigencia de la DOCTRINA, y si no EN LA IGLESIA CARECE DE ENTIDAD Y VIGOR. ¿Cómo podría San Pío X, autor de la magna instauratio Fidei (comenzando por el CULTO y terminando por el CÓDIGO), como podría omitir este vínculo FUNDAMENTAL? Para evitar equívocos precisamente (como los que nuevamente vuelven a cernirse en el panorama oscu­recido de la Iglesia postconciliar), la presencia de la profesión de Fe en el Código asegura el sentido de TODAS LAS DISPOSICIONES JURIDICAS: TODAS SIRVEN A LA FE, y si así no fuera, debemos darlas por no existentes ni eficaces.
    Estas conclusiones simples y meridianas ilustran por otro aspecto lo que llamo convergencia y complementariedad de Bula y Código, en el sentido de la mutua inserción en el nivel TELÓGICO, DOCTRINAL. Pero la BULA TIENE OLA PRIMACÍA INMEDIATA DE LA DOCTRINA POR TRATARSE NADA MENOS  QUE DE LA DEFENSA DE LA FE PARA IMPEDIR LA ABOMINATIO IN LOCO SANCTO.


    1. Llegamos finalmente a la cuestión de los “cardenales excomulgados”, y al problema suscitado por el texto de Mons. Lefèbvre. Coloquemos en primer término los antecedentes más importantes de la quaestio, y veremos que ésta se resuelve precisamente en la perspectiva de la Bula, como anticipación profética de la apostasía modernista y por ende como precisa cuestión semántica que el texto correspondiente plantea en el pontificado de Pío XII.
    Debemos aclarar en primer lugar que ni la Bula de Paulo IV ni el motu proprio de Pío V representan, como ya dijimos y subrayamos, una instancia de electione pontificis; (en el sentido disciplinario del funcionamiento de un Cónclave), o según las características de los documentos canónicos ya mencionados (de Pío X y de Pío XII). Por cierto, ello no anula la cuestión que surge en el caso de conceder a “cardenales excomulgados” la capacidad electiva. Pero esto es, como veremos, otro problema.
    Es decir, la Bula no es un cuerpo jurídico que regle los pormenores de la elección legítima de un papa, acontecida la vacancia por la muerte del pontífice reinante. Si así fuera, o sea, si tuviera tal carácter disciplinario, carecería de VIGENCIA DOCTRINAL MYSTICA Y TEOLÓGICA (como lo he mostrado en la Introducciónde mi traducción castellana del documento latino), y forzaríamos el texto inequívoco de Paulo IV, para transformarlo en un canon eleccionario. Ello contrastaría de modo ostensible con la voluntad del Pontífice, profirente de ese vínculo de Fe (subrayado nuevamente por San Pío V) y con el sentido obvio del texto, tal como lo deduje en la Introducción mencionada a propósito de los dos primeros párrafos del documento.
    He aquí pues la primera conclusión importante, generalísima, sin atender de momento al contexto en que funcionan por un lado “cardenales excomulgados” (en la constitución disciplinaria moderna), y “cardenales depuestos” (en la Buladoctrinal de Paulo IV). La Bulahace explícita la urgencia de un VÍNCULO APOSTÓLICO INDEROGABLE, IRREFORMABLE, a saber, el vínculo entre FE Y JERARQUÍA, y dispone de modo inequívoco, no meramente disciplinario. Los documentos que he recordado, a propósito de la elección pontificia en el siglo XX (hasta Paulo VI inclusive) son partícipes de la condición disciplinaria del Código, según lo aclara el Canon 160, por el que la Constituciónelectiva incardina en el Código. Podría variarse esa Constitución en muchos sentidos legítimos (precisarse, ampliarse, configurarse, simplificarse, e incluso abolirse), como ocurre con toda ley disciplinaria; nunca perdería precisamente por voluntad de los codificadores (Pío X y Benedicto XV) su inserción en el Corpus jurídico. Volvemos entonces a la cuestión planteada en el capítulo II de estas Precisiones.

