Welcome to the Stone Choir Podcast.
I am Corey J.
Mahler. And I'm still woe.
On this episode of Stone Choir, we're going to be doing something
that we have not done previously.
We were asked by the folks at Antelope Hill if they would
discuss one of their publications with us, a book that they've published.
And we're happy to do that.
Uh it's not something anyone's ever asked us to do before.
Uh I'm excited about it.
Uh it's uh it was a very interesting book to read.
I was happy to read it.
It's kind of funny looking at the table of contents and then
reading through it.
I it's in a lot of ways it's kind of a an
overview of much of the content that Stone Choir has covered in
our first year of producing this c podcast.
So I I think that the specific subject of today's book, which
is titled The Sword of Christ by Giles Corey, very much dovetails
with kind of the home turf for Stone Choir.
Uh today with us also for the first time we have a
guest from the editorial team at uh Antelope Hill.
So uh if you just introduce yourself and your company, I'm curious
how did you come to reach out to us and how did
you come to publish this book in particular and why do you
think it'd be a good fit?
Certainly. So uh my name is Taylor.
I'm part of the editorial team at Antelope Hill.
That's kind of a long question, but we we publish the book
because it we find that that it fits our mission.
and um we were started about three years ago now we just
recently celebrated our third birthday with the intention of making available books
that are difficult to obtain or censored or ones that just aren't
available in English and specifically in the the um rightist political tradition
and that have to do with the philosophy and history of Europe
and its diaspora.
So that's where it started and and since then we've really in
in our based on our expectations we've been um amazingly successful in
the kinds of works that we've been able to translate as well
as the kinds of uh authors that we've been able to inspire
to come publish with us.
So I I personally don't remember exactly how this one ended up
with us, but as soon as we got it, we I was
actually one of the people who reviewed it initially and I was
very, very interested.
So you know, within kind of our our mission statement, we'll we'll
publish different authors.
We've published uh uh Protestant authors, Catholic authors, secular authors as well.
Um But it you know, as long as it contributes toward that
goal of of making available books that have important um ideas and
important facts and that can make a contribution to understanding the history
and uh contributing to the current struggle of our people, then it's
something we're interested in.
So me personally, I uh I'm a Protestant in the Calvinist tradition.
So
for that I actually don't remember I maybe I shouldn't admit this,
but I don't remember off the top of my head if uh
um Giles Corey necessarily approaches this this book from a specific um
uh Christian tradition and and what it is.
But I mean I think that's that recommends it in some ways
because um the topics he deals with are relevant to all of
Christendom and all of uh Christian history, especially
European and white Christian history.
So in a lot of ways it is exactly the kind of
book that I've always thought should exist, one that deals uh very
specifically with issues like Christian Zionism and uh addresses the interaction between
ethno nationalism and Christianity and kind of is intended as a weapon
to help us come to grips with the extreme liberalization that's taken
place uh in the church.
And as to uh why I'm here, well, I mean I was
I've been aware of you guys and your podcast for a while
now, uh back when I um had a Twitter account before uh
Elon banned me again.
Um I've followed you guys.
I checked out a couple of the podcasts and I just thought
that honestly it would be something that I think like you said
would be interesting to you and your audience just based off of
how similar it is to uh what you guys talk about.
So very happy and very grateful to have the opportunity to come
on here and uh share it with you guys.
We appreciate your time.
And uh I've I was taking a look through the catalog from
Antelope Hill.
your name has come up for I think pretty much since you
came on the scene.
And it's very an interesting collection.
Obviously, as you said, you know, most the vast majority of the
books I think are focused specifically on politics and there tends to
be at least cursorly it looks like there was a lot of
focus around kind of the history of fascism and and things around
that in the twentieth century, which is valuable because that's one of
those things that's such a a dirty word.
You know, people use it as an epithet, but no one can
define it.
And so I'm very grateful that you've produced and published and reprinted
a number of works that you know, or just in many cases
from the men who were on the ground in those days.
So I would I would commend folks who are listening.
We'll obviously put a link in the show notes to this book.
And I I should say up front, uh we're not getting paid
anything for this.
We want nothing for it.
They asked and so we're happy to do it.
Um I think that's probably the approach we'll always take.
I mean this is a a fringe podcast that has no monetary
value really.
And so I honestly would not not want to be in a
situation where I wanted someone's commercial success to be hinged to what
people thought of our podcast.
So in the future, you know, with this or anything else we
ever do or refer, if if we're going to get anything from
it, we'll tell you, we'll be transparent, but this is just entirely
because it's such a great uh there's so much synergy between again
the the topic of this book and what Ann Lopel is trying
to do.
I wanna just briefly read the introduction to the book because it
it is really in a lot of ways almost kind of one
of the underlying mission statements of Stone Choir as well.
Uh this is from the the preface by Giles Corey.
The hatred for Christianity on the right truly pains me.
This is the reason that I wrote this book.
I fully understand the hatred, for as I argue in my introductory
essay, there's very little to praise about organized Christianity today.
If anything, organized Christianity, includes the Catholic Church and each of the
Protestant denominations, has indeed become yet another instrument of white genocide.
Organized Christianity has capitulated and bent the knee to Satan's coalition of
the damned, thereby turning its back on our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ. I despise the organized Christianity too for this reason.
But usurped though the mantle of the church may be, that is
no reason to simply abandon the faith.
So many of us who observe the collapse of the church into
anti white leftism have been led to the facile conclusion that Christianity
itself is irredeemable.
It isn't.
Christianity does not even need redemption, for our faith remains what it
has always been.
The Pharisaical teachers of false doctrine, whom we witness on parade today,
simply are not Christians, no matter what they may say.
Remember Paul's warning, for such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves
into the apostles of Christ, and no marvel, for Satan himself is
transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if the ministers also be transformed
as the ministers of righteousness, whose ends shall be according to their
works from Second Corinthians eleven.
And he continues on the next page.
The same sense of illiteracy lies behind the more absurd contention that
Christianity is some far off life denying suicidal Jewish psyop.
First, if this was true, why after nearly two thousand years did
organized Christianity only betray its race and civilization in the twentieth century
after the Jewish coup that was accomplished in no small part by
the creation and promotion of the heresy of Christian Zionism.
So that's really kind of the the thesis of the book itself.
I do take issue with the phrase organized religion, organized Christianity.
That's a modern term that emerged in the 20th century, really as
things were starting to go to pot.
But I think he's absolutely correct when he recognizes that when those
on the right who are not Christian critique Christianity, they're only looking
at what it is now and not what has been for 1900
years. And so I'm in complete agree with the author that them
that's a thesis of Stone Choir as well.
Christianity doesn't change.
So if we have problems today caused by doctrine changing, that's what
we need to fix.
And personally, I think that it's it's one of the weaknesses that
a lot of modern discourse has from the pagan right, you have
folks saying, Well, Christianity did this and then there are folks who
who agree with the author and say, Well, that's only the organized
portion. That's just like denominations or whatever.
I don't take that view and I uh to be clear, when
when we go through this and we level criticisms and critiques of
some of the things, it's in no way saying it's a bad
book, it's a really good book.
And in particular, I just wanted to highlight this up front because
it doesn't really color his actual conclusions or his arguments, but it's
a term that he uses that we hear a lot and uh
you had mentioned earlier you weren't sure if he came from a
particular denominational background.
he never says this at any point in the book.
Um he does speak favorably of uh Eastern Orthodoxy, but I didn't
get the sense that he was Eastern Orthodox.
But again, it it's immaterial to the book.
So this is this is why we're all here.
I want the future of our people to be a Christian future.
And I want to be one where our people are intact, where
our race is intact.
And I'm very thankful that Antelope Pillis published this book because you
know, not many of the books are, even if some are by
Christian authors, they're not overtly about Christian subjects, which is fine.
But part of the reason that Corey and I started Stone Choir
was to inject Christian discussions from informed Christian men
into a space where it's largely absent and most of what we
do see from Christian men is completely disastrous.
So I that's that's just the introduction of the book and I
think it's a very good introduction to what it is we're going
to be talking about here today.
From reading through the book and really looking at the citations or
the references and also the ones that were not included notably, I
get the general sense that he is reformed of some variety.
Although I couldn't necessarily say that I know which particular one, but
that would be my takeaway as to which tradition to which he
belongs. However, that's not really what comes through in the book.
He's not making a specific argument for any particular Christian tradition, which
is why when I hear a critique of organized religion or organized
Christianity, I really hear echoes of point twenty four of the twenty
five point program of the National Socialists, the notorious one as it
were about positive Christianity, because it's the same general sense.
It's opposition to the corrupted and subverted churches of the day as
organizations. So organizational in that sense.
I wouldn't take it to mean necessarily that organized Christianity is a
problem. I don't think that he's advocating that.
I know that there are those who do advocate that, and that's
wrong. The church is an organization.
The church has always been an organization.
The church will always be an organization The fact that the modern
organizational church, the various corporate entities, have been subverted, does not mean
that the organization of the church is the problem.
And I'm not saying that he's arguing that, I don't believe that
he is.
It's the same sort of problem that was faced in the previous
century, where the church had also been subverted, not to the same
degree as today, certainly the churches today have have been more subverted,
Satan has had more time to perfect the same sort of subversion,
really. It's not even of a different kind.
It's just taken to a different degree.
It's taken to a different level.
Because again, he's had more time to perfect it and he has
more men working for him now, unfortunately.
But as for the the book itself, I I also would recommend
it. It is a good book.
It is worth reading.
I will note, we did get our copies for free, so that
is
in so far as there's any sort of incentive we had we
got a copy for free, but that's for us that's not an
incentive. I would have bought the book anyway.
And quite frankly, if we got a book for free and didn't
like it we would tell you that because well that's just the
sort of people we are.
I think everyone listening to this podcast knows by now that we're
quite comfortable saying that a book is not good if it's not
good. In this case, of course.
We're not famous for mincing words.
Uh no, that's I don't think anyone tunes in to hear us
add nuance.
When it comes to this book, there are obviously there are some
things with which we are going to disagree, particularly as
it's not even necessarily particularly as Lutherans, but may maybe as Megisterial
Protestants there will be a handful of things, but he doesn't really
get into specifics of denominational distinctive, say, or any of that.
That's not the point of the book.
The general points, the general chapter and section headings are things with
which any Christian should be able to agree.
And the same holds for
almost all of his concluding points in the last bit he has
eight points that he goes through.
The main parts of the book are the Christian question, so Christianity
as it relates to the to the West, as it relates to
the white race.
Is Christianity a positive?
Is Christianity a negative?
That's relevant for all Christians, as relevant for anyone living in the
West. It's relevant for anyone who is white.
And then then there's of course the heresy of Christian Zionism.
We would agree.
That's how we would phrase that.
Incidentally, that's one of the things where we have not yet done
an episode.
We've discussed it, it's come up tangentially.
But we will do an episode on that.
We will try to do it in the near future because obviously
for various reasons it is quite relevant today.
And as we go down the list, there all of these things
are salient issues in the church today with which any Christian any
I'm just going to say any Christian, I'd say any Christian on
our side, but there are no Christians on the other side.
So any Christian should be able to agree with these things.
And yes, we're going to have some minor differences, and perhaps dare
I use the word nuance, but by and large, this is a
good book for an overview of many of the things we have
been discussing on various episodes during the course of the past year,
and just in general things that are relevant to the political right,
specifically with regard to Christianity.
His mission statement talks about how those who carry the false doctrines
that he talks about simply are not Christians.
And when I was reading the book, that really stood out to
me because it echoed something that I had experienced a lot.
I've I've been a Christian my whole life.
Um I used to be a lot more uh a Pentecostal, kind
of came from that branch, uh guess you would say.
And obviously there's you know, we can all understand there's a lot
of kind of temperamentally conservative or politically conservative Christians who you know
they'll they'll see things like uh some denomination or like some some
church um out there will you know accept uh homosexuality or they'll
um accept uh um having gay uh clergy um or they'll promote
black lives matter or something like that.
And they'll um
they'll reject it, of course.
They they'll say that that's wrong and and they'll say, well, those
people just aren't Christians.
And in my experience, what they mean when they say that is
it's it's a dismissal of the fact that there's any battle to
be fought at all, basically.
It's just saying, well, I'm I'm saying in my mind to myself
that like this person just doesn't count as uh as a Christian,
and therefore I don't have to worry about it.
And it's it's not my problem.
Um and it's probably also just comes from a feeling of powerlessness
because both politically and probably theologically that they don't feel like they
have a theological justification for fighting it.
Um
so in in my mind, I think it is important for ordinary
Christians like that to understand that while it I obviously agree that,
you know, when you identify false doctrines, it's it's appropriate to say
that that at some point those people simply are not Christians because
they are not living out Christianity.
At the same time, as I think the author recognizes, there is
such a thing as as just Christianity as a whole, as a
phenomenon that's present in the culture and society.
And if it it was pretty much what he discusses, at least
in the the first part of the book, the way that it
is um increasingly manifesting as an anti-white force.
I think it's just important to understand that that you know that
that is the perception that a lot of people have of Christianity.
When they when they think of Christianity, that that's the only reference
point for it that they have.
Um and this really does call us to uh fight against that
and to um reform it or you know destroy it or how
whatever um however you may want to put it.
Um but I think that in my own experience, this is a
question that I think is is very difficult for a lot of
Christians to uh think about and grapple with.
And I think um again, one thing that I like about the
book is how direct it is at addressing this and saying, well,
you know, we're not rejecting the faith.
