“Regardless of what anyone may personally think or believe about him, Jesus of Nazareth has been the dominant figure in the history of Western culture for almost twenty centuries.”

~ Jaroslav Pelikan, historian

See also Ichthus.info

The website Non-violence.org offers a much needed corrective to the common misunderstanding of the Gospel teachings as pathological submissiveness.

If Jesus had wanted us to actively incur more abuse when he suggested that we “turn the other cheek” (a saying that is itself close to a text in Isaiah), why did he himself over-turn tables in the Temple and drive people out with a whip (!), call the leaders of his days “vipers, and “devils,” and seek to hide from his enemies until the appointed time of his crucifixion?

Misreading the poetic hyperbole that characterizes the Gospel  teachings on ethics by  our own dull-witted literalism we turn Jesus into a counselor of masochism, when he was actually teaching the power of the divine spirit working through us to overcome even the most difficult physical circumstances.

Non-violence.org:

“I thought it would be fun to offer a little clarification on what is arguably the most misused and abused reference to Nonviolence – Jesus’ teaching to “turn the other cheek.” Pick a politician (Christian or not), pick a self-proclaimed revolutionary, pick even a weekend activist and you’ve probably heard them say something like, “I’m all for peace and Nonviolence, but if somebody threatens me or my family, I’m not going to TURN THE OTHER CHEEK!”

What they’re really saying is, “… I’m not going to DO NOTHING! I’m not going to IGNORE IT!” But that is NOT what Jesus was saying. This is so vitally important to understanding Nonviolence, what it is, its power, and its superiority over violence, not just morally, but strategically.

Author Walter Wink does a wonderful job of explaining this. Here is a link to the more detailed text and/or you might learn more about Walter Wink and his work here.

But here’s an abbreviate explanation. It involves history (not an interpretation of the Bible), and I know how painful history can be to some of us but read on – it’s a fascinating take on the true meaning of “turn the other cheek.”

First, let’s refresh our memory of the Bible passage:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.” —Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

Here’s the history (sorry if it hurts… it’s actually pretty interesting)…

Note that Jesus said the RIGHT cheek. This is key. In Jesus time and place in history, the left hand was used for “unclean” purposes (I won’t go into the details… but you can probably guess some of them — imagine a time with no soap and limited water). You wouldn’t use your left hand to purchase food, shake someone’s hand, OR even strike someone. It would be a shameful act to use your left hand for these things.

Also, if you were to strike someone, you would use your BACKHAND to assert dominance and authority. If you instead used your fist or slapped with an open hand, this would mean the person you were striking was your equal (or even your superior!).

OK, did you follow that? It might help to get a partner and act this out (don’t really slap them!). Try pretend striking them while 1. not using your left hand and 2. using your backhand to assert your dominance. You’d be using your RIGHT hand, backhanding your inferior and striking them on their RIGHT cheek.

Aha! “If someone strikes you on the RIGHT cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Try it. Now, only the LEFT cheek is exposed. In order to strike your inferior on their LEFT cheek you have to either use your right forehand or punch them (this would make them your equal) OR use your left backhand (this would shame you in public).

Jesus’ call to “turn to him also the other” or as is often quipped “turn the other cheek” is NOT a call to simply ignore the insult. It is telling us to DEMAND EQUALITY! Stand up to your oppressor! Don’t take insults and attacks lying down!

Nonviolence is a brilliant way to end the violence. Retaliating in violence to a “superior” may have in Jesus’ day resulted in death or at least an escalation to the violence. But, Jesus was a brilliant Nonviolent strategist. A simple turn of the head refused the insult, demanded equality and justice, and ended the violence. This is active Nonviolence.

I also included in the Bible passage above, “And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” Wink also gives us the historical significance of these – again, as you may have guessed, these are strategic Nonviolent actions, not acquiescence.

By offering also your cloak you would be reduced to nakedness. But in Jesus’ time, the nakedness would be an embarrassment to the viewer, not the naked. You would again claim justice by exposing yourself (literally) but also your oppressor.

