Zionism Is Antichrist - a discussion between Kevin Barrett and E. Michael Jones

[yankeedoodle]

79-minute video here:  https://www.unz.com/kbarrett/zionism-is-antichrist/
or here:  https://rumble.com/v3z8m4s-elon-goes-to-israel-and-henry-goes-to-hell-ffwn-with-e.-michael-jones.html
or here:  https://www.bitchute.com/video/61H7V2HvDaWZ/

This week's False Flag Weekly News co-host, Dr. E. Michael Jones, is a brilliant and erudite man. Some consider him America's leading Catholic intellectual. Dr. Jones strikes me as smarter and more Catholic than the Pope—though that could be because Francis plays the holy fool in public while saving his incisive analysis, including his real thoughts about the Jews, for the privacy of the papal boudoir. (That's why Francis is pope while E-Mike co-hosts False Flag Weekly News.)

While Dr. Jones and I have our theological differences, we agree on most things. We used to disagree about "the Jews"—I thought it was an oversimplified and rhetorically counterproductive epithet, instead opting for "Zionists," while he insisted that you can't win without accurately identifying your enemy. By the Jews Dr. Jones means the Jewish tribal power configuration rooted in Jewish ideology—"not all Jews" as he repeatedly points out.

The more I learn about Jewish ideological history, the more I realize that E. Michael Jones is right: The phenomenon of Zionism, with all the evil associated with it, is the product of Jewish ideology, and to defeat it we do indeed need to "blame the Jews," meaning the active carriers of the ideological virus. It's no accident that here in the Arab world, which has had a front row seat for the bloody 75-year spectacle of the genocide of Palestine, the terms yahood (Jew) and sahyuni (Zionist) are pretty much interchangeable.

E. Michael Jones correctly notes that the basis of Jewish ideology is the rejection of Jesus. Those among Jesus's people who accepted Jesus's message became Christians—and later, in many cases, Muslims, who are still "Christians" in the sense of accepting Jesus's message and embracing Jesus as the one and only true Messiah; while those who scorned, hated, and rejected Jesus became "Jews."

Even today, the main criterion for being accepted as a Jew by the relevant authorities, namely the rabbinical establishment and the laws of Israel, is rejecting Jesus. As long as you reject Jesus (and are therefore neither Christian nor Muslim) you can be pretty much anything: an atheist, a bit of a Buddhist or Taoist, a practitioner of Hare Krishna or whatever form of Eastern meditation you like, or even a Satanist of the Zevi, Crowley, LaVey, or Aquino persuasion, and as long as you either have a "Jewish" mother or intone some conversion mumbo-jumbo while allowing a rabbi to slice off the tip of your penis, you constitute a perfectly acceptable Jew. Jesus is the one and only real anathema.

So Judaism is, above all, an anti-Christ religion. Its most profound and definitive roots are in its decisive rejection of Jesus. No wonder the Jews of Israel routinely spit on Christians and desecrate the holy sites of pro-Jesus monotheists, whether Christian or Muslim. And no wonder they love killing the babies, and the mothers—especially the pregnant mothers—of the people of Jesus, the Palestinians. Every time the Jewish snipers put a "one shot two kills" bullet through the swollen belly of a pregnant Palestinian woman or the emaciated belly of a malnourished Gazan child, urged on by Ayelet "kill the little snakes and themothers who bear them" Shaked, they are symbolically murdering the infant Jesus and his mother Mary.

What does it mean for Judaism and Jewish identity to be foundationally anti-Christ? The power establishment of Jesus's community expected their Messiah to be a brutal military conquerer who would slaughter and subjugate the goyim (non-Jews) and establish Paradise, meaning perpetual Jewish supremacy, on Earth. Every Jew would live a life of luxury, lording it over a hundred goyim slaves who were created to be mere "hewers of wood and drawers of water."

Jesus, the actual Messiah, turned out to be very different. He advocated pushing pacifism to its limits by "turning the other cheek," while making an exception for the Jewish bankers operating out of the Temple (today's Federal Reserve, Wall Street, City of London, BIS, etc.—if Jesus were here today he would presumably lead a military attack on those unholy "temples"). Despite his willingness to use violence against usurious banksters, Jesus's vision was that Earth was not so far from paradise, if we just let go of ego, surrender to the one true universal God (not some bloodthirsty tribal deity monopolized by Sanhedrin) and love each other.