We are in fact embracing and uh putting forth the true faith.
Um and it is important to do this because that which calls
itself Christianity, that cultural manifestation, that cultural phenomenon that calls itself Christianity
is increasingly just has has absolutely nothing to do with what Christianity
really is.
Yeah,
I agree completely.
It's necessary for faithful men to stand and fight where we are,
wh whatever denomination that is in is these things come among us.
We have to do something about it.
We can't just you're right.
We can't just say, well that guy's irrelevant because he has bad
doctrine. Well, if they're in positions of power, then they're going to
do unspeakable harm with with their power.
Uh the first chapter, Christianity Today, uh begins by discussing the complicity
of all the major denominations in the so-called refugee crisis, which is
it is a crisis, it's a civilizational crisis, but these are not
refugees, these are for the churches, they're moneymakers.
These are industrial operations where they are getting paid by states and
by other NGOs, including Lutherans, Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, pretty much everybody is
in on the grift.
and they're doing it in the name of God.
They're using false scriptural arguments to say, yes, we must overrun Europe
and we must overrun America and anywhere that any white homelands on
the planet must necessarily be overrun by the third world because Jesus,
because Jesus went to Egypt, therefore you need infinity Africans in your
country. And whatever happens to your community and your family, well, you
know, you should just love them and that's that's not a gospel
matter. That's a it's a huge problem.
It is it is a seminal problem.
It's one of the as he says in the preferences we've said
elsewhere, it's one of the principal reasons that a lot of
guys on the right who are maybe they've left the church or
were never in the church actively hate Christianity because that's all that
they see.
And I absolutely agree.
It's necessary to document this is evil and it's coming from inside
our own house as Christians, but it is not Christian.
And so in the first chapter, he does a good job laying
out kind of the some of the history and the basic details
of those things happening.
The other part of that, that's a a key part of the
whole argument that that runs throughout much of the book, is that
anti-racism is a core of the religion that these people espouse as
they import the third world rapists and murderers into our neighborhoods.
And he holds up as an example the Southern Baptist Convention, which
is similarly conservative to the LCMS, and has been going down very
much the same path as as our denomination has in the last
few years.
I was fascinated.
I I never really pay attention to other other denominations too much.
And so I've I was ignorant of some of these things, but
there were a few Russell Moore quotes that he introduced beginning about
2015 through 2017 and then I think a bit newer than that.
I'm gonna I'm gonna read these, but the reason they s they
smacked me in the face was some of them are virtually verbatim
the attacks from within the LCMS leadership against Corey and me for
Stone Choir.
So the these are from Russell Moore and the Southern Baptist Convention.
He writes many of those who have criticized Mr.
Trump's vision for America have faced threats and intimidation from the quote
alt-right of white supremacists and nativists who hide behind avatars on social
media. Another quote.
his twenty seventeen meeting, the Southern Baptists adopted another obnoxious resolution quote
on the anti gospel of alt right white supremacy.
That's pretty much verbatim from the screed that Matt Harrison released in
February attacking us.
And the last quote I wanted to mention, the church should call
white supremacy what it is terrorism.
But more than terrorism, white supremacy is Satanism.
Even worse, even worse than Satanism.
White supremacy is a devil worship that often pretends that it is
speaking for God.
With false sobriety, more closed his editorial by stating, quote, White supremacy
angers Jesus of Nazareth Nazareth.
The question is, does it anger his church?
And this is again, this these were charges leveled against Corey and
me by the leadership of the Missouri Senate.
They called the FBI and accused us of terrorism for talking about
this stuff.
So I was fascinated to see Russell Moore saying the same thing
about Baptists.
It's the same playbook.
It's exactly the same slander, the same lies.
Interest interestingly, is uh the Stone Choir telegram chat has grown uh
a number of people who have joined have told me both there
and privately and elsewhere that one of the episodes of Stone Choir
they introduced them to us and kind of got them hooked in
some cases was the four hour death march that we did describing
the events that the Missouri Senate had taken against the four men
who had initially exposed some of the most current evil going on
within our denomination.
And they it resonated with them from other denominations because they've seen
the the same things.
So I very much appreciated Guiles mention of a lot of these
things just because to me they were it was the first time
I was seeing them.
It was no surprise because of course we all know that these
guys are running a playbook and it's not it it's a supernatural
playbook, which is why I I doubt that Russell Moore hangs out
with Matt Harrison.
Yet when it comes to spiritually, they are bosom buddies.
They have the same God and they're preaching the same religion, but
it's not a Christian religion.
So it's there's a there's a great deal of research that he
has done in this book that I find very valuable because it's
filling in a lot of blanks that personally I didn't I wasn't.
And I think for reas readers who pick up the book, I
think that it will do a really good job of fleshing out
exactly what's going on with the so called refugee crisis.
Yeah, you see these things on T V and you see them
showing up and you know, how how are there Somalis in Minnesota?
Well, it's because the Catholics and the Lutherans in Minnesota that explicitly
imported them.
Yes, the government helped and the government, you know, was doing some
of it, but it was church bodies that were doing the rest.
And they're doing that not only in our name, but they're doing
it with our money.
And so I think that as as readers read through this book,
which again we commend, I hope that I'd love to see, you
know, Stone Choir listeners sell this thing out just because it's an
important asset for folks to have to have some of the material
just lay out.
Here's exactly what's been going on.
And it's a great resource because it's a book that's in, you
know, in one thing that you could hand to someone else in
many ways a synopsis of a lot of things that we cover
on Stone Choir.
So as I we've said before, the nice thing about having a
podcast or a book or an article is you can hand it
to a friend kind of non-committally.
You don't have to say this is the most important thing in
the world.
You have to agree with every word of this.
You can just say, hey, check this out.
There's some amazing stuff in here.
I'm not even sure what to think.
That's a it's a nice passive way of of broaching a subject
that can be very upsetting and just say, look, these seem like
facts to me when I look stuff up it checks out.
I'm glad you mentioned the the longest episode we've done, and quite
frankly, probably the longest episode we
will do, because we'll do what we've done with other topics, split
them into multiple episodes into a series if we're going to go
that long on a particular subject.
That one it made sense to simply sit down and get it
done, to do it in one go.
But we really went through and aired the dirty laundry of our
synod, our church, because it's important.
These are things that are being done in our name, and as
Woe said, with our money, but they're also being done in public
to a certain degree.
Yes, they'd like to keep some of this underhanded, they don't want
you to know exactly what they're doing.
But these are public sins.
And public sins have to be rebuked publicly.
You do not go to a man privately, you can do this
as well, but you do not exclusively go to a man privately
to rebuke him for his public sins.
For his public sins you rebuke him publicly.
And the reason we see this
agreement across denominations, across traditions, across churches, with men who do not
talk to one another, who probably in some cases don't even know
of the existence of one another unless perhaps Russell Moore happened to
see the fact that Matt Harrison spoke before Congress at one point.
These are not men who attend the same country clubs, they obviously
don't attend the same churches.
The reason they have this same script is as we have said
in a number of episodes, I'm not going to go and search
so I know how many times we've used the phrase, but there
is an animating intelligence behind all of this evil.
Satan is running a playbook, and he has developed it over a
course of millennia.
He has perfected it at this point.
Satan, at the very least, seems to believe that he is in
the end game.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
We are not going to speculate on whether or not that's the
case. Woe is going to lean more toward it being the end
game, I'm going to lean more in the other direction.
One of the few places where we disagree a little bit.
But no man knows the day or the hour.
Satan seems to be acting as if he's playing for all the
marbles right now.
And so he has all of his pieces in play, he has
all of his units on the board.
That's why we see the full court press, that's why we see
this happening in every single denomination and tradition.
And that's an important point.
The churches have been the very last thing to be subverted.
Oftentimes if you're speaking to a neopagan or someone who has a
particular animus toward the church, perhaps with warrant, I won't say it's
unwarranted, but has this particular hatred of the church will point out
that the modern churches have been subverted.
That's true.
But show me something in our society that has not been subverted.
The churches held out the longest they were subverted
last. All of the things we've gone over in previous episodes when
it comes to subversion of the culture and corruption of all of
our institutions happened before the church was corrupted.
The Church stood against this for a very long time.
Satan has been trying all these attacks for centuries.
The Church has rebuffed them all until today.
He finally figured out the best way to subvert the church, and
he is actively working to do so, to come to bring that
to completion.
And that is the war that we're actually fighting.
Because if he wins over the churches in sort of a full
sense, if he wins that particular engagement, if he wins that battle
of the larger war, then he's won.
Because the church is in point of fact the last bastion, the
last thing standing against his complete victory.
And Taylor, you mentioned the issue where what is a Christian, basically,
is the question.
What does it mean for someone to be a true Christian or
a false Christian?
Is there such a thing as a false Christian?
Are these people who hold these false beliefs Christians or not, and
we went over this in the episode on the Jews, the first
in the series specifically dealing with the Jews, episode thirty four, and
that is the No Scotsman fallacy.
We went over it there, but I'll go over it again briefly
here. There is such a thing as a Christian.
Just as there is such a thing as a Scotsman, the reason
that you have the fallacy is because there is such a thing
as the thing to which you are applying the fallacy.
To make that clearer, a Scotsman is a member of the nation,
of the race, of the Scottish.
If you find a Scottish man who does something you don't like
and say oh well he's no true Scotsman, no he's still a
Scotsman. You just don't like what he's doing.
But that doesn't change the fact there is such a thing as
a Scotsman.
If there is an Indian in Scotland, he's not a Scotsman.
No matter if he's doing things you like or don't.
He's probably doing things you don't like, but he's not a Scotsman.
There is such a thing, though.
The same thing applies to Christianity.
In the case of the Scotsman, it is a matter of blood.
In the case of Christianity, it is a matter of tenets, because
Christianity is a religion, it is an ideology, in the broader sense
of that term.
It has a number of tenets, core ones, to which you must
assent, to which you must agree, or you are not a Christian,
because that is the definition of what it means to be a
Christian. Conveniently, the Church historically has reduced this to the confessions,
to the creeds.
We are able to point to something and say, this is what
it means to be a Christian.
And to a man, every single one of our enemies cannot actually
recite the creeds and believe what he's saying, because he fundamentally rejects
things in the creeds.
Now, of course, as we have brought up a number of times
in the past on this show, Satan has figured out Figured out
that it is more effective for him to attack the church from
the side.
Basically, he's flanking the church.
As Woe pointed out in a previous episode, you have the Maginode
line, Satan is going around it.
He's not going to just smash his face into the wall.
He's not going to attack us on, for instance, the deity of
Christ. He's tried that in the past, centuries past.
The creeds have made very clear what we believe with regard to
that. Read the Athanasian Creed.
However, that is not where Satan is attacking us today, because that's
where we have our defenses.
We have very good defenses for those big heresies of the past.
The things where you had someone who denied that Christ is God
or said Christ was created or said that there are three essences
or any of a number of things.
We have all of the responses to these reduced to formulae that
we can recite, that we do recite in church, and that's good,
because we are rejecting the false teachings of the past.
As Woe was mentioned before, the reason we have the creeds is
because the heresies arose.
We would not have needed the creeds if the heresies had not
arisen. And so when someone says that all well the creeds aren't
in scripture, every single part of the creeds is in scripture.
And we've passed around documents before detailing which verses correspond with which
parts of the creed.
No the creeds themselves word for word are not in Scripture, and
the reason for that is again, the heresy had not arisen yet.
You don't need to address the heresy until the heresy is a
live issue.
Usually a widespread issue, in the case of some of these.
And so Satan is attacking us where we don't have a creed.
We have responses in Scripture, but you actually have to be familiar
with Scripture in order to formulate these, in order to respond to
what he is doing.
And most men are not equipped to do that, and particularly not
so when the supposed leaders of the church are deliberately misleading the
flock. And so Satan is attacking us on issues like race and
nation and what is an enemy?
What is a friend?
What does it mean to love our enemies?
Because these are issues we don't have in a creed.
We have answers in scripture.
We have answers in many of the church fathers, incidentally.
But most men are not going to be able in the first
case to formulate the response, or in the second, simply to have
read well, it's quite a lot of information, actually, it's many thousands
of pages, to read the Church Fathers.
And so Satan is attacking us where he believes us to be
weak. And he's right.
The institutional church is very weak on these issues.
And so part of what we need to do, and part of
why it's important to have books like this, is we need to
respond to these issues where the church doesn't just have a one-page
answer. The church doesn't have here's the Apostles Creed, that's my response.
Here's the Athanasian Creed, that's my response.
We need something like that.
It has not been developed yet, it has not been put forth,
and unfortunately we're a little short on truly competent theologians these days.
However, that doesn't mean that we can't have an answer to these
questions. It just means we don't have something that rises to the
level of a creed.
But we do have things like this book that we'll go over
Christian Zionism, that we'll go over somewhat briefly, but still in a
useful and important way, what it means to be a racialist, why
that's compatible with Christianity.
These are the things we need to know, because this is the
field on which Satan is currently fighting.
And if you're a faithful soldier, you have to be on the
field where the battle is actually joined.
This is something that is reflected in chapter two of the book,
Christianity Yesterday and Tomorrow.
He has a couple quotes from uh Victor Craig that I want
to read here because they I think they make an important point
that goes along with what m some of what you just said,
kind of from a different direction, but again, much of his audience
is
perhaps unbelievers who don't know some of these things about the church
or about church history.