    2. En definitiva, pues, las constituciones o documentos eleccionarios, referidos al Romano Pontífice, que se suceden entre Pío X y Pío XII, son disposiciones disciplinarias canónicas, en las que cuadran pues exenciones o referencias permisivas (o censuras y cautelas jurídicas diversas), QUE NO AFECTEN POR CIERTO EL NIVEL DOCTRINAL, el nivel de la PROFERICIÓN DE LA FE, que encabeza el Código Y QUE ES SIEMPRE SUPERIOR A TODAS LAS CONSTITUCIONES DISCIPLINARIAS. La Bula de Paulo IV en cambio sanciona según UN VÍNCULO IMPRESCRIPTIBLE, QUE ES FUENTE DE LA DISCIPLINA.
    Así entendemos el segundo motivo de esta confrontación y desentrañamos la confusión advenida de modo imprevisto contra la Bula de Paulo IV: éste habla de cardenales depuestos, desposeídos de sus dignidades y oficios (penitus et in totum perpetuo privati, et ad illa de cetero inhabiles et incapaces habeanturque pro relapsis et subversis omnibus, ed. cit., p. 22). Pío XII en cambio (ed. cit. del Código de Benedicto XV, p. 872) dice: “Ningún Cardenal queda excluido de la elección activa o pasiva del Sumo Pontífice por motivo de excomunión, suspensión o entredicho; toda censura queda en suspenso para los efectos de la elección”.  Estamos en otro plano diferente, completamente distinto al de la Bula. Pues “excomunión, suspensión, interdicción” pueden acontecer por diversas causas disciplinarias, cuyos efectos se suspenden por la convocatoria del Cónclave. En cambio Paulo IV establece una condición inequívoca para legitimidad del sujeto elector/elegible, condición que entraña DOCTRINALMENTE EL EFECTO DE LA DEPOSICIÓN. Simplementeno son más Cardenales. El mismo documento de Pío X precisa esa diferencia (sin mencionar las razones de la Bulay tal vez por otras circunstancias): los Cardenales canónicamente depuestos o que han renunciado a la dignidad cardenalicia con el asentimiento del Romano Pontífice, pierden el derecho a la elección, y el Sacro Colegio no puede rehabilitarlos durante la vacante de la Sede Apostólica (ed. cit., p. 872).

    3. Nada tienen que ver pues los “cardenales excomulgados”, de la norma electiva, con los cardenales depuestos (eo ipso, absque aliquo iuris aut facti ministerio), carentes pues de entidad. Por eso mencioné al comienzo de este capítulo la “precisa cuestión semántica”, que involucran estos textos y que conviene clarificar una vez más.
    Cardenales excomulgados, suspendidos o interdictos siguen fungiendo como Cardenales, es decir, de entre sus privilegios, el del derecho al voto es mantenido por Pío XII. Pero las causas de tales sanciones y por ende tales exenciones, son diversas a las propuestas por la Bula, pues de otro modo el texto de Pío XII sería írrito, si entendiéramos esos términos de la “deposición”. Por eso el artículo 36 puntualiza respecto de los “canónicamente depuestos”. Se abre entonces, a nivel de 1945, el debate sobre esta expresión. O sea ¿son canónicamente depuestos los cardenales que considera el texto de Paulo IV? ¿Hay en esto coincidencia entre 1559 y 1945? Naturalmente que sí, y con mayor fundamento si atendemos a la historia larvada del modernismo.
    Cardenales depuestos no fungen ya y no pueden en consecuencia, en tanto Cardenales, ser sujetos de excomunión, o interdicción. La excomunión podría referirse a otros pormenores (en tanto fiel de la Iglesia). La deposición en efecto es RADICAL, o sea, afecta no sólo los privilegios, o singularidades canónicas del sujeto, sino que anula la dignidad misma (de modo irreversible) y por supuesto toda jerarquía u oficio, asumido o concedido de cualquier modo, ¿Cómo podría entonces una disposición eleccionaria determinar la reasunción de tal entidad cardenalicia, si la misma Bula cuida de precisar que ello es imposible, de manera absoluta?