And “walking the extra mile” – in Jesus’ time, Roman soldiers could under Roman law demand that inhabitants of occupied territories carry their equipment for them – up to one mile. However, they were not to require someone to carry the equipment for more than one mile – if they did, the soldier himself would be subject to punishment. So, “going that extra mile” isn’t about bending over backwards and bowing to an oppressor, it again goes above and beyond to Nonviolently reclaim justice. It will take strength and it may take suffering, but Nonviolence can, if waged strategically, overcome violence and oppression. It requires a refusal to be humiliated.

So, you see, this passage is a Nonviolence primer, NOT an excuse to do nothing in the face of wrong. Whether you consider yourself Christian, or hold to another religion, or choose no religion at all, the power of Nonviolence is powerful, effective, and available to you.

The misuse of this simple phrase has been used to disregard Nonviolence, escalate violence, and cause unspeakable pain and suffering. It’s well past time we set the record straight. “Turning the other cheek” is NOT passivity. It is powerful. It is the weapon of the strong.”

Although I did not know Wink’s work at the time, I  did come to a very similar assessment of how to react non-violently but effectively to abuse from the powerful in this piece.

Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae:

“It is a high crime indeed to withdraw allegiance from God in order to please men; an act of consummate wickedness to break the laws of Jesus Christ in order to yield obedience to earthly rulers… ‘we ought to obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5: 29)…

Commands that are issued adversely to the honor due to God and hence are beyond the scope of justice, must be looked upon as anything rather than laws… if the laws of men contain injunctions contrary to the eternal law of God, it is right not to obey them… Hence they who blame, and call sedition this steadfastness of attitude in the choice of duty, have not rightly apprehended the force and nature of true law…

Law is of it’s very essence a mandate of right reason, proclaimed by a properly constituted authority, for the common good. But true and legitimate authority is void of sanction, unless it proceed from God the supreme Ruler and Lord of all”.

An ordained Baptist minister explains why uncritical support for Israel is not only not Biblically mandated, it stands in opposition to Biblical teaching in which the Arabs are also blessed as the descendants of Abraham.

“Much of our Christian emphasis on foreign policy in the Middle East today is based on the promise that God made to Abraham in Genesis 12:3, “And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.”

The first half of this verse is a promise that God made to just one person, Abraham. The original Hebrew is in the second person singular, meaning that God is speaking only to Abraham. The King James Version correctly reflects this grammatical construction, since “thee” is singular, referring only to one person, whereas “ye” would refer to multiple persons.

Matthew Henry’s commentary states of Genesis 12:3a that “This made it a kind of league, offensive and defensive, between God and Abram.”

Of the second half of the verse, Matthew Henry says, This was the promise that crowned all the rest; for it points to the Messiah, in whom ‘all the promises are yea and amen.’ Note, (1), Jesus Christ is the great blessing of the world, the greatest that ever the world blessed with.”

Recently Genesis 12:3 has been spiritualized by Christian Zionist preachers, who say that this verse applies not just to Abraham, but also to Abraham’s descendants, specifically to the modern state of Israel founded in 1948. Supposedly, it means that evangelical Christians as individuals, and America as a nation, are bound to provide unquestioning support, financial and otherwise, to the state of Israel. It is said that if America fails to back up Israel in every way possible, financially, militarily and otherwise, then God will be through with America and will have us nuked.

When it is pointed out that the various Arabs nations, including Palestine, are also descended from Abraham, the Christian Zionists say that the promise of Genesis 12:3 applies only to the descendants of Isaac (Of course, there is no mention of Isaac in Genesis 12:3. They often misquote the verse, saying it refers to “blessing Israel,” but Israel is not mentioned in the verse either).

Zionists say, based on their non-literal, speculative, spiritualized interpretation of Genesis 12:3, that we are to give total, unquestioned support to some of Abraham’s children, while others of Abraham’s children are to be hated, persecuted, ethnically cleansed, bombed back into the Stone Age, maybe even nuked.