But I also hope that a lot of believers will will pick
up the book because as we get into some of the later
chapters, there's a great deal of information, some of which is so
horrifying that I don't think we even go into much detail about
it. Um I should mention, I forgot to mention up front, families,
fathers, if you're listening with kids, be sure to check the show
notes before you get into the later part of this episode just
to see the details on what we get into.
We didn't discuss yet how much we'll go into, but there's definitely
stuff that is not child friendly if we talk about it.
Anyway, Victor Craig writes The same revolutionary forces that undermined Europe's civilizational
and racial identity have only recently succeeded in undermining its religious identity.
Therefore to condemn the church for what amounts to an eleventh hour
conversion to a movement that it has adamantly opposed for generations is
short sighted and unfair.
No student of history can argue that Christianity is somehow inherently defective
in ways that weaken the race.
Craig later continues, how can whites claim to be defenders of a
people and of a race and yet scoff at the deepest convictions
of their ancestors?
How How can they speak of preservation when they oppose the faith
that has for so long defined and guided our race?
Today's whites are the final link in the chain of faith that
reaches more than a thousand years into the past.
If they can throw off their ancient religion so easily, what else
might they cast aside?
Their language?
Their culture?
Their race?
Should we not be suspicious of men who invoke the wisdom of
their ancestors, views on blacks or immigrants, but who reject the spiritual
foundation on which their ancestors built their lives, who reject what their
ancestors would have said was the source and strength of all wisdom.
Again, I think that's consistent, Corey, with what you just said.
And this is a an argument that we often make, it's important
for us when we're sitting here in current year looking at the
hellscape of the world, you know, in our neighborhoods, in our communities
globally, whatever scope you're looking at, if you think that you can
just roll back to some earlier date without all of the preconditions
of that date, you're you're kind of just doing a five sci-fi
exercise. And there's nothing wrong with that.
But in particular, when we're talking about Christians in the West, when
we're talking about whites, there's no way to roll back to any
period of European history that would we consider glory Are glorious today
without rolling back to a point where Christians were in charge and
it was actually a Christian nation with Christian rulers.
And we've discussed in the past the glory of Rome and the
glory of Greece and how to some extent those things were true,
but they also had many of the exact horrors that we see
today. They had abortion and infanticide and euthanasia of the old and
all sorts of horrible things that today we would reject and say,
well that that has no place in in the West.
And that's true.
But that's only because the West was redefined by Christianity to the
point that we consider them synonymous.
So in the second chapter he lays out a good argument that
we can't get back the things that all of us as as
white people, regardless of our religion, seek to preserve without simultaneously either
preserving or returning to the faith of our fathers.
Because that was the genesis of the things that made Europe great.
All the greatness that we had went along with us being Christian
nations.
There's a part where he says that you know if we undertake
kind of like a a political attempted a political revolution but without
Christianity, quoting Craig again, he says, you'll have established a nation without
an identity and a body without a soul, which I I think
is um it's it's important in the way that you're saying.
I also find it personally encouraging thing in a way, um because
it kind of solidifies for me, you know, how how tremendous of
a thing is is my faith and how um intrinsic it is
to not just the the greatness but you know even the the
survival um of my people and how much it's something that we
can all lean on for encouragement uh in the struggle that we
have before us
indeed and it's not unknowable.
we we don't have to invent something new.
We just have to go back to doing the things that used
to be done by the folks who in provided inheritance that was
then destroyed at some point in recent generations.
But we don't need to start from scratch.
We just need to go back to that which actually worked for
our own people.
A sort of tangent, but you mentioned the necessity of having all
of the underpinnings in place if you want to go back to
a particular time or achieve the equivalent of that time in the
modern world.
There was an experiment in the 60s, I think it he may
have run it into the seventies as well.
But a man by I can't remember his first name, but the
last name of Calhoun ran an experiment involving mice.
I think he may have also run the experiment with rats, but
He basically built a utopia for them.
What he thought was a utopia.
They had food, they had shelter, they had everything they needed.
But it was a thoroughly artificial environment, a very constructed environment that
was not natural, and it led to complete disaster for the rodent
populations. They would have a boom cycle followed by a bust, there
was all sorts of
aggression despite the fact that they had all the resources they needed.
Basically, he was trying to create a utopia and wound up creating
the mouse version of hell, which is essentially the lesson of all
utopian fiction, as it were.
For those who do not know, it's been mentioned previously, but utopia
in the Greek means not a place.
Built into the word itself is sort of a joke about the
impossibility of this utopia.
Which is an important thing, another tangent, but it's an important matter
for those on the right to remember and this is where Christianity
really serves the right particularly well in this particular way.
We will never build a utopia, not in this life, because this
is a fallen world, this is a sinful world.
This is a world tainted by original sin.
There will be no utopia in this life.
That doesn't mean we can't build a better world.
It doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to build a better world.
That is in fact our duty as Christians, to those who will
come after us, and also of course our duty to God.
We can make a much better world than the one we currently
have, of course.
And no, I'm not being an optimist or any of the various
flavours of millenarian.
I'm simply pointing out it is possible to build a better world
than the one we currently have.
We know that.
Our ancestors had that for centuries.
Prior to well, modernism.
However, we have to bear in mind that if we lose sight
of the fact that we're working in a fallen world with fallen
sinful beings, and we think that we can create a utopia, odds
are we're going to create hell on earth.
You cannot create a utopia.
You can create a better life for those who come after you,
and that should be our goal.
And this is something that Christianity is really vitally important for any
sort of political movement on the right.
You have to have a conscience for your political movement, and that
is what Christianity is, for the actual political right.
Christianity informs our ethical decisions, our moral calculus, it is our conscience.
And without it, we will probably build a complete disaster.
I'm not saying that historically we haven't had European pagan societies that
were relatively successful.
But as well as pointed out a number of times.
You had abortion, you had infanticide, you had human sacrifice in some
cases, very rare in the European context, but not zero.
These were very real problems that arose in the absence of Christianity.
And as we've pointed out in previous episodes, part of the reason
that Europeans did so well relative to others, is that we did
not fall as far from our historic Christian faith.
Gaz obviously our father, our original father of all of the European
peoples, was a Christian when he stepped off the ark.
Noah had taught him the Christian faith.
He went ahead and transmitted that to his sons.
At some point that chain was broken.
But it was not broken as early or as thoroughly as in
the case of the sons of Ham and many of the sons
of Shem.
So the sons of Japheth were loyal for longer, were true to
Christianity, and we benefited from that.
We also We also returned to Christianity more quickly, and we benefited
from that as well.
And so that is another point to bring up for those who
think that Christianity is incompatible with a functioning European society.
The most functional European society we've ever had was Christian.
And it was for centuries.
It is only since we've abandoned Christianity, in large part, that we've
had these problems.
Yes, there are other complicating factors.
There's rampant Satanism, and
well, we've gone over a wealth of problems in previous episodes and
we'll go over more in future episodes.
But we've lost our core.
We no longer have any real moral or ethical core to our
people because we abandoned
Christianity. And that is the central point of really this podcast, and
also a central point in this book.
You need Christianity because it is one of the prerequisites in order
to build back the sort of society that our ancestors enjoyed and
that we have lost in only the last handful of generations.
You can't You cannot restore the structure unless you restore the foundation.
And the foundation of the Western world is Christianity, because the Western
world is Christendom.
In In chapter three, which is a short chapter on what he
calls Christian Reformation, but it's really about the migration of Christianity from
the Mediterranean into Northwestern Europe.
It's the first argument that Giles make and I refer to him
by his b first name just so I don't call him Corey
because that would be incredibly confusing.
The argument that he makes is one that it seems that he
adopted from James Russell, which I I disagree with completely the way
he presents it, but I'm interested, Corey, for you to chip in
because I'm sure that you know more about the background of this
argument. Basically it comes down to this James Russell quote.
The process by which Christianity was Germanized in its attempt to Christianize
the Germanic peoples was not the result of organized Germanic resistance to
Christianity or of an attempt by the Germanic peoples to transform Christianity
into an acceptable form.
Rather, it was primarily a consequence of the deliberate enculturation of Germanic
religiocultural attitudes within Christianity by Christian missionaries.
This process of accommodation resulted in the essential transformation of Christianity from
a universal religion to a Germanic and eventually European folk religion.
Now I don't know the background of that argument, but interestingly, later
on when in the chapter Ree's discussing African and the global south
adoption of Christianity, he makes much the same argument except very critically.
Uh for me, I think that the my read on what was
going on, I think it's a framing issue that I I fundamentally
have, because I think when you look at Christianity in the first
few centuries where there was persecution because Christians were a minority.
They're first a small minority.
They were viewed as a cult.
Then they became a larger minority.
And in some cases they became, you know, the overwhelming majority, but
yet still not a an official state religion because all states had
a state religion and generally the the head of the state, the
head of the nation, was also a god.
You know, the pinch of of incense to Caesar was to acknowledge
his godship.
I think that what changed when missionaries moved into Germany and elsewhere
in Europe was that Christianity was not migrating to different cultural contexts,
but it was migrating to places where it simply became the dominant
religion. And the dominant religion is always in a preferred place and
should be an exclusive place in in the case of a monotheistic
religion, which is almost an obscenity because there is only one God.
And so the notion that that monotheism can have different faces is
itself a separate lie.
But I my read on the history of Christianity moving into places
like the German peoples and elsewhere in Europe was not that it
was being adapted to local mores or that there was syncretism.
It was simply that when the German people became Christian
Christianity became their culture.
It was incorporated into their culture as always happens.
You know, it's natural that
a German Christian and a
French Christian, even, and an English Christian, are going to behave in
slightly different ways.
Certainly an Irish Christian, you know, you put those four in one
place, and you're going to have differences in behavior and approach that
isn't simply a function of the history of their denominational changes throughout
time, but it's also a function of them as a race.
You know, the race of Irishmen is distinct from the race of
Englishmen that's been the source of the troubles because when the English
try to dominate the Irish, the Irish don't like it, and so
they fight.
That is
it's part of race, it's it's part of one of the things
that makes it so ludicrous to think that race isn't inextricable.
Because when an Englishman becomes Christian, he's gonna approach things differently than
a German who becomes Christian.
That's fine.
It's both those are both Christian and I I simply reject the
minor point that doesn't really flow into the rest of the book
that somehow that was syncretistic.
I think it was simply that when the Germanic peoples became Christian
they were they were still Germans, so they didn't they didn't stop
having German character.
Christianity simply became their their worldview as well as their religion.
So Corey, I'm curious what you have to say about that theory
because I'm sure it's something you've given a lot more thought and
reading.
He gives a sort of light touch to an argument that became
popular in the academy
really, I guess it's been probably a couple decades ago at this
point. But
yeah, Russell's book was nineteen ninety-six, so probably maybe thirty years ago
this started to crop up and it's kind of waxed and waned
over time, but the argument essentially is that Christianity started out this
I'm not making this argument for myself, please note that this is
the academic argument that has been advanced.
Christianity started out as a Middle Eastern religion because they always neglect
the fact that Christianity started in the garden.
But they say that it started out as a Middle Eastern religion.
And then from there it moved into the Greek and Roman context,
the Roman context, via the Greeks, and became eventually under Constantine, because
he always plays this outsized role in all of these mythologies.
Under Constantine it becomes the state religion, it becomes Romanized to a
certain degree, which of course means Europeanized to a certain degree, and
then when the Germanic tribes invade and start taking Christianity back with
them, it becomes Germanized.
And so the argument is that Christianity through this transmission route became
a German, a Germanic European religion, whereas it had originally been a
Middle Eastern religion.
This is, of course, complete nonsense when taken to the degree that
the That the Academy would like to take it.
Now, the problem isn't that the argument itself is necessarily false, it's
the emphasis is totally wrong.
The goal of the Academy, of course, is to discredit Christianity, is
to make it seem like it's this chameleon that just adapts itself
as it moves through the world.
And incidentally, we do see this today with those who are trying
to say that oh well now Christianity has become African and Asian,
it's part of the global south, it's a new thing.
That's this argument for idiots.
But in reality, what you have
is you have Christianity
becoming the core of these cultures as it goes, which really it's
a restoration of the ancient faith, but it becomes the core of
the culture, and the culture molds itself around that Christian core.
There's nothing wrong with that.
If we manage to say Christianize Japan, Japanese Christianity will not look
the same as Western Christianity.
Japanese Christianity, if it is Christianity in fact, will have the same
tenets because again it's those tenets that are important.
If you have some differences in the look and the way you
conduct your ceremonies, that's fine.
That's a cultural difference.
There is no reason ceremonies need to be the same everywhere, and
incidentally I'm basically quoting the Book of Concord right there.
That is one of the arguments we put forth that you can
have differences in the ceremonies due to cultural differences.
And one of the examples that Luther liked to use was actually
the Italians versus the Germans, which despite the fact that we're next
door neighbors, two very different peoples.
We're going to behave differently in all of our cultural contexts.
We're going to have different ceremonies.
You're going to have very different singing in a German Lutheran church
versus an Italian church, whatever they happen to be.
Granted, Italians almost certainly Roman Catholic.
But Christianity did not become German.
That's not what happened.
Christianity became the core of the German culture.
Now of course, Christianity was in large part entirely compatible culturally
with the Germans as it found them.
Obviously not religiously because the German tribes were pagan at the time,
and so that had to be jettisoned.
But the culture can remain.