    4. Afirmamos pues de manera nítida:

    a) cardenales depuestos por fuerza de la Bula son canónicamente depuestos, y no pueden fungir ni de electores ni de elegibles;
    b) las causas definidas por la Bula, por referirse al vínculo entre Fe y Jerarquía son imprescriptibles, y funcionan ipso facto, tal como lo previene el mismo texto del siglo XVI;
    c) cardenales excomulgados por otras causas disciplinarias gozan de la excepción dispuesta en el documento de Pío XI pero ello NO SE APLICA A LAS CIRCUNSTANCIAS MONTINIANAS Y POST-MONTINIANAS;
    d) nunca hemos hablado de excomuniones o suspensiones de Cardenales por motivos diferentes a los doctrinales. Y habiendo una primacía de la DOCTRINAsobre la DISCIPLINA, la cuestión que hemos puntualizado contra los herejes que conducen la Iglesia, contra la herejía montiniana, ha sido siempre y es y será siempre referida al orden entitativo: SON O NO SON CARDENALES, SON O NO SON PAPAS, FUNGEN O NO FUNGEN EN TALES OFICIOS Y DIGNIDADES;
    e) tratándose de doctrina, el cardenal Montini, entonces Arzobispo de Milán, no era un cardenal excomulgado en el sentido de Pío XII. ERA UN CARDENAL DEPUESTO EO IPSO, o no fungente de la dignidad que decía investir. Mientras fue sólo Arzobispo, por obra del mismo Pío XII ¿investía la autoridad canónica en la sede de San Ambrosio?

    5. Subsistiría al margen de estas referencias (que creemos muy nítidas) la cuestión de la permisión para los excomulgados (en el sentido de Pío XII). ¿No veríamos en ello una puerta imprevista para erosionar la doctrina, o al menos para ayudar subrepticiamente a ciertos indeseables? ¿No conocía Pío XII la personalidad de Montini, sus relaciones con el jesuita Tondi (en una historia trágica que no hemos olvidado) y sus nefastas maniobras en la Secretaría de Estado? Es verdad, no lo hizo Cardenal, pero sí Arzobispo de Milán y de alguna manera le abrió el paso al Pontificado. Según la Bula, Montini no fue ni pudo ser Arzobispo canónico, y mucho menos Cardenal ni Papa. Pero fue en fin todo eso: Arzobispo, Cardenal y Papa. ¿Qué clase de maniobras enfrentamos en la Iglesia, para que acontezcan tales iniquidades, para que la DOCTRINA ceda ante la subrepticia tiranía de una falsa disciplina, y para que ésta como ley sagrada sirva a la apostasía y no a la Fe?
    Basta releer el viejo e importante libro del Abbé Emmanuel Barbier, Les Infiltrations Maconniques dans l'Eglise, Desclée 1910 (subrayo la fecha, vive San Pío X), para asombrarse, ante el dossierimpresionante que sin embargo no significó la retracción del enemigo. De aquellos polvos son estos lodos, una vez muerto Pío X. Y basta estudiar la primera parte de este libro, para comprender que las circunstancias de los pontificados de Juan XXIII y Paulo VI definen el triunfo de la apostasía en Roma.