Jesus's emphasis on universalism and love was a full frontal assault on those high priests who had distorted their religion to ground it in tribalism and hate. Faced with Jesus's message, the Palestinians of 2000 years ago faced a sharp choice. Some surrendered to God, let go of their (tribal) egos, and became followers of Jesus. Others, especially rich usurers and their pet high priests, scorned and crucified Jesus—and have been scorning and pillaging and crucifying and ceaselessly scheming to subjugate his followers, whenever and wherever they can get away with it, ever since.

The conflict between the Middle Eastern monotheists who followed Jesus and became Christians or Muslims, and those who rejected Jesus and became Jews, has waxed and waned over the centuries. Today it seems to be coming to a head in the Holy Land. The movement to establish and idolatrously worship a "Jewish state," and that movement's obscene desecration of Jesus's homeland and ongoing crucifixion of Jesus's people the Palestinians, identifies Zionism with the eschatological notion of Antichrist.

Western Judeo-Christianity's Complicity in the Antichrist Project

I suspect that E. Michael Jones will generally agree with what I've said so far, except maybe the part about him being smarter and more Catholic than the Pope (especially when the Pope is speaking ex-cathedra). Where we differ is in our respective evaluations of the role of Western Christianity. Dr. Jones is a faithful Catholic. He views Catholicism as the primary vehicle of Jesus's message, and therefore as an inveterate opponent, indeed the most inveterate opponent, of Antichrist. If today's church keeps making concessions to the legions of Antichrist, and often even seems to side with them, that's because today's church bureaucrats, not the institution itself, are corrupt.

I disagree. I think all of Western Christianity, especially Protestantism but including Catholicism, is inherently flawed. What we are seeing in these end times of apocalypse or "unveiling" are not only the full consequences of the horrific flaws in what passes for Judaism and Jewish identity, but also similar if less-extreme flaws in Western Christianity.

I won't get into the history of who was right in the Great Schism, the inherent flaws of building a religious bureaucracy full of ambitious and worldly people, and the murderous lunacy of the Church Militant and its Crusades (which slaughtered Jesus's people, including women and children, just as the Zionist are doing now). I will pass over the almost unimaginable corruption of the Vatican of various eras, most notoriously the Renaissance, which can make today's P2-infiltrated sexual-freemasonic CIA-drug-money-laundering Vatican look relatively tame. In short, I will skip the historical details and go straight to the theological problem most responsible for them.

As I see it, the original sin of Western Christianity is...well, original sin. Paul Kingsnorth just published an essay entitled "Suffer Little Children" mourning the countless Irish babies who were consigned to unmarked mass graves and presumptive hellfire or purgatory because they had not yet been baptized:

It's worth noting here that 'sin' is originally an archery term: it literally means 'to miss the mark.' Adam and Eve, the original humans, missed the mark by rebelling against God and the laws of creation. This set future humans up, according to the version of the story told by the Eastern Orthodox Church, for an 'inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors.' What this means is that all human beings have an inbuilt tendency to rebel against God, and a tendency instead to follow the path offered by the serpent in Eden – the path that leads us to try and 'become like gods' ourselves. The purpose of the Christian Way is to root out this tendency, and thus to help us return to our intended state as 'God-bearers.'

The Roman Catholic church has always seen the matter differently. Beginning with the teachings of St Augustine, Christians in the West taught that what Augustine called 'Original Sin' was personally inherited: in other words, that every human born on Earth inherits not simply a tendency to rebel against God, but personal responsibility – and thus personal guilt – for the actions of their ancestors. It is interesting to see that this notion has made a comeback today on the secular left, which likes to talk, for example, of the inherited sin of 'whiteness,' and the consequent guilt that all Western people bear for various historical crimes which their ancestors may or may not have committed. Politics is often just sublimated religion.

The only way to wash away the guilt of Original Sin, in the Catholic tradition, is through baptism. But a question quickly arises: what happens to people who are unbaptised? This, of course, includes every non-Christian human being, and everyone who existed before Christ, as well as Christians who die young before they can be baptised. What is their fate to be in the next world?