But in Genesis 21:13, 17-18 God also bestows His blessing on Ishmael and his descendants, saying, “For I will make him a great nation.” According to the same principles of interpretation by which we have made Genesis 12:3 a command for political support of the modern nation of Israel, Genesis 21:18 must be taken as a command for political support of the modern Arab nations. (Anybody want to start up a “Christian Ishmaelist” movement to lobby for Arab national greatness?)

Christian Zionists claim to have 70,000,000 followers in America, who insists that our politicians render unquestioning obedience to the military and political agenda of the Israeli Government.

Does God really demand that we support all actions and activities of the Israeli Government, even if those actions violate God’s moral standards of righteousness?

It should be pointed out that even in Old Testament times, when Israel was a nation specially chosen by, and ruled over by, Jehovah, He did not expect His people to support and endorse all actions of the government of Israel.

When the Government of Israel committed human rights violations, the prophets openly condemned them, 2 Kings 6:21 –23, 2 Chronicles 28:9-11, Nehemiah 5:7-11, Jeremiah 34:11-17, Amos 2:6-7, etc. Nowadays, liberal Jewish groups still protest human rights violations in Israel. Nevertheless, most fundamentalists Christians would never dream of doing such a thing – it is against their religion. It is their duty to either deny that such violations take place, or else to endorse and commend such violations. We have been told that God will smite us if we disagree with anything that Israel does.

The lawgiver Moses commanded the Hebrews that they should not oppress the strangers or non-Jews in their lands, Exodus 12:49, 22:21, 23:9, Leviticus 19:33-34, 25:35, Deuteronomy 10:18-19, 23:7, 24:17, 27:19. That message, of course, is not mentioned today – it is considered “politically incorrect.”

When King Ahab and Queen Jezebel unjustly expropriated the vineyard of Naboth, the prophet Elijah publicly denounced the kind for this unjust action, 1 Kings 21:17-24, Jehu cited this official action of the government of Israel against Naboth as justification for overthrowing that government, 2 Kings 9:25-26.

But nowadays, when the Israeli government expropriates the lands and properties of Palestinians without compensation, we look the other way and say nothing about it.

In Jeremiah 27:1-5, the prophet Jeremiah picketed a public meeting of the government of Judah with representatives of Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon. He was protesting the foreign policy of Judah. We would never do anything like that today – it would be considered a violation of the command to “bless Abraham.”

In Jeremiah 27:6-17, the prophet advocated the surrender of Israel’s territory to the King of Babylon, in return for peace – today, we would call it “land for peace.” But today, our warmongering televangelists denounce “land for peace” as unthinkable for any reason whatsoever, and threaten God’s wrath against anyone who would support such a thing.

Supposedly it is better for Jewish and Arab children of Abraham to keep on killing each other over the land (while these sanctimonious war profiteers collect the money from sales of their Armageddon videos. Could it be a conflict of interest to allow American foreign policy to be dictated by these mega-millionaire preachers, who stand to make a profit if there is a war in the Middle East?)”

Scholars have long dismissed the tale of Exodus as myth or metaphor because there did not seem to be any evidence of it in Egyptian archeology.

But a recent documentary, “Patterns of Evidence,” (directed by Tim Mahoney) shows other findings in the archeological record that match the Biblical story.

From World Net Daily:

Skeptics and popular opinion confidently assert that no one knows for sure if what was recorded in the original texts of the New Testament has been accurately conveyed to us.

Yet, this is completely false.

There are overwhelmingly more copies and versions of the New Testament available to us than of any other classical text and we accept those texts with much less hesitation.

From Stand To Reason:

“The science of textual criticism is used to test all documents of antiquity–not just religious texts–including historical and literary writings. It’s not a theological enterprise based on haphazard hopes and guesses; it’s a linguistic exercise that follows a set of established rules. Textual criticism allows an alert critic to determine the extent of possible corruption of any work.