    6. Nuestras conclusiones de modo sucinto. Ningún documento de Benedicto XV se contrapone ni abroga la Bula de Paulo IV. Tampoco el Código del mismo Papa, ni la Providentissima ni el motu proprio Cum iuris canonici.
    Ningún documento de ningún pontífice podría por lo demás abolir la Bula. Podríaplenificarla o perfeccionarla.
    Hay una diferencia fundamental entre Cardenales depuestos y cardenales excomulgados. Los primeros lo son eo ipso o ipso facto, sin instrucción de hecho o de derecho. La Bula los ubica en el plano DOCTRINAL en que acontecen las exigencias canónicas.
    Las razones de que cardenales excomulgados (según el criterio de los textos modernos) sean admitidos a un Cónclave legítimo, no invalidan en absoluto ninguna de nuestras conclusiones: NI LA QUE SE REFIERE A LA VACANCIA DE ROMA, a partir con seguridad de la elección de Montini, y mucho menos la condición de cardenales “inexistentes”, en cuanto se erigen en esa misma VACANCIA.


    1. Pese a estas diáfanas correspondencias, arrecia la campaña contra la Bulade Paulo IV. El P. Faure, de la obediencia lefebvrista, delegado de Ecône en Argentina, tanto en nuestra patria como en México, junto con otros clérigos y supuestos doctores, sostienen la nulidad de la Bula consistorial Cum ex apostolatus officio, la que habría sido derogada (según ellos) por el Código Canónico de Benedicto XV, al no encontrarse incorporada en el mismo. En consecuencia, no podría hablarse de cesación de legitimidad, o de vacancia pontificia en los casos de Juan XXIII y Paulo VI (de nefasta memoria), y por ende a partir de éste (superhereje, no enfrentado por ninguna disposición canónica al estar abolida la Bula), a partir de este pseudo pontífice (legítimo según ellos ab initio y en función legítima hasta su muerte) se convalidarían y fungirían también los anti-papas Luciani y Wojtila.
    Pero no es así. Se trata o de una confusión, o de una crasa ignorancia (de Faure o de cualquier otro). Para clarificar otros aspectos de este panorama, ratifiquemos en primer lugar dos niveles diferentes:
    a) la doctrina teológica común de
              Sanso Collection - Painting by Urakami Gyokudo        
    I have been blessed to work on mounting several prints into scrolls for the Sanso Collection (山荘コレクション) owned by the late Peter Drucker. As I do not own any rights, I can not post the pictures themselves, but will share my own personal feelings as I get to work on framing these paintings and my connection to what these artists say to me. The first print I worked on, is by Urakami Gyokudo (浦上玉堂). Urakami Gyokudo was a Japanese painter, musician, poet and calligrapher who lived from 1745 to 1820. While alive, he was a famed player of the zither, and posthumously as a painter. The specific painting I have worked on is titled, "Quietly Observing Summer Mountains". It is a very large print almost 21 inches wide by 50 inches tall. In it there is a landscape painting with a man on a bridge. When I first looked at the painting, I assumed it was summer because of the dress of the man, and the prominent willow tree painted, which is often a symbol of summer. There is the usual stream running through the low valley and three peaks. What really caught my eye in this painting was a dabbed ink at the very top of the highest peak. I do not know if it is really anything, but to me is very reminiscent of the shape of the Buddha. Now, I do not know much about the teachings of Buddhism, but from my Judeo-Christian background, I felt that Urakami is not just communicating the man observing his surroundings, but realizes that from his vantage point, he must find a way to enlightenment (in other words, climb to reach the Buddha) and seek a path along the rokudo. I may be reading more into this than there really is, but that has been my impression everytime I get to see the print.
              Bach Humbug        
    Only a few days are left before Christmas Day and all of its holly-encrusted delights. Presents have been wrapped in charmingly cherubic wrapping paper, Christmas trees have been trimmed, gingerbread men have been decorated with ill-matched frosting ensembles...everything points toward good will and a joyous holiday spirit.

    Please gag me with a candy cane. The holiday season isn't all baked ham and egg nog. Presents, trees, and gingerbread men are all well and good for materialistic, tree-hating cannibals, but let's take a closer look at some holiday statistics.

