Our Creator defines reality. What He says is reality; all else is fantasy, and also known as "sin." The difficulty with that statement is alternate meanings for "fantasy" which do not entail rejection of reality. So it is with other terms. Truth is hard enough without shallow-minded chatter taking over. Surely by now we've all run into propaganda which abuses reality in part by abusing language, stripping valid alternative meanings until we are left with some emotion-laden weapon. Do this with all the various terms we might have for something and there's no rational discourse left on that subject. Even better for the propagandists is finding someone discoursing the subject from outside reality, for this ensures no one touches it for fear of being associated with the nuts. That is, unless we agree to set all that aside. Keeping our grip on the Father's Word, let's examine a subject associated with these terms: Jews, banking, and New World Order.
We can do this without letting the conspiracy theorists frame the discussion. Conspiracy theories persist not simply on popularity, but also by having at least some basis on reality. The trick is to realize when the official sources are lying, too. We want truth. All truth is God's truth, so getting to the bottom of things requires knowing Him. I won't play the game of saying your different conclusion makes me doubt you know Him, and I hope you'll give the same courtesy to me. The path to my answer isn't straight because the whole field of study is twisted and layered with centuries of junk. The starting place, the anchor of reality, is Revelation.
The Bible records the revelation of God. The revelation took place within a particular culture, connected to a particular race of people, both arising during a well-known period of history, on a particular patch of Planet Earth. The point of God's revealing Himself includes each of us accepting and internalizing that revelation. It's a tough job at times translating His revelation from those people, that time, that place, but intervening history shows it pays off, even when poorly done. Incumbent on us is our understanding that ancient tongue in the context of its people, place and time as much as possible.
To pretend the whole Bible is self-evident once we've accomplished a rough equation of words is patently childish, and a rejection of part of that revelation. Motives may vary, but it's often connected to the inconvenience of having to learn too much. An ancient civilization is not something we grasp in a day or so. Indeed, this whole question of comparing civilizations is rather hard work. Because the point of this article involves the people God used to bring us all good things, we need to see them with clear eyes, not through layers of myth. God's unique people were still people, and didn't always please Him. With all their ups and downs, we have to see how their world affects Believers now some 2000 years past the last divine recording of God's revelation.
In a sense, Bible History is the story of a civilization. "Civilization" means, among other things, a certain restraint exhibited by an identifiable group of people. It is invariably an expression of cultural bias in favor of reducing violence in particular, and human suffering in general. It's primary evidence is a code of behavior, but is clearly based on a substrate of assumptions about what is really and truly good and bad in human actions. Thus, the code of behavior remains somewhat more flexible than simple rules, as the aim is not compliance to code but a particular result. Depending on other cultural factors, civilized people react to uncivilized behavior in various ways, ranging from a mere "tsk-tsk" to a rather harsh social enforcement.
In recent decades, Westerners have vastly reduced the habit of social enforcement, except as one enters ever smaller circles of association and identity groups. This reflects the degree to which the current civilization is breaking down. The very nature of humanity and civilization makes the latter cyclical, and the current civilization is in the later stages of its cycle. In popular terms, "All Hell is breaking loose." That's literally correct, since even a casual reading of Scripture confirms God's favorable view of civilized behavior. The reduced use of social enforcement mechanisms is simply a matter of their failure. They fail because increasing numbers of the population at large refuse to play along. They have rejected civilization as an impediment to their particular vision of happiness.
We could easily get caught up in a debate over competing kinds of civilization. Yet the core meaning of the term "civilization" is the totality of social habits which permit humans to live in cities -- to pass each other in a confined space without a significant rate of assault taking place. Obviously, people have to value something so greatly they will withstand the strain of others crowding around them. They will accept the shared responsibility of neither provoking nor being provoked to exercise our territorial instincts. The brutish challenge and response of chest-beating dominance is substituted for a general acceptance of pre-defined roles, whether egalitarian or stratified. Consciously or not, people know such swallowing of pride permits a greater degree of creature comforts, as a result of the higher economic efficiency of increased specialization.