Because the culture had many of the things that are required in
Christianity, that are part of the Christian religion, because again, they had
not fallen as far and they had not been apostate for as
long. And so for instance, you have Roman historians, who will specifically
note that marriage was held in high esteem among the German tribes.
Adultery was basically unheard of, it was very severely punished, usually by
death
etc. There are many arguments along these lines from the pagan historians
who are noting how these various tribes behaved.
And so when you have Christianity that comes in and says, Thou
shalt not commit adultery, well that's perfectly in line with what the
Germans already believed.
Now, notably, they didn't reject Christianity if instead of actual
Christians, actual missionaries going and proclaiming actual Christianity to these tribes, you
had someone proclaiming the modern conception of Christianity as propounded by the
mainline so called churches, and by Rome, and in large part by
basically all of the organized forms of Christianity.
The European tribes would have rejected it.
Because what you have today, the modern conception of this theology, so
called, is a is a death cult.
It's a death pact.
It's a suicide pact.
These are not the actual tenets of Christianity, these are corruptions of
them, and so you would have never been able to convert the
European peoples with the false faith that is masquerading as Christianity today
in the West.
And the global South is another problem, it's mostly syncretism that's the
problem down there.
In the West it's mostly these liberal ideas in the technical sense.
But the takeaway point is that Christianity was not Germanized.
I'm not saying that the book isn't worth reading.
It's an interesting book.
If you're the sort of person who finds this interesting, then by
all means grab the book and read it.
There's plenty of other material as well, many journal articles.
But the emphasis is wrong.
Germany did not transform Germany in the grand sense here, obviously it
was Germanic tribes at the time.
Germany did not transform Christianity.
Christianity became the core of Germanic culture and eventually became the core
of all European culture.
It is the foundation upon which the Western world is built.
You cannot have the West without Christianity, and in point of fact,
you cannot have Christianity without the West.
As has been proven, the West is the only bastion of Christianity.
It has always been the only bastion of Christianity.
The only possible exception
was when basically all of the sons of Noah, at this point
great great great grandsons, depending on where in the world, when all
of these progeny of Noah had fallen away, God chose
a small tribe in the Near East in order to maintain the
Christian faith.
And that was with active, pervasive, and constant intervention by God Himself.
That is what it was reduced to for a time.
But since the coming of Christ, since the transmission of the gospel
to the West, the West has been Christendom, and Christendom is the
West. Without the West, you don't have the Church, and without the
Church, you don't have the West.
And
that is fundamentally what is discussed in the third part of the
book. Um so the first three chapters cover the just kind of
a brief introduction of the state of the church.
The second part of the book is about half of the book.
In my opinion, I think it's really the meat of what is
presented here is on the heresy of Christian Zionism.
Giles gives a really good survey of the history of both premillennial
and post-millennialist thought.
Uh Notably, he ignores omillennialism altogether, which is kind of a bummer.
As Lutherans, we reject the notion that there is a millennium as
a thousand-year period.
There is the ascension of Christ, and there's Pentecost, and then that
is the millennium until almost before the return of Christ.
So we are living in the millennium now.
that is what we believe.
And you know, there are variations of these various things.
I it's a little bit of a bummer that he wasn't familiar
with it.
I did a I didn't see it at all in the book
and I did a word search.
All millennium doesn't appear even once, which is fine.
Like that's again, is as we note these things, it's not to
say, Oh, this is a bad book, but it's just I think
that whenever any you're listening to anything or reading anything, you should
always be critical.
You know, we we always encourage you to be critical of things
that we say because we know Because we know that they will
withstand scrutiny.
That should be the approach that we take to everything.
if you are absorbing things mindlessly, you're you're basically a weapon at
the hands of whoever's feeding you information.
So So w the the small criticisms that we have of the
book are in no way a negation of the the really good
work that he's done here.
I you know if I wanted a better book to exist, I
should have written my myself.
it's a huge undertake and I have a tremendous amount of respect
for him for producing this.
So, you know, when we mention these things, please don't take it
as as an indictment.
Uh he does he covers the the history of Zionism really well
and it's a a really nice compliment to again the series that
we did on the Jews, the four part series, particularly the the
last two I think that get get the most into Zionism, as
Corey mentioned, we've had a ton of requests recently for an episode
on dispensationalism.
I think we're gonna have to do that.
Um I I don't I don't want to because it's painful, which
is just me whining like a little girl.
I I I have decided I need to treat this podcast basically
as my job at this point and if I find a topic
unpleasant, that just means it's that much more important to do it
because we a lot of people asking for that in you know,
as we're as we're recording this right now, uh Israel's dropping bombs
on hospitals and killing hundreds of people in Gaza.
That sort of violence ebbs and flows in that part of the
world throughout time.
I one of the things that we don't want to do with
with Stone Choir episodes is to make them highly time sensitive.
I want someone to be able to come along years from now
and listen to one of these episodes and not feel like they're
listening to a time capsule.
I I hope that the things that we're discussing are are always
relevant. And so that means there are some topics we avoid.
So in the case of dispensationalism, it is again, it is the
the heresy that undergirds Christian Zionism in this in this book.
And so he does a really good job in a great deal
of detail laying out how we got here.
And it's it's fascinating reading through part two of this book how
much of it plays directly into the headlines like this afternoon.
I and it's it's aggravating.
That shouldn't be the case.
we should not have events in the Middle East being dictated by
bad theology.
But the case that he makes in the book and the the
pivotal case that we'll also be making when we do an episode
on dispensationalism is that the heresy of Christian Zionism and the heresy
of dispensationalism was specifically created in order to ensure that when this
day and current year came when Israel was going to war again
with all their neighbors, that the United States would the people of
this country would feel that we have a moral obligation to support
Israel because they're our greatest ally, and because God gave them that
land and all that nonsense.
Uh, there are a couple quotes I wanted to mention here because
they undergird the the overarching theme of the heresy of Zionism.
Quote Indeed, Zionism would most probably have remained a theological position, were
it not for the intervention of a handful of influential aristocratic politicians
who came to share the theological convictions of Way, Irving, and Darby,
and translated them into political reality.
One such politician, the philanthropist, Lord Shaftsbury, was convinced that the restoration
of the Jews to Palestine was not only predicted in the Bible,
but also coincided with the strategic interests of British foreign policy, a
view shared by Prime Minister Lord Palmerston, as well as future Prime
Ministers Lord Arthur Balfour and David Lloyd George.
So I believe this quote was from the mid 1800s.
It was before, incidentally, the Schofield Bible had been covered.
And that's one of the things that he discusses in in detail
in a future chapter.
Again, that like we we try not to do topical episodes, but
the the notion that Palestine being ripped away from the Palestinians who'd
lived there for thousands of years and given to another people, the
Genesis was part of the genesis of Christian Zionism, this heresy.
And then today people are dying because of it.
Americans are going to die because of it.
Right now we have naval ships moving into place they're gonna get
shot at, soldiers and marines are gonna be on the ground in
whether it's in Gaza or elsewhere, they're gonna get hurt and they're
gonna get killed.
Never mind the civilians and the others who are already dying.
I don't mean to imply that American lives are worth more to
us than their lives are to them, but certainly the American life
is worth more to me in terms of we shouldn't be going
there and dying for someone else's war.
And so that was the the key reason that this heresy was
invented two centuries ago was to make the wars then the the
troop movements that we're seeing today even possible
that's a big deal.
And that's why this part of the book is so vitally important,
because if you don't understand where this stuff came from and how
pervasive it became in Western culture, particularly American and British culture, there's
no way to understand what's happening today.
One thing that I I think really kind of suggests itself as
you read that particular uh part that you read.
Um he's talking about uh Lord Shaftesbury's view that the restoration of
the Jews to Palestine not was not only predicting the Bible but
also coincided with the strategic interests of British foreign policy.
I I think my immediate thought was, you know, how m how
absolutely clear it is in hindsight that there is no truth to
that idea at all, that um uh you know the interests of
the uh Jewish state in any way coincided uh with the interests
of the British Empire.
The whole the the formation of you know as as we're all
well aware of the the coming to existence of the state of
Israel after World War Two um and the whole process there that
came about by the same process that led that destroyed the British
Empire. Um, you know, their uh insistence on uh fighting the world
war uh with uh Germany.
Um and he goes into that argument uh kind of the same
type of argument uh uh not specifically on that point but just
generally making the point that uh you know the idea that phylosemitism
uh and uh blessing the physical people of Israel, the physical Jews,
is in any way a blessing to the nation that does it
is just completely not borne out by history.
Um but that's that was just something that really stood out to
me while while reading that though so I'm happy that you uh
kind of picked up on that specific passage.
You can say that you're avoiding the dispensationalism issue, and that's entirely
understandable. I've read a fair amount of it, and it's not exactly
the most enjoyable slog, but at the same time, if you're reading
about dispensationalism, it is a valid excuse to put off reading Palamus,
which is in fact worse, although we will still eventually get around
to the episode on Eastern Orthodoxy.
And I do have the the full translation of his major work
now instead of just the
it's really not a summary, it's still something like half to two
thirds of the work.
But I have the definitive edition now by a Greek Orthodox priest,
so that particular objection that has been voiced by some will no
longer be valid when we get around to that episode.
But it is a very interesting point that in hindsight, obviously, the
British decisions in and during World War II, leading up to it,
during it and after it regarding what is today known as the
State of Israel
did not coincide with British interests insofar as the British nation is
concerned. Now it certainly helped line the pockets of many British politicians
and businessmen.
But it certainly destroyed the British Empire, and ultimately, as we see
today, it destroyed the British nation.
Perhaps not yet beyond the point of salvage, we can certainly hope
and pray for that.
But things are not looking good for the United Kingdom, certainly.
Because well, quite frankly, Israel has flooded Europe
with so called refugees.
It is biological warfare against the European nations, whom the Jews view
as their mortal enemies, always have and always will.
And so
we, in sort of a larger sense here, in the West, largely
yes, the British and the Americans, basically established
our centuries old enemy in a state of their own, and then
have funded them to the tune of quite frankly, at this point,
probably an uncountable amount of money.
And we see the consequences of that today.
You mentioned that you hope that the episodes aren't topical in the
sense of not standing the test of time because of things that
are no longer relevant, were relevant only in the moment.
In point of fact, I do hope that these episodes, certain ones,
become entirely topical, because I would very much like to see Israel
no longer be an issue at some point.
So hopefully someone listening fifty years in the future will have to
go and look at a history book for that one.
So part of the dispensational heresy is the Schofield Reference Bible.
I think pretty much everyone who's listening has probably heard about it
before. This was a study Bible that was published
in nineteen oh nine.
The author of this book does a really good job going into
the history of that man or the absence of history of that
man, uh, who called himself a doctor and called himself a number
of other things, despite there being literally no evidence of any of
them. As best we can tell, he was a complete fraud and
charlatan at every step.
He was an absolute nobody scumbag grifter who somehow became connected with
the highest echelons of Western society on both sides of the Atlantic.
And this translated directly into him
publishing so-called this Bible.
I think it was the Oxford Press that did it, which was
again completely out of the blue.
Is the publisher, the press that produced it?
I don't think they'd done a Bible at least in quite some
time. It was it was far outside of their purview.
And so as as he makes the case, all these little facts
on the ground, seemingly out of nowhere, make no sense.
But looking back in time, i they do make sense if you
believe that the supernatural acts to cause things and if you believe
that there are men who conspire to achieve things in time, which
I would hope all of us do as you know, as we
established in the beginning of the the greatest lie episode, we talked
about uh COVID.
We talked about the fact that we were all lied to about
the origins of the disease, about the nature of the injections, conspiracies
actually happen.
People in dark rooms make plans to hurt people and then they
put them into practice.
And they often succeed.
They sometimes fail.
Plans don't always work, but they try.
And as we've said in the past, one of the chief blind
spots that Christians in particular have is we're governed by a belief
though I would never do that, therefore no one would ever do
that, which is is a pernicious lie.
And so after World War One, I'm gonna read a quote here
now. After World War One, the Schofield Reference Bible flew off the
rack, exceeding two million copies by the end of World War II.
Hence the pointless carnage of the World Wars literally sold the Schofield
Bible and its apocalyptic pro-Israel message.
The nineteen forty-eight creation of the state of Israel also made Schofield's
premillennialism seem prophetic.
So basically, what he did with annotations and footnotes, they were very
selective. You know, as he went through the text of the Bible.
It was the the only the only additions that were made, the
only changes that were made were done with the specific intent of
laying the groundwork for the mandate of Palestine to become what we
now know as the state of Israel.
Here's another quote.
Schofield wisely chose not to change the text of the King James
Edition. Instead, he added hundreds of easy to read footnotes at the
bottom of about half of the pages, and as the old English
grammar of the King James becomes increasingly difficult for progressive generations of
readers, students became increasingly dependent on the modern language footnotes That's entirely
true. And I found this particular comment to be pretty hilarious because
in the preface, the very first words of this entire book by
Giles, he specifically says that the King James is essentially the only
true Bible that all the others have basically been corrupted and it's
the only one any sh one should use, and that the corruptions
in other translations are the fault of the problems that we have
in the church today.
They're definitely bad translations, but we actually spent about half of last
week's episode or two weeks ago now, because we had a brief
hiatus. Two weeks ago when we did the episode on their listener
mail we talked about choosing Bibles and I specifically made the point
that the King James is singularly unsuitable for a modern Bible precisely
for the reason he mentions here.
Because the grammar was increasingly difficult, people relied on the footnotes.
So the very thing that he holds up is a necessity for
the preservation of the word, in fact, is its greatest weakness.