The ability of any scholar to do effective textual criticism depends on two factors. First, how many existing copies are there to examine and compare? Are there two copies, ten, a hundred? The more copies there are, the easier it is to make meaningful comparisons. Second, how close in time are the oldest existing documents to the original?

If the numbers are few and the time gap is wide, the original is harder to reconstruct with confidence. However, if there are many copies and the oldest existing copies are reasonably close in time to the original, the textual critic can be more confident he’s pinpointed the exact wording of the autograph.

To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, note for a moment the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular texts from antiquity that have been reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based on the available textual evidence.

The important First Century document The Jewish War, by Jewish aristocrat and historian Josephus, survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th Century--four centuries after they were written.^[3] Tacitus’ Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet, surprisingly, it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages.^[4] Thucydides’ History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar’s Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus’ History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer’s Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies.^[5]

Bruce’s comments put the discussion in perspective: “No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals.”^[6]

For most documents of antiquity only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident of reconstructing the originals with some significant degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all of our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these.

By comparison with secular texts, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is stunning. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style)!^[7]

Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries.^[8]

Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) back to the 4th Century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government at Christmas, 1933, for £100,000,^[9] is dated c. 340.^[10] The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350.^[11] Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.

The most fascinating evidence comes from the fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century.^[12] The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.^[13]

The most amazing find of all, however, is a small portion of John 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt known as the John Rylands Papyri. Barely three inches square, it represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri is dated on paleographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may even be earlier),^[14] showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition.”

Why is the historical accuracy of the New Testament important? After all, wouldn’t the teachings of Jesus be valid even if he had never lived or even if his life differed from the account of it in the gospels?

I used to make this argument. In fact, I thought it was important to base any acceptance of Christian doctrine on something other than the historical evidence for Jesus, because, waylaid by the sophistries of “higher criticism” and some schools of Protestant theology, I thought the historicity of the gospels could not convincingly be demonstrated.

Hurrah for the Internet, for exposing me to Christian teachers who have busted that piece of propaganda wide apart. Not that I hadn’t been prepared for their revelations already.

Having waded through the propaganda in the daily papers and magazine, it was easy to accept that academic journals were no better.  And neither was theology or history.  They were all buried beneath agenda and myth-making.

But Christianity is not simply a teaching about ethics or a philosophy. It claims something else. The ethics of Christianity, after all, can be found anywhere. What is unique is the Christian claim to explain man’s spiritual destiny in terms of one sole figure – Jesus Christ:

F. W. Bruce writes:

“For the Christian gospel is not primarily a code of ethics or a metaphysical system; it is first and foremost good news, and as such it was proclaimed by its earliest preachers. True, they called Christianity ‘The Way’ and ‘The Life’; but Christianity as a way of life depends upon the acceptance of Christianity as good news. And this good news is intimately bound up with the historical order, for it tells how for the world’s redemption God entered into history, the eternal came into time, the kingdom of heaven invaded the realm of earth, in the great events of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus the Christ. The first recorded words of our Lord’s public preaching in Galilee are: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has drawn near; repent and believe the good news.”

Whatever questions one can legitimately have about Christianity, they cannot be about the authenticity of the New Testament.

Indeed there was a man called Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, he was universally called a just and good man by even his enemies.

Indeed, he performed what were considered miracles of healing.

Indeed, he was accounted a magician, a heretic, and a seditionist.

He was indeed turned in by the High Council of Jewish elders to the Roman authorities, who at the behest of the mob, arrested, convicted, tortured, and crucified him.

There were in fact reports quite early on of his miraculous resurrection and the history and teachings of Saul, a convert who was once one of his fiercest foes,  is not some later accretion in the textual record but among the earliest (prior to 100 AD). 

The earliest Christian record we have today is apparently a manuscript of the Gospel of Mark dating from the first century.

That would make it a copy available during the life-time of eye witnesses to Jesus’s life.

In that case, the original of Mark was indeed written during or just after the life of Jesus.