Those who fail to associate the necessity of civil behavior with creature comforts are seen as predators, and their behavior is labeled "criminal" -- they won't play by whatever rules exist. Each society produces their quota of misfits, and these will always be marginalized in one way or another. Place the blame where you like; if you don't fit in, it will cost you in one way or another. While the social regime can be made to adjust, the likelihood of any one campaign to change the majority view of what's acceptable being better than another is purely a matter of opinion, until the results of the change can be examined in the long view. Sadly, each new civilization seems to ignore the lessons of the preceding ones. All the more so, when you consider a sovereign God has warned He will most certainly allow a civilization to fall if it ignores His warnings about what should be tolerated.
I would hardly be the first to say Western Civilization has ignored God's warnings. We have certainly done no better than biblical Israel.
In a certain sense, it is fair to say the US is a separate civilization from it's European mother. Ours is in may ways far shallower, yet at the same time far more powerful for its freshness. Or let us say, that's what it used to be. The biggest task will be debunking the false view of our own history which most Americans have been encouraged to believe.
Early America was never anything approaching Utopia, but was for a time perhaps about as good as it gets. Reading between the lines, we can see the American Revolution itself was nearly hijacked by the new American nobility, wealthy businessmen. Once that liberty was gained, there were continual attacks on it from these same rich snobs. They used the foul examples of a few opportunist crooks as an excuse to oppress the general population. Shays' Rebellion was largely justified, but took a wrong turn. That wrong turn fed the call for a strong centralized government, an oppressive tyranny buried in the design of the Constitution. Even in the earliest elections, it was the rich who won most of the offices, and precious few of them really cared at all about liberty and justice for all.
What prevented rampant abuse were the circumstances. The mass of residents were determined to be left alone, and could throw the cynical rallying cries for the Revolution back in the faces of the ruling elite. The peasants were equally armed and trained as the soldiers, and vastly outnumbered the bigshots. There was also too few of the elite with sufficient wealth to be idle, nor would their sense of manhood permit it. Also, population density was too low for such a long time. Only the few urban areas saw much oppression. Finally, there were a few big guns among the elite in favor of genuine liberty. Jefferson's favor of frequent bloody revolts was not singular.
That underlying bedrock attitude -- refusing to be oppressed -- among the swelling population of the US held tyranny in check. Real men will rise up in wrath when tyranny shows its face. However, one man's tyranny is another man's social stability. We acknowledge the friction between the two distinct cultures at work: the Puritans dominated by an urban-industrial middle class versus the more patrician plantation farmers. What they held in common was a belief in absolute ownership of the property holder, and this alone was the bedrock of a distinctive American civilization. Each of the distinct groups had their virtues and their sins, and we shall see how the latter was manipulated at critical junctures by outside forces. The conflicting application of the fundamental sanctity of property ownership was a train wreck waiting to happen, and the wreckage was a foundation for destroying our liberty.
Until that wreck, this nation was an unthrottled engine of economic growth, which itself was the means to increased liberty. Let no one doubt it is humanly impossible to create economic equality among any population. It is equally impossible to prevent laissez-faire economics from steady growth in the long term, a growth which no man could prevent trickling down to the lowest levels. Our poorest from those times knew instinctively it was only bad luck which kept them from eventually climbing out of poverty if they tried. I contend the greatest economic hope possible on this fallen world is opportunity, and ours was the best level of opportunity ever seen in human history.
It is necessary at this point to deal briefly with vast misconceptions regarding slavery in those times. Being horrified about slavery prevents rational discussion. It was evil; it was not inherently cruel, but there was little to prevent cruelty. Keep in mind, the Americans did not invent slavery, nor was was it invented by white Europeans before them. They simply bought into a trade in human flesh already existing in Africa, and exists today. That it was restricted almost entirely to black races was simply a matter of the African slave markets being biggest and cheapest source of slaves. Racist justifications arose after the fact. It would be easy to prove we did not make slavery worse than it already was. It would also be easy to prove Americans were quickly realizing the economic advantages in slavery was eroding long before it ended legally.