According to St Augustine, the answer was straightforward: they all go straight to hell. This is a useful reminder that even saints can be wrong. Rebelling against the grimness of this teaching, later Catholic thinkers, notably Thomas Aquinas, sought to sweeten the pill. The unbaptised, theorised Aquinas, rather than burning in eternal fire, instead enter an intermediary state between heaven and hell, which, from the Latin limbus, meaning boundary, came to be known as 'Limbo.'

The unbaptised, headed as they were for Limbo, could not be buried in consecrated ground, and so, in Ireland, the cilliní arose.

When I mentioned this to my wife, she said: "No wonder Western Christians are becoming atheists! How could anyone possibly believe that innocent babies who haven't done anything wrong are sinful?"

It occurs to me that the doctrine of Original Sin, which the Catholics radicalized and the Protestants radicalized even further, resonates with the Jewish doctrine of Tikkun Olam: "The world is broken, so humans, led by Jews, must repair it." Just as Jewish Tikkun Olam privileges the Jews as the fixers (and in traditional versions casts the goyim as broken garbage to be swept away) Western Original Sin divides the world between the repaired or saved, meaning baptized and obedient members of that particular sectarian flock, and the damned/broken/fallen rest of humanity.

All of that is insane on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. But the obvious place, I suppose, is the notion that a perfect God would create a fundamentally broken, screwed up, fallen world, and then populate it with fundamentally screwed-up creatures, the vast majority of whom will never be exposed to whichever sect's teachings are the One True Way to salvation.

Obviously if there is only one true perfect God, as monotheism teaches, then God's creation must also be perfect (as a creation). By extension, all creatures, including humans, are born (created) perfect. Neither they nor the universe they inhabit are inherently "sinful" or "broken." And the last thing they need is one or more armed sects run by wealthy, powerful bureaucrats marching around claiming that they and their world are horribly screwed-up and that they need to submit to the rule and belief system of the Masters of Salvation or the Chosen (World-Repairing) People or whatever the cult leaders are calling themselves.

The Western (post)Christian world domination project headquartered in DC and London looks a lot like the Zionist one headquartered in Occupied Jerusalem. Western Christians and post-Christians have treated the rest of the world, and sometimes even each other, pretty much the same way the Jews treat the goyim: as subhuman vermin to be exploited, enslaved, or exterminated. And while Eastern Christians and Muslims aren't perfect either, I don't think they are nearly as driven by murderous millenarian mania rooted in the notion that nature—the world as God created it—is radically "fallen" or "broken."*

All of this helps explain why Sheikh Imran Hosein, the leading Islamic eschatologist, sees the End Times battle taking shape around us as a contest between the party of God (led by Jesus and the Mahdi) and the party of Satan and his minions (Gog and Magog, featuring the Zionist Antichrist). According to Sheikh Imran, the real Muslims and the real (mainly Eastern Orthodox) Christians are the party of God, while the Zionist Jews and the Western "Judeo"-Christians are on the side of Satan and the Antichrist/Dajjal.

All of this is becoming clear in the blood-drenched rubble of Gaza, where the Zionists try to "repair the world" by exterminating the goyim, aided by the descendants of Western Original Sin extremists who endorse "creative destruction" of God's world, and His unregenerate creatures, because they hate God and His world and imagine they can make something better. They try to cover the monstrous evil of their murderous deeds with equally monstrous lies, which dominate the "reporting" of every Western news outlet. But the apocalypse/unveiling is proceeding apace.

Jesus's harsh words to the Jewish leaders also apply to most of today's Western Christians: "You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies."

*How do we reconcile the doctrine of a perfect God and hence perfect creation with the manifest unpleasantness, perhaps even the "actual as opposed to apparent evil," that we see and experience around us? Well, the mystics tell us that if we learn to see Reality, all that apparent evil turns out to be illusory. But setting that aside, since few are vouchsafed the mystical vision, let's remember that a genuinely omnipotent God has the power to limit His own power by setting creation free. That may sound paradoxical and abstract, but the idea that the powerful have the power to let go of some of their power is clear enough, as in the case of a powerful parent who has the power to control the behavior of his children, but chooses not to use it in order to let them learn from experience. Since God's creation is more perfect in that it enjoys a degree of freedom, despite the downsides of that freedom, there is no necessary contradiction between a perfect God and a perfect creation whose creatures (perhaps even including inanimate ones, if panpsychism is correct) have the freedom to rebel against God if they so choose, and wind up creating a lot of unpleasantness by doing so.