The pretensions of academic publication  and the allegedly rigorous peer-reviewed procedure were exposed in this deliberate “intellectual sting operation”:

“The present investigation was an attempt to study the peer-review process directly, in the natural setting of actual journal referee evaluations of submitted manuscripts. As test materials we selected 12 already published research articles by investigators from prestigious and highly productive American psychology departments, one article from each of 12 highly regarded and widely read American psychology journals with high rejection rates (80%) and nonblind refereeing practices.

With fictitious names and institutions substituted for the original ones (e.g., Tri-Valley Center for Human Potential), the altered manuscripts were formally resubmitted to the journals that had originally refereed and published them 18 to 32 months earlier. Of the sample of 38 editors and reviewers, only three (8%) detected the resubmissions. This result allowed nine of the 12 articles to continue through the review process to receive an actual evaluation: eight of the nine were rejected. Sixteen of the 18 referees (89%) recommended against publication and the editors concurred. The grounds for rejection were in many cases described as “serious methodological flaws.” A number of possible interpretations of these data are reviewed and evaluated.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&

Thomas H. Benton, as Associate Professor of English at Hope College, writes:

“Graduate school may be about the “disinterested pursuit of learning” for some privileged people. But for most of us, graduate school in the humanities is about the implicit promise of the life of a middle-class professional, about being respected, about not hating your job and wasting your life. That dream is long gone in academe for almost everyone entering it now.

If you are in one of the lucky categories that benefit from the Big Lie, you will probably continue to offer the attractions of that life to vulnerable students who are trained from birth to trust you, their teacher.

Graduate school in the humanities is a trap. It is designed that way. It is structurally based on limiting the options of students and socializing them into believing that it is shameful to abandon “the life of the mind.”

That’s why most graduate programs resist reducing the numbers of admitted students or providing them with skills and networks that could enable them to do anything but join the ever-growing ranks of impoverished, demoralized, and damaged graduate students and adjuncts for whom most of academe denies any responsibility.”

And so, another group of disempowered, dependent people come into being and another set of potential clients of the government is born from the middle-class welfare system called “higher ed.”

A blog explains why incurring debt to go to graduate school is a terrible idea, so terrible that he’s come up with 100 reasons to avoid graduate school altogether.

He’s talking about the liberal arts and the so-called social sciences, but his arguments (and evidence) can be applied to the sciences, to some extent.

Even if the tuition and your living expenses are paid for you, the experience is not “free” in any real sense.

You have to count the time spent as an opportunity cost and a waste of years you could have spent working, building a family,  starting a business, investing, or even just traveling and doing things you really love or care about, whether that’s volunteering for some cause or painting or woodworking or looking after your parents or siblings.

It’s simply not true that more formal education makes you healthier, wealthier, or wiser, which is, after all, what most people want out of life.

Of course, there are exceptions for everything, and in a handful of cases, for “born  teachers,” the supremely motivated and talented,  the very well-to-do, the extraordinarily self-sacrificing and dedicated….or  the terminally scheming…. the effort might still be worth it…..in the sciences.

The rest should probably take a pass. Unless, of course, they can do it free and do it fast:

“1. The smart people are somewhere else.

 If you think that going to graduate school will allow you to spend your days in a community of the enlightened, consider the axiom that it is unwise to borrow money that is difficult to repay.

To go into debt for a graduate degree in the humanities is to go into debt for a credential that, at best, will qualify you for a job with a relatively low starting salary in an extremely competitive job market.

Meanwhile, you will have removed yourself from the job market to pursue this degree, so don’t forget to add up the years that you will have incurred debt when you could have been earning money. But surely people in graduate school would be too smart to finance their educations with debt…

According to FinAid.org: “The median additional debt [the debt that graduate students pile onto the debt that they acquired as undergraduates] is $25,000 for a Master’s degree, $52,000 for a doctoral degree and $79,836 for a professional degree.