In the end, slavery was merely the most successful propaganda issue connected to the Civil War. Each side in the war of words sought to portray itself as holding the moral high ground. Frankly, the South in general had a far more libertarian view of things, and a man's property was sacred before God. At that point, property included slaves. The North had already become pre-socialist, in love with central planning in favor of industrial growth. Neither side held much love for the common man, the worker or peasant, and used them mercilessly. Both side held slaves, but the North had a noisier Abolitionist contingent -- there were plenty in the South, too. Even for the poor Appalachian farm boy who had never seen black slaves, slavery was merely a symbol of the real issue: freedom to use as you wished any property you gained legally. The North had long since abandoned freedom of property, having conditioned everyone to accept a high level of regulation and taxation over property.
Thus, the real battle was taxation as a means of regulating human behavior. Let us not forget Fort Sumter was a glorified customs booth in the Port of Charleston. The Northern industrialists needed government subsidies, and they had bought President Lincoln and his party. The Southern plantations were at that time more profitable, and in the industrialists' view should not have balked at sharing their wealth for the good of their fellow Americans in the North who had dreams bigger than the market would pay them to produce. The results had nothing to do with moral victory, but the industrial and population advantage of the North. Even then, only a couple of major blunders by Southern commanders kept them from victory. Indeed, it was the complete abandonment of morals by General Sherman, in his war on civilian property, which clinched the military victory. Had the Southern States won, they would have simply demanded the one thing they wanted in the first place: to be left alone. There had never been any plans to take anything from the Northern States. It was the North which demanded the South change to please them.
On the one hand, we can commend the South for holding a more noble intent, even while we condemn their truculence over slavery. I tend to believe their claim to a right to secession was correct, as the documents and private communication of the Founding Fathers is heavily in favor of assuming, if not clearly stating, such a freedom. Further, the South was more thoroughly united, with a popular will supporting the cause. The North was deeply divided, and the President clearly broke the law from the start when it suited his purpose. Comparing what he said in public with his many private communications we could fairly say most of his fine speeches were simply high-grade artful propaganda. He lied repeatedly to Southern representatives regarding his intentions. He served his true constituency -- Northern financiers and industrialists -- quite well.
However, it is doubtful there would have been fighting in the first place, had not outside interests provoked it.
Here's where we begin dealing with that term at which everyone rolls their eyes: International Jewish Banking Families. The word "Jewish" here is our big problem. Ask anybody what "Jew" means and you get varying, and often conflicting, definitions. Even Jews argue about it. Wouldn't it be simple if the word meant "those who practice Judaism"? But then we'd have problem with folks like Seinfeld and Woody Allen who consider themselves Jews, but are essentially agnostic or atheist. If we try to use "Hebrew" to describe an ethnic group, that might also be misleading. Nor are they properly "Israeli" because they aren't all citizens of that modern country. If I said "Semite" it would be inaccurate, since a good many races descend from Shem, and those races never had much to do with the Children of Israel. No, I'm afraid we're stuck with using "Jewish," because it's germane, but not central, to the discussion.
First, let's toss aside the racist connotation many conspiracy mongers attach to the word "Jew." That is, what I am about to say here in no wise justifies singling out all Jews on earth for hatred, or even suspicion. At the same time, we have to strip away the hyper-sensitive reaction of the ADL bunch, who want to say any criticism of anything Jewish is anti-Semitism. Stop and consider: King Ahab was a Jew. Was he a good guy? Not according to Scripture (1 Kings 16:30). How about King Manasseh? Nah, he was really bad (2 Kings 21:1ff) -- that is, until he turned around at the end of his reign (2 Chronicles 33:13). Yet the official record still listed him as evil. There are other examples, just as there are examples of good guys. So in terms of moral norms, Jews can be good or bad, and the default should be neutral. On top of that, as with any other human, the same individual is likely a mixture of good and evil, given to broad fluctuations at any given moment.