As we said in that episode, it's a beautiful book.
It is the Bible, but it's archaic language to the point that
people don't know what they're reading.
And that's borne out by history.
It's borne out in modern denominations today.
the more adamantly a denomination says we are King James only, nothing
else is suitable.
I can pretty much guarantee that overwhelmingly they're going to be dispensationalist
and they're gonna have a lot of other really bad doctrine too.
At some point, the two cannot be ignored as going together.
So it's a minor point that he made, and I don't mean
to pick on him, but it's just it's important to recognize if
you can't understand the Bible, what are you gonna do?
You're gonna go to someone who can help you, and that's precisely
what Schofield and his financial backers exploited.
They put these footnotes in and the footnotes didn't have anything to
do with scripture.
Again, the what he inserted into the text was specifically around creating
a moral imperative for Christians to recreate basically the third temple.
The idea is that and and he gets it to in some
of the later chapters.
Forget the Jesus stuff.
We need Israel to be in the land of Israel, because that's
what God promised to Abraham, and we as Christians must do everything
we can to give them back everything that was taken in AD
70. It's blasphemous on its face.
It it's predicated on false doctrine.
And it's also fundamentally destructive to nations.
See, this is this is part of the reason that we need
Christian voices in these discussions doing a good job with the Christian
stuff because geopolitics hinges on today it hinges on false doctrine
that was introduced over a century ago.
And it was Schofield didn't up with this stuff.
he cribbed it from Darby and others, but it was inserted into
Western culture in a way that we're stuck with today.
And those footnotes in the annotations that he made are today cited
as doctrine by many people.
And the end result is the creation of the state of Israel
in two carrier battle groups off the shore of Gaza today, ready
for us to go to war and die for a conflict that
has nothing to do with us.
And we see the long coattails of Schofield in many modern study
Bibles. This is not something where someone needs to have Schofield in
order to be influenced and really infected by these notes.
Because there's Ryrie, which is an updating of the Schofield.
There's the MacArthur Study Bible, which in large part is the Schofield
reworked. Yes, there are many additional notes, but Schofield still comes through,
and this is the case for really anything produced by those who've
attended any of the various institutions that are largely dispensationalist, one of
the biggest offenders would be Dallas Theological Seminary, but the Southern Baptist
Theological Seminary is another major offender when it comes to promulgating and
pushing dispensationalist heresy.
So this is very much a live issue.
This is not something that has faded into the background, and I
had the same reaction when I saw that particular comment in light
of the preface.
And that was the one the biggest problem I had with I
guess we could say really this edition, because you can go back
through and swap out all of the citations to scripture for a
different translation, that's fine.
I would love to see a version of this that had, say,
the ESV or the NASB or any of a number of translations
other than the King James.
Now I recognize there are copyright issues, but that's a separate matter.
It would be more accessible to the reader if a modern translation
of scripture were used.
And that's exactly what is admitted in that chapter.
The King James is just not accessible to people anymore, as we
went over at length in the previous episode.
I do find it funny though that it's always the King James,
which obviously sixteen eleven, although it's never the sixteen eleven because they
always use the updated version.
So apparently updating it's fine as long as you're
still calling it the King James?
Because no one is using the original version with the old spelling
in the Apocrypha.
You never see that.
Okay. That's not entirely true.
I did meet one man in a coffee shop who absolutely insisted
that the original spelling was somehow also important and he had it
on him at the time.
So I've had I've encountered that once in my life.
But I do find it funny that you don't have the original
version of the King James being the one they always argue you
have to use.
And for some reason it's the King James, and not the Tyndale.
You have the Tyndale that came before the King James in well,
it's an older English and it's even more difficult to read.
But the point is the language has changed, so you need to
have a version you can read.
I do also find it worth noting that the Tyndale Bible in
English and the Luther Bible obviously in German essentially the exact same
years for the initial and full versions fifteen twenty two and fifteen
thirty four, fifteen thirty five.
And
to be clear, that critique of of the author in no way
changes any of his conclusions.
like Corey said, you could you could swap out any other version
of the Bible and the theology would the arguments would work just
as well.
In fact one of the first citations from the King James that
he uses, I struggle with like what I what what does that
mean? I'm literate, I'm not dumb.
And yeah, I if I'm struggling struggling with something, I guarantee that
other people are.
And guys who tell me, Oh, you you just need experience with
it. Well, uh you think that because you think it's a magic
Bible language.
And I'm sorry, I know that there are guys that get really
adamant about this, but you know, right in the text of this
book, on one hand he says King James is the only thing,
and on the other he says it's causing problems, and everyone was
going to the footnotes.
The footnotes wouldn't have worked if not for the confusing language.
There's also the issue of if you're saying that you have to
spend time with this in order to know how to read it,
you're really admitting what you're doing.
You're learning another language.
Yes, you're learning a equivalent of, say, a dialect sort of you're
learning a form of English, but if you're saying that you have
to spend time with this to learn it, go ahead and learn
Greek. Just read the untranslated New Testament and the Septuagint, then.
The problem is you see men who are advocating King James only
and they don't put in the time to actually learn the Greek.
I'm not saying you have to learn Greek to know scripture, but
I am saying if you're going to absolutely insist that oh you
have to know this, that, and the other in order to understand
scripture, Learn the original language.
Put in the effort and do that.
Don't tell me that I have to read English from four hundred
years ago
because the men who were translating it were looking at the Greek
when they translated it.
So they were relying on the Greek.
So if you want to insist that you absolutely must read in
this particular version, go ahead and learn the Greek.
Then we can have a discussion about whether you find something in
the Greek that doesn't come through in, say, the English Standard Version
or the NASB, because then we can actually have a real conversation
about translation choices.
Otherwise it's really just turning the King James into an idol.
Which is not what scripture is meant to be.
I'm not saying, you know, oh Biblicism is dangerous and you can't
rely too much on scripture.
No, that's not the point.
The issue is when you turn one particular translation into the Bible.
That's not how the Word of God works.
That's not how God has told us it works.
Because look at the history.
God caused the original Hebrew of the Old Testament and yes Aramaic
in certain places to be translated into Greek.
God caused that to happen.
And then when he came to earth he cited the Greek.
So God gave his stamp of approval to translation.
So using a translation of Scripture is entirely fine.
As we keep telling people, read the scriptures, one, in the Bible
you actually have, so you actually read, and two, in a language
you actually
understand. With the one caveat being, if you want to learn a
foreign language, reading scripture is a great way to do
that.
There's another long quote from this chapter that I want to read.
I think it's important to know that you know this was written,
I think, 2019, 2020, roughly, and yet this describes current circumstances almost
to a T.
A lot of the same names are in this as we're seeing
in the news today.
As Corey said, that shouldn't.
We shouldn't be hearing about this stuff.
But the heresy of Christian Zionism is what has produced the geopolitical
situation we have.
Quote. Falwell was the founder of Liberty University and operated a popular
television ministry.
In 1979, Falwell founded the Moral Majority, a major organization in the
American religious right.
Israel, the state of Israel, provided Falwell with a personal Learjet, and
in nineteen eighty he became the first Gentile to be awarded the
Vladimir Zev Jabotinsky Medal for Zionist Excellence by Prime Minister Bagan.
When Israel bombed Iraq in 1981, Bagan called Falwell before Reagan to
explain to the Christian public the reasons for the bombing.
Falwell regularly defended and minimized Israeli atrocities and in 1985, pledged to
the Rabbinical Assembly in Miami to mobilize 70 million conservative Christians for
Israel and against anti-Semitism.
Continuing the pattern, in nineteen ninety-eight, then and current Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu met with Falwell before President Clinton, and in two thousand Falwell
revived the moral majority as People of Faith 2000, a pro-Israel movement
to reclaim America as one nation under God.
Sizer writes that Falwell succeeded probably better than any other American Christian
leader in ensuring his followers recognized that their Christian duty to God
involved involves providing unconditional support for the state of Israel.
Oh boy howdy.
Does not sound like a lot of people on Twitter and pretty
much everywhere else right now.
When you see news from the Middle East, this is the first
thing that many people who call themselves Christians will say.
We must support Israel.
Those who bless Israel will be blessed.
That's what God promised, and it's eternal, and blah blah blah.
He goes into several chapters detailing specifically how utterly blasphemous and nonsensical
that is.
But again, when this was created and then passed through time, it
it has reshaped our world physically.
It's reshape the physical world.
This isn't just about ideas.
This isn't just footnotes and theories and theology.
This is life and death.
And again, part of the reason it's important for it to be
s discussed in the political sphere, even among unbelievers, is to explain
it's not the no true Scotsman fallacy for us to say that
dispensationalism is evil.
It is per se evil.
Because it's not simply that these people are getting a few things
wrong. There are those, you know, maybe they've they've fallen for the
dispensationalist lies, but they're not particularly invested in them.
Those people are in error.
they're Christians who've made a mistake.
The problem is that when push comes to shove, the vast majority
of radical adherence to dispensationalism, which is most of them, there's there
are not many lightweight dispensationalists.
If this is your bag, you're all the way.
Those people will throw God out the window to support the terrorist
state of Israel.
And they think it is more important.
They think it is more important to do these things than to
have Jesus.
And they were told by false teachers that Jesus said that's okay.
It's interesting as he details in the book the history of this
infiltration of these things every tale tell evangelist you've ever heard, every
name you would recognize as a grifter, as someone who is a
thief and a liar and a blasphemer, they're all in there.
They were all paid by the state of Israel to tell the
lies that they told oddly TV.
It was it was a system.
They became fabulously wealthy serving Satan because it's one of the promises
that Satan made to Jesus.
I'll give you everything, just serve me.
Well, Jesus said no, but these televangers like that's a great deal.
I'd love a jet.
I'd like a free jet.
Wouldn't be nice.
These guys will happily sell out because they can convince themselves, well,
no, it's okay.
And so whether they are knowingly complicit in these lies, which I
think virtually all of them are, I think they all are, whether
or not they were knowingly complicit initially, they all have seared their
consciences to the point that they cannot possibly be Christian when they
continue to perpetuate these things.
But it's not just theology.
It's not just a theological fight, and I think that's an overarching
theme of the book and of Stone Choir.
This stuff that we're talking about, it's not simply an interdenominational squabble
over who's reading the Bible better.
When these ideas are taken into the real world, civilizations rise or
fall as a result.
That makes it the most important thing that we can be talking
about right now.
As Corey alluded to earlier, Satan's not coming after justification.
He's not coming after the nature, two natures of Christ, or any
of the other things that were past battles.
He's coming after physical reality, he's coming after sex, he's coming after
race, he's coming after nations and borders, and saying none of those
things exist.
And virtually every church is going along with it.
And the heresy of Christian Zionism
was in many cases the solvent that made that possible.
See, they were preaching against so-called anti-Semitism long before the anti-racism screed
got fired up in churches.
That's not a coincidence.
The only way that we have current year problems in our schools
and our workplaces is trace directly back to this original invention.
If you have people who are so evil that they're napalm, they're
using the equivalent of napalm, that's effectively what white phosphorus is.
It's just that it's something that you can get away with because
there's a legitimate battlefield use for it.
It's not how they use it.
When they use that stuff against civilians, when they bomb hospitals as
they just did tonight, the dispensationalists are gonna say, Well, we gotta
bless Israel.
You know, that those those Hamas people, those Muslims, they were the
bad guys.
And to be clear, I don't think the Muslims are the good
guys religiously.
It's not that Jews and Muslims one has a better religion, one
has a wor for worse religion because we know that they both
worship Satan.
That's what scripture says.
they don't worship Allah and Yahweh.
They worship Satan because they don't worship Christ.
They reject Christ as their religious identity.
So when we talk about this, it's not picking a side in
that fight.
It's simply saying the evil that is being done is not being
done a it's their problem, it's their fight.
If they want to be evil to each other, it's none of
our business.
But when we look at what's happening, it's clear that the invention
of Christian Zionism, so-called, was necessary for them to be able to
get away with it.
It. If any other country on the planet were doing what they're
doing right now, we would have intervened to stop them.
We would have bombed them to prevent it.
And again, like, you know, we we try not to make this
timely, but frankly, you could listen to this on any random day
in any random year and have a pretty decent chance that it
would still actually be ripped from the headlines.
Because this crap is always going on.
And it's going on because this doctrine was permitted among Christians
and it eventually replaced Christianity itself.
I
think one of the only things you really need to
highlight how wicked dispensationalism is, Christian Zionism is
first Timothy five eight, a verse that we have used a number
of times previously.
If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members
of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than
an unbeliever.
And if you look at those who
say that they support the nation of Israel in quotes, they will,
and they are in fact quite happy to support Israel above and
before their own.
And this verse is very clear.
That makes them apostate.
You have, particularly among the older generation, but some in the younger
generations as well, notably significantly decreasing, which is good news, but you
have many who are willing to send their sons, their grandsons over
to die
for
Israel in a war in which we have no interest, which will
not benefit us in any way, shape, or form, which does not
involve us, unless of course Israel decides to use the Samson option,
but that is a separate matter.
If they are willing to send their own flesh and blood, their
own children, to die for some foreign people
they're worse than an unbeliever.
That's what Scripture calls them.
We cannot call the people who hold to these heresies Christian.
Does that mean they are all damned?
No, of course
not. Lutherans have the perfect answer for this one.
We call it felicitous inconsistency.
We've mentioned this before.
It may be that these men publicly profess one thing, but when
it comes right down to it, they still trust in Christ.