    Over the course of this holiday season, three million unhappy individuals will discover too late that they are fatally allergic to the color combination of red and green; five million, three hundred thousand and four performances of "The Messiah" will be sung embarrassingly out of tune; seven hundred thousand and nine awkward couples in matching reindeer turtlenecks will inadvertently consume poisonous berries while attempting to canoodle under mistletoe; five hundred thousand and eighty-six utterances of "Happy Chan-oo-kah!" will set back Judeo-Christian relations by 500 years; and seventeen members of the Associated Union of Reindeer will finally reveal that aggravated syphilis was the true cause of Rudolph's luminous nose.

    And, if you are expecting Santa Claus to pay a house call this year, don't hold your breath: old Saint Nick was just diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and is now confined to a wheelchair and restricted to a steady diet of pureed wheat germ.

    So, there you have it. Society has pulled the pine-scented wool over your eyes, and, as your faithfully-opinionated blogger, I have a moral obligation to A) burst your Christmas bubble, B) splinter your candy cane, C) amputate the limbs of your favorite gingerbread man, D) contaminate your egg nog with salmonella, and E) generally "grinch-ify" your Christmas in every way possible.

    Truth be told, I may have a slightly ulterior motive when it comes to destroying your holiday spirit. It may be hard to believe, but my acerbic wit and cynical sarcasm were once decidedly pro-Christmas.

    But then, one fateful Christmas in 1990, all of my Christmas spirit was disastrously and irrevocably destroyed.

    In my color-coded Christmas letter to Santa Claus, I had asked for only one thing: Kiri te Kanawa's Christmas album. Yet, when the key moment arrived and I gleefully ripped open my Christmas present, I discovered not the charmingly alliterative "Christmas by Kiri," but rather that premiere Christmas album by...CHARLOTTE CHURCH!

    It was seventy-three days before I was able to consume solid foods again.

    Ever since that traumatic day, I have faced every holiday season with undeniable hatred. Plum pudding and baked ham turn to dust in my mouth; the scent of gingerbread makes me froth at the mouth; even the slightest hint of Bing Crosby singing "White Christmas" causes my right foot and left nostril to twitch uncontrollably.

    After decades of extensive anti-Christmas therapy (involving several unnatural uses of reindeer antlers and Christmas ornaments), I have finally determined that the Christmas spirit is not to blame for my affliction, but rather Kris Kringle himself. After all, it was none other than Santa who gave me the wrong cd and thus burned the permanent image of sugarplum Charlotte Churches into my brain.

    With that in mind, I have decided to postpone my war against other sopranos for the time being and focus all of my malignant power on that unnaturally rosy-cheeked, diabetes-inflicted figure of holiday evil. I urge you to do the same, if only to prevent the same unhappy experience from damaging another impressionable young soprano.

    So, I beg you: inject your gingerbread cookies with gallons of insulin, spray your Christmas tree with poisonous pesticides, and set your sniper rifle to the "reindeer" setting.

    I myself plan to build a roaring holiday blaze in my fireplace on Christmas Eve and enjoy some delectable Santa flambe.

    Could someone please pass the salt?
              How the Qur’an Was Revealed and Compiled        

    The post How the Qur’an Was Revealed and Compiled appeared first on Bismika Allahuma.

    The following is a video lecture made by Hamza Yusof on July 14th, 1997 and in cooperation with Alhambra Productions. The topic of the history of the Qur'an and its compilation, and forms as part of a "Foundations of Islam" series of lectures. Hamza Yusof gave a good historical background of the Qur'an, its history and how it was Revealed in stages to the Prophet Muhammad (P), its compilation after the passing of the Prophet (P) as well as demonstrating the textual integrity of the Qur'an, as opposed to the textual frailty of the Judeo-Christian text which stands on shaky ground. Also of interest is the Question & Answer session towards the end of this lecture which we hope our readers will find beneficial.

    The post How the Qur’an Was Revealed and Compiled appeared first on Bismika Allahuma.