What makes them peculiar in the context of this article is found in the more correct term "Talmudic Jew," which a few conspiracy theorists are careful to use. To give that context, we have to review a bit of Hebrew History. We note the religion arising from the Mosaic Covenant suffered a tremendous amount of loss even before Moses died. The whole thing was under a constant assault, and required frequent renewal in the hearts and minds of the people. Were that not so, there would have been no prophets after Moses. Stephen sums it up nicely:
O stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so you do. Which of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? And they killed those who foretold the coming of the Just One, of whom you have now been the betrayers and murderers; who received the Law through disposition of angels, and did not keep it. (Acts 7:51-53)
Further, if you skim through Jonah, you get a distinct impression at least some Jews were pretty racist, themselves. It peeks out from time to time. They never had trouble remembering they were the select People of Jehovah. It got pretty depressing during the Babylonian Exile, but they got over it. Oddly, only a tiny minority returned to Judah after the decree of Cyrus to repatriate all captive nations. Those who did retrun began to suffer a renewed arrogance at a level not seen before the Fall of Jerusalem. A part of this was the birth of the Messianic Expectation. Too many heard only the part about the Messiah coming to rule on the Throne of David, and how all the world would come to them, etc. If you survey the collected false Messianic Expectations rampant during the Restoration, you'll see it in full flower. They were looking for all the world to voluntarily come and be slaves to the Jews, dragging their wealth along with them as gifts.
There was also a very strong element of materialism in connection to this. From scattered references, we find indications the Jews in Babylon were not too despondent for long. Quite a few noble families, and not a few priests, got involved in primitive banking. They weren't supposed to charge each other high interest rates, but nothing precluded them from loan-sharking Gentiles. There are hints the planned genocidal attack described in Esther was partially motivated by resentment of the Jewish bankers in the imperial capital. Something in Haman's conversation with Xerxes (Esther 3:9) hints at a strong profit motive connected to a custom of confiscation: The warrant to execute passed down to the actual executioner, who would take the victim's worldly goods, keep a set portion for his pay, and pass the rest up the chain. Bankers would make good pickings. The bankers were blue-bloods of Judah, and most of them stayed in Babylon. The bulk of Returnees were less wealthy. Thus, to some degree the false Messianic Expectations were motivated by envy, a response to the subtle contempt from Babylonian Jews who were known to claim Mesopotamian Synagogues were built on ground actually more holy than Mount Zion. Such sentiment was based on both greater wealth and the depth of scholarship in the rabbinical schools back in Babylon.
The arrival of Alexander the Great, followed by his zeal for building great libraries and academies to promote Hellenism, was the open door the Returnees had long sought to beat back the smugness of the blue-bloods in Babylon. First, Alexandria, Egypt was the newest and hottest port on the Mediterranean Sea. There was money to be made, lots of money. Second, the library had a university attached, which wanted to open a department for Jewish Studies. The blue-bloods disdained to even notice, but the Returnees were hungry for wealth and influence. A great deal of Jewish money moved to Alexandria. A great number of rabbinical scholars went with it. These interacted with a large community of dispersed Jews (Diaspora) from around the Greek-dominated Mediterranean. These, while clinging to their Jewish heritage, found Greek analytical tools very useful in studying their faith. In a very short time, we end up with a very vital and massive rabbinical college deeply infected with pagan Greek philosophy.
It was this compromised brand of Judaism 300 years later which Jesus fought constantly when confronting Jewish leadership. While the Pharisees were generally Eastern, and took pride in carrying on the pure Torah teaching from a series of great scholars from Babylon, starting with Ezra, even their conservatism was infected with Hellenist thought. The targums (Aramaic paraphrases from an ancient Hebrew few Jews understood any longer) were read through Hellenistic eyes. In the end, the Alexandrian translation of the Old Testement into Greek, the Septuagint, showed broadly the evidence of Hellenism in a departure from purely Semitic emphases in the minute choice of phrases. The other major party in Judea were the secularist Sadducees, mostly priests, and the wealthiest by far. Most of Jesus' teaching smacked of populist pietism and unschooled thinking to both parties, and gave them the excuse for making it all political. His call for a return to pure religion sounded like a throwback to Eastern Mysticism in their modern, paganized and materialist ears.