They still have faith.
They still believe there is only one way to the Father.
And certainly we hope that, for some of them at least, perhaps
most of them.
God of course hopes that all will be saved, and we agree
with that.
However, we recognize the evil of these men, and we recognize that
many of them are hardened, their consciences are seared, they have chosen
wickedness, they have chosen evil, they are not Christians, and that is
simply what Scripture says of them, we don't get to debate whether
or not these men are Christians.
If Scripture says they are not, then they are not.
Even if in their heart of hearts where we cannot look, God
alone can look, they happen still to be Christians, we have to
deal with them according to what they do outwardly, because we can
only look on the outward behavior.
We can see what they say, we can see what they do.
We have to judge according to those things, and we went over
what it means to judge or judge not in a previous episode,
conveniently entitled Judge not, not in parentheses, but we have to deal
with these men
as they are, as we can see them, according to their deeds
according to their words, and according to their deeds and their words,
they are apostate, they are outside the faith, because they do not
provide for their relatives, they have abandoned their households, they have abandoned
their own, for the sake of foreigners, and not just for the
sake of foreigners, but for the sake of particularly wicked and vile
pagans, in the
encompassing sense of pagan, which simply means not Christian.
It would be one thing if they were advocating that we have
to interfere to protect Christians somewhere.
And there have been opportunities for that recently.
There have been many opportunities for that historically, to defend persecuted Christians
around the world.
They aren't advocating for that.
They're advocating that we go and shed our blood and expend our
treasure for those who every single day, multiple times a day, deliberately
blaspheme God and curse Christians.
There is absolutely no way we can call that Christian.
And the details of those prayers are presented in one of the
later chapters.
In chapter five on the theology of Christian Zionism, uh the author
does a really good job examining a number of the Zionist proof
texts that have historically been deployed to basically get us to where
we are today.
I want to read a couple snippets here.
For example, Carlson argues that the 1967 new Schofield Reference Bible deifies
the state of Israel.
One newly inserted footnote reads For a nation to commit the sin
of antisemitism brings inevitable judgment.
That's a footnote to Genesis twelve three.
These words, which might as well have been written by Theodore Herzel
or Ariel Sheron, are found in the Bible, that is followed by
millions of American church goers and students and is used by their
leaders as a source for their preaching and teaching.
Carlson explains that Oxford has hereby made antipathies toward the state of
Israel a sin.
Well, isn't that exactly what Cory and I are accused of?
The sin of antisemitism?
That didn't come from scripture.
It in It in large part it came from the Schofield update
in nineteen sixty seven.
These moving pieces, one of the reasons that we focus on the
genealogy of ideas is when you start looking at where this sin
came from, not only don't you find the scripture, but you will
find it in many cases within living memory.
As a Christian, that should terrify you.
That is literally a new religion being hot swapped for our own.
It's happening on the fly.
It's like swapping organs in someone while they're alive.
You put them on heartlung bypass and you just chop something out
and you slap something in.
That's what's being done to Christianity by this stuff.
So the sins that have been made up in the twentieth century
that men like us are accused of are literally created for the
purpose of achieving some of the other evils that he goes into
this book.
we're getting along, we're kind of close to two hours at this
point. I guess I can tell you I mentioned earlier there are
a couple chapters.
I I only skimmed them because I was aware of some of
the material and we'll get into some of that what what that
was, but the depths of the evil that are downstream from these
things that we're talking about here.
I we're not even gonna we're not even gonna talk about it.
I I don't I don't want to put it in your ears.
I I commend the book to folks.
If you buy it, there's some chapters that you may choose to
skip. You may You may you may get a few pages in
and I can't take any more of this.
And it's not that the author is doing anything bad.
He's just unflinchingly reporting as a decent historian, as a good historian,
here are the facts.
And the facts
are they're unspeakable.
I that's it's an overused term, but I we're not gonna speak
them on this podcast because I don't want to do that to
your ears.
You can go opt into it and see on the page and
decide if you want to be subjected to it.
Another quote by blessing the state of Israel, Christian Zionists believe that
as Schofield said, Gentiles today are thereby blessed in association with the
state of Israel.
They frequently misapply God's promise to Abraham, that I will bless them
that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee, and in thee
shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Now, this is a shocking and blasphemous misapplication of that passage because
when Abraham is going to be used to bless all the families
of the earth, that's talking about Jesus.
And I think that's a seminal point that cannot be missed when
we're looking at dispensationalism and Zionism.
They replace Jesus in Scripture with the modern nation state of Israel,
just as the Holocaust replaced the crucifixion, and just as Hitler replaced
Satan, you have these wholesale swaps of the fundamental elements of Christian
doctrine, not small stuff, where we're not talking peripheral issues here.
They literally remove Jesus from the explanation for this passage and insert
a country, a modern synthetic country of wicked evil people.
It's a pedophile capital of the world.
It's the homosexual capital of the world.
It's the transsexual capital of the world.
It it's Satan's throne on earth today.
And when these people say we must bless them at all costs,
all costs is us, as Cory said in reference to first Timothy,
as talking about us and our children, our posterity.
Let them die so that Israel might live.
Why? Because the promise to Abraham.
That's it's just demonic.
I I I'm I'm almost at a loss for words.
And yet this is the this is the essence of how Zionism
works. There's bait and switch, there's removal of Christianity in terms that
sound Bibley, this is the Jesus dust, and then what do you
do? You start doing weak wicked things and you say you're doing
it in the name of God.
And then you're off to the races.
Because if you're doing wicked things in the name of God, you
gotta do them as hard as you can.
That's where we're at today.
The Bible that was corrupted by Schofield and the false preaching that
comes from the heresy of Christian Zionism is one of the things
that uttergirds all of it.
And necessary to those false beliefs again is racism and anti-Semitism.
None of this works without those new sins.
I
think this is this whole whole discussion is a very good illustration
of just how all this stuff is really tied together.
And again, from uh kind of my own background, you know, I
I can attest that there's uh again, there's plenty of conservative Christians
who would take issue with uh one thing here or one thing
there, you know, like they they don't like uh um transsexualism or
maybe they're even uncomfortable with anti whiteness, but they would really really
balk at at understanding how all of these things are are very
intrinsically connected to another.
And uh how uh like you both were were saying and I
especially liked what um Corey was saying from uh uh the book
of Timothy, how um you know, this leads to uh the sacrifice
of your own family members and your own children on this uh
false uh altar, this false idol of egalitarianism and anti racism and
anti Semitism.
Um and I'm not gonna go into it because I I I
I think I've pi picked up on that um from what you're
saying, well, but there's a chapter in the book that's one of
the uh ones that I also found difficult to read uh that
uh talks about uh instances uh of in in recent history in
the past like decade or so of you know where you had
uh uh people murdered by refugees or something like that and and
the response by their own family members was um uh not even
to in some cases to you know to say well we're forgiving,
we just want to move on, but in some cases they even
go go further than that and they use it as they use
the the death of their own family members as an opportunity to
attack their race even further.
So it's just it's it it is really evil and it's really
amazing how how in incredible this this change to again what is
kind of the uh cultural phenomenon of christianity how amazing that that
change has been when you kind of look back like this book
does and you uh look at that journey and how it's taken
place.
That's a good point that's actually continued in the next chapter w
which is on the the myth of Judeo Christianity.
Talking about the evolution of these things.
This is just a great quote and I I I'd never heard
it before, but it makes such perfect sense.
Thorpe points to noontime on December twenty second, nineteen fifty-two as the
precise day, nay, the precise hour, the term Judeo Christian tradition achieved
its vaunted victory over the term Christian tradition.
President elect Dwight Eisenhower declared that the American Republic is founded in
a deeply felt religious faith, and I don't care what it is.
With us, of course, it is the Judeo Christian concept, but it
must be a religion that teaches all men are created equal.
In one fell swoop, Eisenhower reconfigured the American founding to be Judeo
Christian, and unprecedented in a historical superimposition.
Our Latter day Saint Martin Luther King Jr., who shares with Jesus
Christ the honor of a federal holiday for his birthday, utilized Judeo
Christian as a way of grafting historical logic onto the Black Power
movement. By the nineteen eighties, the appellation of a Judeo Christian heritage,
having begun its life as a slogan of Jewish revolutionaries, it achieved
mainstream status, such that it became a signature expression particularly among the
religious right.
And the term Judeo Krishna is used even in our seminaries by
who are supposed to be the good guys, yeah, the the conservative,
the really solid confessional Lutheran seminary professors.
Say Judeo-Christian.
I think there's nothing wrong with it.
That's something we got into in one of the episodes on the
Jews, the four part series.
It's part of the Marcionite heresy that the Old Testament is the
Jewish book, and the New Testament is the Christian book.
And when you do that, suddenly you have two gods too.
You have a God of the Old Testament, whom they often refer
to. And then you have the God of the New Testament.
And we can see and touch and hear Jesus Christ in the
New Testament.
So he's a God in the New Testament.
But in the Old Testament, there was this other God who was
mean and he killed a lot of people, then he had these
harsh rules, but then the new God showed up and fixed it
all, made us all loving.
That's what we're told.
You know, not in so many words in some cases, but when
you say geo Judeo Christian, that's what you're saying.
You're saying I buy into that, that there was one period for
them and there's another period for us.
Well, that's basically just baby dispensationalism, which is not the case.
As we laid out in one of those episodes, Noah, Adam, these
men were not Jews.
Abraham, not a Jew.
They were Christians, and they were not ethnically Jewish.
It's complete nonsense.
It's utterly historical.
Jews lasted in scripture for two thousand years, from about two thousand
BC to the birth of Christ.
And then what continued, there was a rapid conversion of some of
the Jews, and it's important when we're discussing them as we as
we did in those episodes, many of the Jews of that day
converted to Christianity.
Much of the early church had been Jews, Jews by race and
Jews by religion.
The reason that they converted was that it wasn't really a conversion.
It was they were Christians.
And when Christ show up, when the Messiah showed up, like, yep,
there he is.
The Messiah who was prophesied was delivered to us.
That is what happened, and that's what they believed.
So, you know, Paul had to be converted because he was murderous.
Mary didn't have to be converted.
When the angel appeared to her and announced that she would be
with child, she wasn't converted to a Christian.
She's like, I believe you, God.
It was the same faith one minute before as one minute after.
She was a Christian the entire time.
The necessity of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus was 'cause
he was a Pharisee.
He was what rapidly became Talmudic Judaism, which is something that's discussed
in a an upcoming chapter.
We're not gonna get into details of it, but the Talmud is
an absolutely wicked perverse book.
And when King Louis burned as many as he could get his
hand on in the disputation of Paris, that was a service to
God. The rest of them should be burned as well.
That would be appropriate for Christians Christian states to do.
I'm not saying individuals should be stealing them, but those books should
be burnt.
They're absolutely wicked.
And there are a bunch of quotes in a later chapter discussing
that. Just make abundantly clear.
You know, again, it's he the author d does a really good
job of just laying out facts, you know, just as we tried
to do on Stone Court.
Like here you go, one fact after another.
We're not gonna delve into it too much because we're we're getting
along on time, but when you present those things, a lot of
what's presented, particularly in the later chapters on the Talmud, it's it's
vile. It's absolutely wicked.
It goes into the lies and the blasphemies that every Jew is
taught, every Jew to this day, because after the destruction of the
temple they codified the beliefs of the Pharisees and the Sadducees who
rejected Christ, and some of them converted, you know, at least some
of the Pharisees converted.
Those who didn't accept Christ as their savior produced a new religion.
And so the Judeo and Judeo-Christian, it's effectively saying Satan Christian, this
satanic religion that emerged from the ashes of the destruction of the
second temple among these absolutely apostate demonic people whom Christ called the
sons of Satan.
And today consciences are bound.
If you don't say Judeo-Christian, there's something wrong with you because what
we have to recognize our elder brothers in the faith.
Well I recognize them to the extent that Scripture does, but I
also recognize that the greater punishment is upon them because their inheritance
they despise.
We were grafted into the branch of Israel by God's grace, which
makes us Israel and is a gift, just as everyone who receives
faith is receiving it as a gift.
That's basic Christian theology.
And yet, if you say what scripture says about the Jews today,
you're literally called anti-Semitic.
There are laws being passed around the country right now.
It's already happened in Florida.
If you say what Scripture says about the Jews, the theologically, you
will face prison time.
That's on this that's on our soil.
And it shouldn't be any surprise because again, all these things are
in motion.
All these theological quibbles quickly turn to policy and they turn to
death and destruction and despair because Satan is running the board.
So I I'm really thankful that he laid out the some of
the details of that myth.
It's something we've covered as well, but again I think it's part
of what makes this book a really good compliment to Stone Choir,
particularly if you want to introduce some of these subjects to somebody
who maybe isn't going to listen to a podcast or you think
it might be too much.
There are things in this book that will be shocking, like you
said, they go further than we want to discuss out loud simply
for the sake of not giving people nightmares.
But that's the level of detailed evil we're talking about.
And it's inextricable.
Is he he is he makes the case in the historical in
the next chapter on historical Christianity on Judaism, there's just a short
chapter, but he quotes Chris Chrysostom and Luther saying the same things
that we say, that these are bad people, they're enemies of God.
That's what God says.
And as Christians, we should be able to say that without any
fear or doubt.
In fact, we're obligated to.
You know, if if telling the truth is out of season, and
if itching ears want to hear something else, the Christian is still
under an obligation to God almighty to say what Scripture says.