A quarter of graduate and professional students borrow more than $42,898 for a Master’s degree, more than $75,712 for a doctoral degree and more than $118,500 for a professional degree.”

This is not intelligent behavior. The smart people are somewhere else.”

In light of all the “shocked, shocked, I tell you” reactions to the video 0f an Oklahoma frat house’s racist chant, I pulled up some other instances of “hate speech” at American universities that somehow passed muster.

None of the people in these cases was in their teens, none was  drunk, none was speaking to a private group of like-minded associates, as the Oklahoma boys were.

1. A black activist and visiting professor at North Carolina State University addressed a Howard University Law school panel in 2005 and advocated exterminating all white people on the planet as the only solution to black problems.

2. After the Washington Navy Yard shootings, a tenured professor at the University of Kansas tweeted that he hoped that the next shooting victims would be the sons and daughters of the NRA (National Rifle Association) since, in his view, they were responsible for the Navy Yard massacre.

He was put on indefinite leave, the only one on this list who was punished.

3. In 2012, Dr. Richard Parncutt advocated the death penalty for influential deniers of global warming.

4.  In 2001, Mary Daly, a feminist professor at Boston College, advocated an evolutionary process that would result in a drastic reduction in the male population, as the only way to “decontaminate” the world.

5.  Pete Singer, renowned bioethicist,  argued in a published book that “Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person,”  and “Sometimes it is not wrong at all.” Princeton gave him tenure in 1998.

6.  The chairwoman of the University of Michigan’s Communications department wrote an oped whose first line was “I hate Republicans.” Further on in the piece, she referred to what she felt as “loathing.”

7.  University of Rhode Island history professor Erik Loomis said this about the National Rifle Association’s executive vice-president, Wayne LaPierre: “I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick.”

8.  Rutgers University professor and poet Amiri Baraka has written, “”I got the extermination blues, jew-boys….”  and “We want dagger poems in the slimy bellies of the owner-Jews.”

None of the views expressed above (even number 7, which was surely an actionable threat) received any serious punishment, except no. 2.

However, the next two views did get a swift and severe response from the university:

9. A tenured professor at Marquette University (a Catholic university, mind you) was fired for having criticized a graduate student who refused to allow any opposing view on gay marriage in her classroom.

10.  An offer of tenure at the University of  Illinois was rescinded after the candidate tweeted angry comments about Israel’s Gaza offensive in the summer of 2014.

So what’s the distinction between the first eight incidents and the last two?

The first eight all conform to the larger goals of the New World Order elites; the last two constitute obstacles to those goals.

Thus,

1. and 8. Race hatred against whites distracts from the elites who manipulate whites and non-whites.

It drives a wedge between the two groups, preventing their alliance against the real enemy. Inflammatory racial rhetoric against the right groups is never discouraged by the elites.

2. and 7.  Hatred of gun advocacy promotes gun-control. The NWO needs the population to be disarmed and cowed by the police and the military.

3. Indoctrination in global warming orthodoxy prepares the public to accept the social and economic controls being imposed on it in the name of climate change.

4. Hatred of masculinity provides the justification for female tyranny and privilege and the redistribution of wealth from the private sector (dominated by men) to the public(driven by feminist/female votes).

5.  Radical abortion and infanticide constitute a form of depopulation, another elite goal. They also destroy maternal feeling and undermine the family. Atomized individuals without strong family bonds are  more easily manipulated by propaganda, military recruiters, and gang-leaders; they are more easily addicted to drugs and pornography both big money-earners for the New World Order elites.

6.  Polarizing party politics prevents the population from thinking outside the prescribed binaries and diverts attention from the elites. Inflammatory, personalized political comments make great “noise” drowning out more serious analysis.

On the other hand, oppose gay marriage or the foreign policy of the Israeli state and you invite reprisals.

Greater Israel and the higher sodomy are both central dogmas of the New World Order.

No hate speech on American campuses?

Not for a moment. Hate is just fine in the classroom, so long as it’s the right kind.