Today we still have the Talmud, a collection of interpretive material mostly coming form Babylon, but read and taught from a mostly Hellenized viewpoint. In this sense, we have what many conspricy theorists mean by "Talmudic Jews."
Christianity, too, suffered some corruption during the Middle Ages. Once wedded to government, the Church was forced to compromise with worldly secularist attitudes. Even while civilization was being reborn following conquest from the primitive Germanic tribes, many locales never let Jews forget they had rejected Jesus Christ. They used it as a justification for oppression. At the same time, few had the skills and experience to match the Jews' centuries in banking. Their success allowed them to dominate the market. In a certain sense, Jews were the bankers to all Europe. This made them a target for those who resented the success, and resented needing those loans. Jews did plenty of other things, but no one seemed to notice. It was the same sort of animosity Jews faced under Xerxes, and it's only fair to note the sentiments were often reciprocal.
The Jewish cultural habit of cohesion against outsiders was only reinforced, and there arose a banker-merchant community among them. Naturally, they didn't charge each other interest (Exodus 22:25), and the rules of cooperation were largely inviolate. Eventually, as the Christian Code of Chivalry tamed tensions between kingdoms, and the royalty class of Europe stabilized, this banking community gave rise to a larger merchant class among the Gentiles. This native merchant class, often funded largely by the Jewish bankers, was used to bring down feudalism. The power of the Roman Church was reduced, as well. The Rule of Law began to displace pure monarchy, and served to protect Jews as a whole. During this time, it seems the Jewish banking community became skillful at manipulating and taking advantage of those professing hatred for them. One of these bankers set up shop in Frankfurt, Germany: Mayer Amschel Bauer.
Bauer placed a red shield over his shop door. It was 1743, a time when literacy was still somewhat limited, and visual symbols served as both logo and business sign. The German phrase then for "red shield" was spelled rothschild (pronounced "rote-sheeld"). Most people today assume it is English, because the anglicized pronunciation is dominant, rather like "roth's child." At any rate, this man possessed a singular genius. While there have always been at least a few practicing Jews taken with a deep spirituality, kindly disposed to all humanity, Bauer was not one of them. He turned his genius into a mighty weapon of manipulation. In a few decades' time he had gained a measure of control over one king, and had great influence over several others. He carefully trained, then dispatched his sons to commercial centers around Europe and England. By that time, they had assume as their family name the nickname based on the sign over the shop door in Frankfurt.
Using the same skills and tactics as their father, the Rothschild boys worked together, gaining effective control over the economy of Europe. Taking advantage of their private couriers, assessing the outcome at least a day ahead of official channels, Nathan Rothschild managed to gain sole ownership of the entire stock exchange of England while Wellington was defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, Belgium. As near as we can tell, this was precisely what his father had planned for all of Europe. Combine some inspiration from the victory recorded in Esther, a dash of contempt for Gentiles, perhaps some vestiges of unfulfilled Messianic Expectations, and it's not entirely a case of megalomania.
We need not see a hideous evil here, just a level of ambition many had held before and since. In return for their success, they and their fellow Jews were subjected to some of the most vile accusations. This fear and hatred gave birth to the infamous Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (PDF). It's obvious this pamphlet is a fraud. However, it is more a fraud of degree than of substance. Even a quick scan shows the spirit of cynicism and ambition which appears to characterize the behavior of the Rothschilds. A good guess is the booklet is an outrageous parody based on some actual documents taken from the Rothschilds and their allies. Of special note are some sections containing fairly advanced banking concepts, concepts actually used by them. However, the real thing is hardly so omniscient. The Rothschilds in particular, and Jews in general, at times suffered setbacks and complete reversals of some schemes.
While they did eventually gain some measure of control over the US economy, the Rothschilds suffered a major setback in the American Civil War.