              Replacing Faith with Socialism – Youth Indoctrination        
    This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Too bad, socialists but, it’s a fact. In GOD We Trust. Socialists want to change that. They DON’T want We the People to trust in GOD…THEY want the SUBJECTS to trust in the … Continue reading
              Qayeem Abbas: The Beast of Alipur        

    Watch Maulana Hujjat-ol Islam Syed Dr. Qayeem Abbas (a.k.a. The Beast of Alipur) calling for massacring the Jews and destroying America (in Urdu):

    Every Khomeini-infested town has a beast and in Alipur the beast is Qayeem Abbas!

    Qayeem used the Arabic word "Yahud" (Arabic for Jews. Arabic: يهود) to refer to the Jewish people. Qayeem is shown in this video clip screaming "Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud," invoking the infamous Islamofascist call for the annihilation of the Jews. He later on also invokes calls for the destruction of the United States while glorifying the Khomeinist Iranian regime.

    Alipur is a primitive remote village located in Karnataka, India. This town is totally controlled by Khomeinist "Sadat" mullahs who take advantage of the naiveté and isolation of their followers to build-up Judeophobia and anti-Americanism in their minds.

    The Khomeinist agent Nabi Raza Mir (a.k.a. Nabi Raza Abidi), left, with the SABA activist Mehbood Abedi.
    The Khomeinist agent Nabi Raza Mir (a.k.a. Nabi Raza Abidi), left, with the SABA activist Mehbood "Bob" Abedi.

    Alipur is also the hometown of the infamous San Francisco Bay Area-based Khomeinist mullah Nabi Raza Mir (a.k.a. Nabi Raza Abidi). Qayeem and Nabi Raza are not only relatives but also graduates of the Hawzas (seminaries) of Qom, Iran. While Qayeem is brainwashing the villagers of Alipur, his cousin Nabi Raza is very busy indoctrinating the Shia youths and children of the Bay Area with Khomeinism. Qayeem works against the United States on the outside but Nabi Raza got the better end of the deal: He works against America from the inside!

    Nabi Raza Mir (a.k.a. Nabi Raza Abidi) is the in-house cleric at Shia Association of Bay Area (SABA), the extremist anti-Semitic pro-Hezbollah Khomeinist sectarian organization based in San Jose, California.

    Also see:

              Moulana Zaki Baqri of Alipur, Karnataka & Toronto, Canada        

    "Death to Zionism" ―Mohammed Zaki Baqri in a speech at SABA Mosque of San Jose, California

    Zaki Baqri

    Zaki Baqri (Legal name: Mohammed Zaki Baqri) is an Indian Khomeinist Judeophobic extremist imam extraordinaire based in Toronto, Canada. Like the infamous Nabi Raza Mir Abidi of Shia Association of Bay Area (Saba Mosque of San Jose), Zaki was born and raised in Alipur, the ultra-Khomeinist town located in Karnataka, India. In fact, the notorious duo are relatives as Nabi Raza is married to Zaki's niece, Syeda Zahera. Both Faqihi mullahs are also supposedly syeds (so they claim!), as such they are cousins who belong to the global Bani Hashem clan, of whom rogue members are openly seeking to terrorize, dominate, and rule the world (think: The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Bani Hashem ©)!

    Learn more about Zaki Baqri...