In fact, that's when it's the most important time to say it.
If these things didn't matter, if no one cared, if they weren't
getting people upset, sure, you could talk about other things, because there'd
be something else that would be upsetting people in scripture.
But today these passages, these are the things that will inspire such
anger and hatred that people will try to physically harm
you. On
the Talmud note, I have been asked a number of times recently
for readings or book recommendations related to the Talmud.
I will include one in the show notes.
It is a book by Peter Schaefer, who is a Jewish professor,
but it is a book on the passages, many of the passages,
not all of them, dealing with Christ in the Talmud.
It is quite frankly an important book for Christians to read, or
at least get a summary of what is covered.
Eventually we will get around to an episode on the Talmud proper.
I will not promise when that will be, that's going to be
in the distant future.
We have many other things on the list to get through first.
However, Schaefer's book does a good job of that.
And it also touches to some degree on the traditional Jewish prayers
that curse Christians.
I've answered that other places as well.
Perhaps I'll do a write-up on that at some point.
But I want to be clear about the topics in this book
that we are reviewing today discussing today that will make some of
you uncomfortable.
We're not trying to hide what they are, we're not playing coy.
It's dealing with sex crimes sex crimes and the reality of mass
immigration so called really invasion of the West by the Third World.
The reality on the ground of what that means for largely women
and children, but also in fact some men.
I may be somewhat biased, but I would say that the the
treatment in this book is not unduly detailed, it is not unwarrantedly
explicit. I think he strikes a fairly good balance when it comes
to that describing the accounts, but not going into like I said,
not undue detail, but I've also read some rather horrible fact patterns
for various legal cases in the past, so I may be a
little biased on that.
I do think that he does strike a good balance, though, and
I I think Well would probably agree with me on that.
Still unpleasant to read, of course, but it is the reality of
the situation.
And particularly for the male listeners, and that would be the majority
of our audience.
You are not given the luxury of ignoring reality, particularly when it
is staring us in the face at every juncture as it is
today. What is covered in those chapters will make you uncomfortable,
will make you angry, and it should.
And that's a good thing, because that is the proper Christian response.
That is the proper response for a Christian man.
It should drive us to want to change these things.
It is an indictment of our forebears that despite having this knowledge,
despite seeing what is happening, they did nothing.
Well do not want to share in their wickedness by also failing
to address these issues.
And so it is important to understand the issues, to know what
they are, to know what is happening, so that we can have
a proper response to them.
Yeah, I agree completely.
When I when I said I skipped over the stuff, I was
already familiar with it.
I didn't need a refresher.
Many of our listeners probably don't know.
Uh in chapter eight, it goes into the Talmud specifically, talks about
the Talmud's hatred for scripture, talks about how it justifies violence and
murder against Gentiles.
That's everyone else.
And then in chapter nine, it goes into the specific manners in
which they believe they are permitted to harm us.
And like I said, I Corey, I completely agree with what you
said about the the degree of of detail of detail it's given.
It's citations.
He he's not just making stuff up.
he's giving quotes and citations from real world events over and over
and over again.
And it doesn't belabor the point.
It's necessary to reinforce that.
It's not just, oh, there was one bad guy.
This is their religion.
The religion of bombing hospitals and starving children is their religion.
That's what they do.
And when they're doing it in current year, in current moment, they're
saying those people deserve it as they're doing it.
That's their religion.
They're being honest.
They're being completely honest about whom they serve.
Except for calling him God.
They serve Satan.
But you can tell by their actions whom they actually serve.
Chapter nine: the title is Case Studies in Jewish Hostility: Degeneracy, Filth,
and pornography.
And
he omitted the second half of the of that chapter from the
the header, but the second half is specifically about the sacrifice of
children by Jews murdered murdering Christian children exanguinating them and using white
children's blood for their magic rituals.
Now I think that probably most people listening don't know anything about
that. You might know the term blood libel, but you you know,
libel, obviously it's false.
Well, the one of the great things about that chapter in this
book is that he makes extensive citations from a scholarly work by
uh a work called Blood Passover.
It was published in 2007 by a Jew named Ariel Toaf, the
son of the former chief rabbi of Rome.
So this is a Jew who's did an excellent, incredibly in-depth historical
examination of the entire history of Jews murdering Christian children and stealing
their blood and using them for their magic rituals.
Going back to the beginning of the first millennium, I think some
of the earlier accounts were from like 400 AD.
And it gives great detail in each of them.
And again, like I skipped some because I I didn't know some
of those details, but I don't I don't need further convincing of
just how demonic these people are.
Some of you probably do.
And that's one of the valuable things about this particular chapter is
that the first part of his is talking about how they have
used the liberalization of sexuality and sexualization of mass culture, which they
of course control, to act as a solvent against the church, against
the family, and against civilization itself.
And again, it's a case where he goes into in significant innecessary
depth on the excitement the Jews have as they're doing these things.
Pornography is entirely Jewish.
The destruction of the laws against the dissemination of pornography also entirely
Jewish. It was Jewish lawyers with Jewish plaintiffs or Jewish defendants in
most cases, because they're being prosecuted for committing crimes against a against
America. And then Jewish judges would say, no, it's okay, we have
the Bill of Rights, and so you're allowed to do this horrible
stuff. This is the enemy that the West faces.
Yeah, I think that's what that's why I say I think the
the center half of this book is the most vital part of
it because it lays out in detail, in documented detail.
Like again, this isn't just the author extemporaneously spouting off about this
stuff. He does a good job as a historian citing other historians
who've delved into these things, like just laying it all out.
When you look at the totality of the evidence that he presents,
as Corey said, you're going to be angry.
It made me viscerally angry to read this.
It was a perfect hatred.
Because the wickedness that is being done to us, again, as I
said earlier and we said in other episodes, we as Christians, or
even as non-Christians who are just decent Europeans, would not act in
these ways.
Because even those Europeans who have abandoned the faith, because their families
typically abandon the faith, still have the ambient morality of Christendom informing
the culture that until recently surrounded us.
And so the idea of
harvesting organs from people while they're still alive because they're not Jews.
We would never do that to someone.
Well, he's not white, just take his organs, it's fine.
You know, don't don't don't use anesthesia either because that's gonna mess
up the organ.
You gotta do it while they're fully awake.
Caught their heart out.
We have a Jew who needs it.
They're accounts of that sort of thing in the book.
And they're historic accounts.
They're real accounts.
This stuff actually happens.
And I think one of the important parts is you read through
some of the chapters that specifically deal with horrors that we're not
going to go any further details on.
This is just the stuff where they got caught when that Ariel
Toaf goes back through the history of recorded
murders of Christians by Jews to steal their blood for blood magic
rituals. Those are just the times when they got caught.
That's not the only times that they did it.
That was the times where there was sufficient evidence that everyone agreed,
yes, this actually happened.
And you know, I said one of the earliest examples from was
from like 415.
The later examples are from the 20th century.
This stuff is still going on today.
And if you if you find that shocking, think back to what
we found out was going on with Epstein in with that entire
circle, with the paintings, in with the rooms and the chambers, in
what was called Pizzagate, and everyone's told, oh, that's just a conspiracy
theory. Well, if you know nothing else, yes, it's unbelievable.
If you know the history of these people and you start noticing
the last names of the people involved, you take a second look
because it's frankly, it's it's the only logical conclusion.
And then when examining the evidence, it's it's literally the only conclusion.
These people are guilty of things that we would never conceive of.
And that's part of why it's important for these heinous details that
he provides in some of these middle chapters, are important for us
to read.
Because if you don't know the evil you're facing, you're never going
to respond appropriately.
When someone comes along in soothing tones and said, Hi, I'm your
Judeo Christian friend.
I'm from the other side of the tracts, but we worship the
same God.
We just have different approaches.
Don't worry about it.
You know, he was taught as a child to murder the Goyam.
That's that is what they're taught, and it's what they believe.
And there's video to this day of little Jewish children in their
own schools like Laughing and talking about how excited they are at
the prospect of killing non-Jews.
It's part of their religion.
And it's part of the religion that's concealed by the language barrier.
It's one of the reasons that the translation of the Talmud was
such a pivotal mode in in history because these things were secrets.
It's one of the points that the the historian who d documented
the so-called blood libel incidents makes very clear.
The specific details in the accounts could only have possibly come from
Jews because all the practices were completely hidden.
The Seder meal, which incidentally was part of a satanic worship practice,
the the specific details that were revealed in some of the interrogations
of the Jews who are guilty of these things could only have
come from a Jew.
It couldn't have been made up by an accuser trying to falsely
accuse a Jew of something he didn't do.
Only someone who knew the intimate details of their secret of religion
religion would have been able to divulge them.
So for that reason, I commend the whole book, but I simultaneously
warn you.
You there's there's stuff that's gonna be hard to read.
And as Corey said, you need to know, particularly as a man,
as a husband, as a father, you need to know what you
are facing as as a blood enemy, as a mortal threat to
your family, to your civilization.
And that's really that's the crux of the book in its entirety,
is that Is that once you understand the threat that we're facing,
it recontextualizes how we respond to it.
If you just think that these are doctrinal disagreements, it you know
it's a church fight.
When you realize that civilizations are rising and falling as a result
of these battles, you have to take a different approach.
And that's that's where the book concludes.
There's some of the conclusions I don't really want to get into
because frankly they're things that today people getting th thrown in jail
for. And it's not a matter of cowardice, it's just you can
draw your own conclusions.
I'm not gonna I don't need to bite a bullet for something
that isn't isn't gonna move the ball.
Read the book, deal with the facts as they're presented and draw
your own conclusions.
But just be aware that when you're talking about everyone from Darby
to Schofield to Jerry Falwell to Netanyahu, all on the same page,
all saying the same things, and then DeSantis is passing laws saying
you can be thrown in jail for disagreeing.
That's real.
You can go to jail for it, and you'll die in prison
for it.
There are a bunch of J6 prisoners who've died, some by their
own hands.
That's those are the stakes.
The stuff is not academic.
And that's I that's why I'm glad that we were able to
tackle this book today because this stuff is it's consequential and it
unfortunately it's timely because it's it's unfolding right before our eyes on
in the news today.
But like you said, it's still gonna be current in a few
years because until these people are ended, until they're stopped in their
evil, they will persist.
They made clear for thousands of years they will persist in evil
as long as they're permitted to do it.
And so as Christians, we have to decide how to respond to
that faithfully.
It's good that we've gone into some detail on some of the
chapters. We're gonna leave some as kind of a tease for you
as listeners.
Uh chapter ten on ethno nationalism.
I Corey and I both despise this word because it's redundant.
There's no such thing as an ethno-nation.
It's It's a nation-nation.
Natal is blood.
Either it's a nation or it's a heterogeneous empire.
The point is we need to get rid of the empires and
get back to actually having nations.
So I just as a framing issue, like he does he reaches
good conclusions, but frankly to say ethno-nationalism or ethno-nation is really ceding
the frame to the enemy that there can be any other kind
of nation, and there simply isn't either you're a nation or you're
not. And right now we're not, not in any meaningful sense.
We don't have our own lands.
Are we being deracinated, being done forcibly in the church, in advertising
and everything.
So in in that chapter he covers some of the same ground
that we've discussed in the past.
Uh talks about the passage about neither Jew nor Greek, uh the
flood and Noah's sons, talks about Babel.
It's a fairly short chapter, but it g it covers some important
scriptural ground and he does a good job there In chapter 11,
the title is Evangelism at What Cost, Non-White, quote-unquote Christianity.
And in this chapter, he makes the argument that we referenced towards
the beginning about the global South syncretism that really goes back to
the beginning of colonization.
Effectively, wherever Christian Europeans have brought Christianity to non-white nations, virtually
all of them have engaged in such a high degree of syncretism,
meaning incorporating Christian beliefs and practices in with their demon worship.
That's what it is.
That that's the syncretism.
That's the the syncretic part of it.
You take
you take a belief from one religion and add it to a
belief from another, and you don't end up with Christianity because you
can't possibly.
There's only one God and there's only one path to heaven.
So he makes an argument in this in this chapter that in
all the cases where Christianity has been brought to these people, they
have butchered Christianity.
And
One of the important things for Corey and me as we're tackling
these subjects is that that's no excuse not to take the gospel
to them, but it does raise the question when you have taken
the gospel to people who are only ever going to butcher it
if they're not supervised heavily, the open question, at least for me,
is are we obligated to heavily supervise them?
Or is it sufficient to take the gospel and then set them
loose? Corey has his opinions, I have mine.
They're not they're not the point of of this discussion, but I
I think it is interesting that this ch this chapter is a
good companion to the episode that we did on Race and IQ,
where we took the same subject from a different angle, not talking
about their spiritual inclination to syncretize with their pagan beliefs, their demonic
acts. We took it from the perspective that they their IQs are
so low that apart from any spiritual issues that these people may
have, they're still not smart enough to actually do it.
And we make the case there.
So he doesn't tackle that, he tackles it from another perspective, which
is is important.
Again, these are complementary uh presentations.
Chapter 12 is titled Pro-Slavery Theology: Slavery is not a biblical sin.
He does a very strong scriptural defense of the institution of slavery.
He pro He provides some good details on how masters in the
South were held to account socially and legally if they abused their
slaves. The one small criticism I have of this chapter is very
clear that he is a southerner, and proudly so.
I don't have a problem with that.
As I've said before, I'm a I'm from a mixed race marriage.