Power and wealth cannot be divorced. Starting from nothing, if you gain either, the other is not far away. Both can be held in degree; nothing requires an approach to absolutes in order to make folks happy. The problem is fallen man can hardly develop a sense of proportion when it comes to these things. It requires application of an external standard. For Christians, grasping power and wealth as a spiritual reality allows us to fight fleshly desires for the worldly kind of power and wealth. While there is nothing inherently evil about having the worldly kind, it's what we are willing to do to achieve them which marks the line between right and wrong. Herein we define the evil of the Rothschilds: They would do anything to hold wealth and power, and their apparent intent is to hold them absolutely.
The Rothschilds had learned from a keen observation of human history it was not necessary to actually rule any country directly to have control. Nor was it necessary to own everything in sight, nor even merely the assets of those who ruled. All they needed was sufficient leverage to ensure they held the balance of power in the long run. Having gained sufficient control of European economies over a century, it came to the Rothchilds' attention trade with the Americas could both strengthen their hold, or weaken it. The threat for them was the relative freedom of the American economy. There was no handle to grasp so it could be steered where they wished. Further, it was clearly on the way to becoming a much larger economy than all of Europe. Doing so without indebtedness to the Rothschilds had to be stopped. Having lost their first attempts to Andrew Jackson, they waited the next opening. A good first step was to divide the nation, and the simmering conflict between North and South offered the best opportunity. During or after a war, each would be more open to the manipulation and leverage which brought the Rothschilds power in Europe.
Seizing opportunity was the one best skill possessed by the Rothschild Family. Nothing was certain. However, human nature was rather predictable in the main, in the broad scope of events. The Rothschilds sent an emissary to both sides of the brewing War Between the States. Here was an odd thing. The North had a long-standing merchant culture, quite familiar to the Rothschilds. This culture hardly hesitated to welcome the bankers from Europe. Yet the ruling clique in the White House did not trust banks, and frankly hated Jews. While initially taking a few loans from the Rothschilds early in the war, Lincoln eventually balked at the high interest rates and simply issued Union currency on inflation. The South had a pretense to nobility and little interest in the European style of business operations, yet had been crawling with Rothschild agents for decades. It was business as usual for them to accept loans from the Britain-based Rothschilds. Still, things did not turn out as planned. Lincoln proved able to win the war, and remained a powerful force of opposition to the Rothschilds. Thus, they hired Booth to assassinate the President, and whisked him away to safety when the deed was done. Then began the task of getting allies in the US government.
The Rothschilds had learned an active war economy brought its own profits. Even though they eventually had to write off Confederate debts, it could be a net gain for their longer plans. Their hope of gaining a US National Bank under their control went unfulfilled until the next century. A major part of their machinations included building connections with J.P. Morgan, and planting a new proxy in the form of the Kuhn, Loeb and Warburg families, all tightly united with the Rothschild Clan. With the eventual birth of the Federal Reserve Bank, they ended up with far greater control than they had ever hoped. The entire national economy of the US was delivered to them on their own silver platter. Subsequent events further cemented their control, as when FDR confiscated all private gold, and when Nixon removed the dollar from the gold standard. Eisenhowers warning of the military-industrial complex was actually about the Rothschilds, for they owned a controlling interest in all of it.
It appears the Rothschilds have a sliding scale of value assigned to people. It follows more or less the traditional Jewish pattern. Those born or married into the clan are given the utmost privileges, and have to go a long way astray to lose that status. Lesser Jewish banking and merchant families are rather like being in the greater tribe. Jews in general are favored, but so are most any Gentile bankers and merchants loyal to them. The greatest difficulty we have now is realizing the Rothschilds were not hesitant to sacrifice their own fellow Jews, as we shall see.
While their brand of elitism is a direct reflection of their Jewish heritage, this is hardly a fair reflection on Judaism. This is an elite group, willing to enslave the entire human race, for ends only they fully understand, and which ends are shaped by Jewish heritage. Otherwise, it's just another elitist plot to rule the world, one of several we have seen in the past, still see today, and we will surely see others tomorrow. The difference is the Rothschilds are actually able to pull it off.