              Comment on Sveti Petar i primat pape by O lažnom ekumenizmu i sveopćem (katoličkom) jedinstvu / –        
    […] Predaju ni na bilo koje područje naÅ¡eg judeo-kršćanskog nasljeđa, kao Å¡to je biti posluÅ¡an Stolici svetoga Petra u Rimu. To im uspijeva. Znam da u Južnoj Americi ima katoličkih laičkih molitvenih zajednica […]
              Comment on Sveta predaja važnija od Biblije by O lažnom ekumenizmu i sveopćem (katoličkom) jedinstvu / –        
    […] da smo, ako se ovako slažemo, već jedno i nema nikakve potrebe sluÅ¡ati ni obazirati se na svetu Predaju ni na bilo koje područje naÅ¡eg judeo-kršćanskog nasljeđa, kao Å¡to je biti posluÅ¡an Stolici […]
              Push Back, Reclaiming the American Judeo-Christian Spirit        
    itunes pic
    Push Back, Reclaiming the American Judeo-Christian Spirit Rabbi Aryeh Spero GREAT PROGRAM! While we talked about the book there was great talk about the Old Testament and the New, how they are so connected with the real America Spirit. YOU WILL WANT TO SAHRE THIS PROGRAM WITH OTHERS! Had enough of the liberal Left? It's time to take a stand, speak out, Push Back America! Millions of Americans are alarmed over our current cultural and political climate but afraid to speak out. They feel bullied into accepting a cultural and political outlook sharply different from what they believe. Demagogues on the Left aggressively push their ideology, making untold numbers of Americans question the historic promise and direction of their country. We need to push back against this tide of liberalism as we head toward a national election! In the new book, Push Back, Reclaiming the American Judeo-Christian Spirit, Rabbi Aryeh Spero challenges the Left's subversive hijacking of terms such as compassion, tolerance, love, fairness, and social justice, which they distort to usher in socialism and empower a liberal ruling clique to the detriment of America's middle class. In heartfelt fashion, Spero confronts his ministry colleagues who promote what he calls "religious correctness," exposing the misuse of Scripture on behalf of leftwing political correctness. Rabbi Spero urges us to stand up and proudly proclaim the beliefs that have made America strong, free, and prosperous. “Remember we do not 100% agree with everything our guests, say, do, or believe. It is up to you to pray and sort it out!” Another do not Miss End-Time Radio program as “We are Warning the World as it HAPPENS!” Please visit also please visit
              CONFIRMATION! Attack on Iran? With Author Avi Lipton        
    itunes pic
    Tonight I spoke with Avi Lipkin, if he is right the Attack on Iran is not far off. It will be according to him early spring. I am not sure I agree with all that he says but this program is powerful! He has even spoken with the CFR and tells of their plans to rule the world through oil! Pray first before you listen! His web site is email him and tell him about this program our web site is our email is pray about supporting these radio programs. below is information about AVI tonight's guests, Jan. 25, 2007 founder of the new Bible Bloc political party, a coalition of Jewish and Christian candidates running for the Knesset. He is set to release his newest book, “Israel’s Bible Bloc”, which documents the creation and rise, for the first time, of a Judeo-Christian Party to run for Israel’s Knesset. He is briefed on virtually every area of Israeli/Arab relations. He served 14 years in the Isaeli Army Reserves and was a former officer in the Prime Minister Yizhak Shamir’s Press Office. He is a journalist, columnist and founder of the Israel Today Magazine (monthly) since Jan. 1999. He has been a guest on popular U.S. Talk Shows including Sean Hannity, Fox and Friends, Dayside with Linda Vester and many other radio and television programs, as well as in person in hundreds of churches and synagogues across the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Switzerland, France, Greece, Norway, Finland, Russia, Germany and Israel. Lipkin speaks six languages and has received his B. A. from Hebrew University, 1973, majoring in Sovietology/Russian Studies and East European Studies. He is well versed in the centuries of Islamic wars. He was born in the U.S. but immigrated (made Aliyah) to Israel in 1968.
              May 2007 Civil Engineering Board Exam Passers        
    Civil Engineering Licensure Examination

    914 out of 2,754 passed the Civil Engineer Licensure Examination given by the Board of Civil Engineering in the cities of Manila , Baguio , Cagayan de Oro, Cebu , Davao , Iloilo and Legazpi last May 2007.

    The oathtaking ceremony of the successful examinees was held on June 24, 2007, 1:30 pm at the Sofitel Philippine Plaza, CCP Complex, Pasay City .

    The successful examinees who garnered the ten (10) highest places are the following:


    Civil Engineer Licensure Exam, May 2007 Board Passers
    List of new successful Civil Engineers




    221 CHAN, BRYAN SY
    235 CO, ROWEL TAN











    798 SIA-ED, GEORGE