My dad's a Yankee going back to Plum Plymouth Rock, and my
mom is a hillbilly going back to Plymouth Colony.
So I was raised Yankee, I effectively am a Yankee, but at
the same time I have complete sympathy for the plight of the
Southerner. And I understand where they're coming from when they're pissed about
what was done in the war of northern aggression.
The problem that I have with this chapter is that one, he
tries to make the slavery issue center around Yankee versus Confederate.
And it's not really the subject of the chapter, but it's something
that we see elsewhere, particularly in the dissonant right and online, there's
a lot of public antipathy of Southerners, typically in in one direction.
It's usually people saying they hate Yankees, which is really weird because
when you actually look at much of the prosecution of the war
itself, you find a lot of Jewish names.
And you find that a lot of the soldiers, as we all
know, were were Germans and Irish.
They were just fresh off the boat, and then they were sent
down to kill Americans in the South, which was despicable and evil.
But to call some guy fresh off the boat a Yankee is
kind of goofy.
Now, it was certainly the Yankees sending them, but the other conspicuous
thing that's missing from this chapter that I found particularly weird in
light of how well he handled the Jewish question in the middle
part of the book was that there's zero mention of Jews at
any point in the slavery chapter, which I think is is a
material omission because we know for a fact that a substantial portion
of Southern slavery in slaveholding was tied to Jews.
So his his framing is it's gotta be Confederate versus Yankee and
it would really confuse that narrative to say that there were Jews
present. I think that a more fleshed out historical approach to the
subject would just being to include all those things, that there were
different things in the mix and I don't want to say there
were bad people on both sides because that it was a war
of northern aggression.
the evil was predominantly being done from the north to to make
it crystal clear.
The South had every right to secede.
They had every right to their own self determination.
It was wicked that that was prevented.
I despise that as much as any Southerner because it was injust.
It was an evil thing on its face.
I don't think that you have to hate Yankees 170 years later
in order to make your case.
But that that small quibble aside, it doesn't change the the really
good job that he does treating the subject of slavery.
And the last uh section is theories of Christian violence, and he
talks about pacifism.
He does a good job uh dealing with uh turn the other
cheek and warfare in scripture.
Next chapter he deals with holy war.
I I find that a little bit of a strange shift to
go from Yeah, basically he's trying to make the case that there
is the justification for muscular Christianity that is not ashamed of having
a national identity, one where a Christian nation exercises its Christian rights
as a nation to do things that in some cases may involve
violence against other nations.
I I wish I I think if he knew more about Lutheran
doctrine, you know, not to plug us, but some of the treatment
that came out of the 16th century from some of the Lutheran
reformers, I think has some material that would have helped him make
a slightly different case because when you talk about holy war, that
kind of limits what you can actually fight a war over.
And I think a war needs to be holy to be just.
You don't have to be liberating you know, the Holy Land or
something to say that it is permissible and in fact necessary for
a Christian prince to go to war to protect his people and
his interests.
The problem today is fundamentally that we don't have Christian rulers and
when we do go to war, it's for the worst possible reasons.
And then the uh the last chapter, he's specifically dealing with uh
abortion and and the treatment of the unborn and legal responses to
it. And as I said, that's that's kind of one of the
most fraught chapters in the book simply because it will be treated
as something that you can get into legal trouble for talking, for
fleshing out some of the things that he says.
And I don't fault him for it.
I think that it's an important moral point to be made.
And then there's also the legal reality that people want to see
us dead.
And any And any excuse will do.
And a careless word is very easy to get you in a
position where you can go to jail where you may die.
You may be there for the rest of your life for saying
something that's entirely scriptural and entirely moral.
But I think that again that I think the meat of the
book for me at least was the really well fleshed out work
that he did dealing with the history of Jews and of Zionism
and now that they're inextricable.
The fact that dispensationalism was inserted into Christianity and is now shaping
world politics is a huge deal.
And he provides a lot of really excellent detail there.
So overall, I think Corey and I both absolutely commend this book
to anyone who wants to delve into some of these subjects.
It's not perfect.
And that's not a criticism.
Like I said, like if I wrote a book, I don't think
I would necessarily do as well as and we did a really
good job with the research.
And I you have to give a lot of credit to someone
who's willing to put in this time.
So again, as as we make these relatively small criticisms at different
points, I don't think any of them detract from the book.
And I think that's a crucial point.
But as you're reading them, it's it's important for you to draw
your own conclusions.
I think that the facts that are presented, there's only one possible
conclusion about those facts.
you will become very angry because any Christian, any decent human being
would become very angry reading some of those.
And some of the other stuff is just very interesting in formative
history. Like, wow, I had no idea.
But then when you see the arc of history plotted out, suddenly
the things we see today make perfect sense because we can see
where they came from where without someone drawing you a straight line
or maybe a squiggly line in some places, you wouldn't necessarily notice.
And so it's it's a very valuable book.
I'm I'm glad that Ann Low Pillow has published it.
Yeah I'm I'm very thankful to Giles Corey for for writing it
because it's important for there to be Christian voices in this space
and for us to be frank, you know, just as is when
we approach these subjects, we we go into as not much detail
as is necessary.
Again, it's no criticism of him in some cases going into greater
t detail.
This is a place for it.
You do that in a book.
When you're you know, you can't really skip ahead nearly as easily
easily in a podcast and some of the scuffs is is frankly
it's kind of scarring.
That's important.
You are not permitted to be ignorant of how evil the world
is as a Christian man.
You need to to know how bad things are because it's the
only possible way that we as Christians can be faithful to God
in preserving what he intends for us to have.
So
thank you to Taylor from Yalo Pill uh for presenting this and
giving us the opportunity.
I again thank you for the free copy.
I forgot to mention that up front.
And we'll put a link in the show notes to the book
itself. Uh Corey's gonna end with uh that couple quotes from the
book there that uh was referenced I think really lay out a
good case for why all this matters.
Thank you guys again very much for having me on.
Uh it's been really great and I hope that uh I'm glad
you guys enjoyed the book and I hope people who are listening
will enjoy it as well.
I'm sure that they will.
It's a good resource for an overview for a number of different
subjects, and also does, as mentioned, dive into detail on some of
them. From a Lutheran perspective, yes, I would have loved to have
seen a reference to the Magdeburg Confession, which is a vitally important
document in Christian history when it comes to resistance against unlawful or
tyrannical authority, but we'll eventually get into that in a different episode.
Conveniently, in my case, I had already read basically all of the
books of a scholarly nature that are in the the footnotes in
the book, so I happened to grab one from my shelves, and
it is the Passovers of Blood Book by Ariel Toaf.
It is a scholarly work, it is very well done.
I guess I can recommend it for some of the listeners.
Like I said, it is a scholarly work.
It is going to be a little on the dry side, it
is technical.
It is going to demand of you at least a little bit
of knowledge of Latin.
There was also some Italian, a few other things in here, but
we're going to close with a couple passages from this separated by
a number of centuries to give the right sort of framing and
impression of things.
On the eve of Passover 1144, The mutilated body of William, a
child of twelve years, was found in Thorpe's wood, on the edge
of Norwich, England.
No witness came forward to cast light on the savage crime.
The child's uncle, a cleric by the name of Godwin Sturt, publicly
accused the Jews of the crime in a diocesan synod held a
few weeks after the discovery of the body.
A few years later, between eleven fifty and eleven fifty-five, Thomas of
Monmouth, prior of the Cathedral of Norwich, reconstituted with plentiful details and
testimonies the various phases of the crime, perpetrated by local Jews, and
prepared a detailed and extensive hagiographic report of the events
These were the origins of what is considered by many to have
been the first documented case of ritual murder in the Middle Ages,
while for others it is the source of the myth of the
blood libel accusation.
The latter consider Thomas to have been the inventor and propagator of
the stereotype of ritual crucifixion, soon to be rapidly disseminated not only
in England, but in France and the German territories as well, fed
by the information relating to the now famous tale of the martyrdom
of William of Norwich by the Jews in the days of Passover.
William was an apprentice tanner in Norwich and came from an adjacent
village. Among the shop's clients were a few local Jews, who are
thought to have chosen him as the victim of a ritual sacrifice,
to be performed during the days of the Christian Easter.
On the Monday following Palm Sunday, eleven forty-four, during the reign of
King Stephen, a man claiming to be the cook for the Archdeacon
of Norwich presented himself in the village of William, asking his mother
Elviva for permission to take William with him to work as a
The woman's suspicions and hesitation were soon won over, thanks to a
considerable sum of money.
The following day little William was already travelling the streets of Norwich
in the company of the self proclaimed cook, directly to the dwelling
of his Aunt Laviva, Godwin Sturt's wife, who became informed of the
apprenticeship undertaken by the child and his new patron.
But the latter individual awakened numerous suspicions in the aunt Laviva, who
asked a young girl to follow them and determine their destination.
The shadowing, as discreet as it was effective, took the child to
the threshold of the dwelling of Eliazar, one of the heads of
the community of Norwich, where the cook had little William enter the
house with the necessary prudence and circumspection.
At this point, Thomas of Monmouth allowed another key witness to speak,
one who had been strategically placed inside the Jews' house.
This was Eliazar's Christian servant, who, the following morning, had by chance
witnessed with horror, through the crack of a door left inadvertently open,
the cruel ceremony of the child's crucifixion and atrocious martyrdom, with the
participation carried out with religious zeal of local Jews, in contempt of
the passion of our Lord.
Thomas kept the date of the crucial event clearly in mind.
It was the Wednesday following Palm Sunday, twenty two march of the
year eleven forty four.
To throw off suspicion, the Jews decided to transport the body from
the opposite side of the city to Thorpe's Wood, which extended to
within a short distance from the last house.
During the trip on horseback with the cumbersome sack, however, despite their
efforts at caution, they crossed the path of a respected and wealthy
merchant of the locality on his way to church, accompanied by a
servant. The merchant had no difficulty realizing the significance of what was
taking place before his eyes.
He is said to have remembered years later, on his deathbed, and
to have confessed to a priest, who then became one of the
diligent and indefatigable Thomas's valued sources of information?
Young William's body was finally hidden by the Jews among the bushes
of Thorpe.
Ritual murder accusations have been made against the Jews for thousands of
years. The murders were sometimes alleged to have been accompanied by ritual
cannibalism, but not always.
In every case it is rather improbable that testimonies which have come
down to us from antiquity were known, and disseminated in the Middle
Ages, and could constitute a significant point of reference for later accusations,
of crucifixion and ritual cannibalism.
As early as the second century before Christ, the almost unknown Greek
historian Democritus, who probably lived in Alexandria, recorded a violently biased anti
Jewish testimony, at that time referred to under his name in Sweda's
Greek dictionary.
According to Democritus, the Jews were accustomed to render worship to a
golden head of an ass.
Every seven years they abducted a foreigner to sacrifice him, tearing the
body to pieces.
This horrible rite is said to have taken place probably every seven
years In the Temple of Jerusalem, sanctuary of the Jewish religion.
A report only partly similar to that reported by Democritus is found
in the polemical contra Appioni by Flavius Josephus, quoting the tendentiously anti
Jewish rhetorician Appioni, who lived at Alexandria during the first century of
the Christian era.
According to Appioni, Antiochus Epiphana, entering the Temple of Jerusalem, is said
to have been surprised to find a Greek, stretched on a bed
and surrounded by exquisite foods and rich dishes.
The prisoner's report was extraordinary and horrifying.
The Greeks said that he had been captured by the Jews, and
taken to the temple and concealed from everyone, while they force fed
him on all sorts of foods.
At first, the unusual circumstances in which he found himself did not
greatly displease him, until the sanctuary attendants remained the fate waiting in
store for him.
He was fated to die, the predestined victim of homicidal Jewish sacrificial
practices. Quote The Jews carry out this rite every year on a
pre established date, they catch a Greek merchant and feed him for
a whole year.
They later take him into a forest, kill him, and sacrifice him
according to their religion.
They then savour the viscera, and in the moment of sacrificing the
Greek, they swear their hatred of all Greeks.
They then dump the remains of the carcass into a ditch.
Flavius Josephus reports that the history recounted by Appioni was not invented
by him, but was rather derived from other Greek writers, an indication
that its dissemination must have been much more widespread than we are
led to imagine based on the two only surviving accounts, i.
e. of Democritus and Appion
And we will end this episode with one other brief reading from
this particular book.
That Christian Europe of the Middle Ages feared the Jews is an
established fact.
Perhaps the widespread fear that Jews were scheming to abduct children, subjecting
them to cruel rituals, even antedates the appearance of stereotypical ritual murder,
which seems to have originated in the twelfth century.
As for myself, I believe that serious consideration should be given to
the possibility that this fear was largely related to the slave trade,
particularly in the ninth and tenth centuries, when the Jewish role in
the slave trade appears to have been preponderant During this period, Jewish
merchants from the cities in the valley of the Rhone, Verdun, Lyon,
Arlais, and Narbon, in addition to Aquisgrana, the capital of the empire
in the times of Louis the Pious, and in Germany, from the
centres of the valley of the Rhine, from Vorms, Magonza and Magdeburg,
in Bavaria and Bohemia, from Regensburg and Prague, were active in the
principal markets in which slaves, women, men, eunuchs, were offered for sale,
by Jews, sometimes after abducting them from their houses.
From Christian Europe, the human merchandise was exported to the Islamic lands
of Spain, in which there was a lively market.
The castration of these slaves, particularly children, raised their prices, and was
no doubt a lucrative and profitable practice.