Whether the Rothschilds still believe in a literal Messiah, it seems certain have simply seized upon the glories of the Expectations as their just due from Jehovah. Thus, wealth alone is not their goal, but the means to an end. So also is the political power which results from wealth a mere tool for the greater purpose. It is my firm conviction their ultimate goal is expressed in part by Zionism. If this is itself a false lead, it's impossible to tell. Their work seems to aim at regaining the entire holdings of the Conquest, and perhaps all of Solomon's domain, and from there to rule the world.
Beginning with the Restoration for certain, and perhaps sometime before, a powerful strain within Judaism lost the idea they were required to seek God's favor. Instead, they simply assumed they had it by default. All the more so among the wealthy and powerful. It had become a doctrine such a condition was proof of God's favor. It was implied if you were poor, you did not have that favor. Thus, the Disciples' apparent shock when Jesus said the wealthy would have a much harder time entering the Kingdom of Heaven (Luke 18:16-27). The Disciples seemed completely lost by such an idea, and asked: "Who then can be saved?" If the rich and powerful, who so obviously had God's favor, weren't going to enter Heaven, just who could? Jesus spent a great deal of time peeling their minds away from that assumption, by His private sessions with them, as well as His public teaching. That ordinary people could be wholly acceptable to God was very Good News, indeed. The rejection of this notion by the Jewish rulers, mostly Sadducees, was without a moment's consideration; the door had been closed long ago. The condition described by shalom -- peace, prosperity and safety -- was not to be "spiritualized," but had only one obvious meaning. Any other meaning of "God's favor" was a threat to the Jewish rulers.
The Sadducees saw nothing wrong with building strong ties with Rome, serving as the moderating force between the oppressors and the oppressed, so long as they could keep their homeland. It was their duty before God as shepherds of the people. Their failure leading up to the Jewish Revolt of 66 AD was in their lack of control over Rome. Roman emperors had managed to kill the golden goose by demanding far too much, and it was the Jewish peasants who rose up first. When Rome demanded they choose between their God, and the Temple gold, and paying burdensome taxes to Rome, there was no keeping them from hearing the voice of the rebel zealots among them. It was not the crushing of the peasants which bothered the Sadducees so much as the subsequent loss of their homeland. Rome expelled Jews from Jerusalem after the destruction by Titus. In their modern incarnation, the Sadducees as Rothschilds have learned to first make sure they control the Roman treasury. Then they took back their land in Palestine. The Rothschilds gave birth to Zionism; the links are too easily found. They were the first to propose in concrete terms a way through the political jungle and economic tangles. The modern Jewish State of Israel is their creation, and appears the center of all their devotion.
To speak against that state is not to anti-Semitism. Indeed, there are several Orthodox Jewish groups against Zionism. Reading their literature, one can see they make a very good case why God is not behind modern Israel, that's its existence is not blessed. Rather, it was bought with money and influence. One need only note the Israeli government is a very long way from embracing the Covenant of Moses to realize these groups are right. While a latter day State of Israel may be in God's final plans, this one is not it. The battle successes are as easily explained by good financing and battle tactics as by miraculous intervention. Modern Arab nations have made a very poor showing on the battlefield, as they lack any of the organization and discipline of the Saracen Conquest. Thus, to support Israel today may well be good or bad for political reasons, but cannot be made a requirement for Christian holiness.
Consider this: It is well documented the Zionist leaders, serving the Rothschilds, did not hesitate to reject an offer from the Axis powers to save Jewish lives. The modern State of Israel as an entity was of utmost importance, not the lives of Jews.
Thus, the Rothschilds do not hesitate to work against the welfare of any other nation. People in the US today are asking "Why?":
"I must assume that these smart politicians are aware that this cannot go on without the country going broke, and that they surely must be aware that a service based economy where we don't actually make anything, aside from printed money, will eventually bring this country down to the level of Mexico and other Third World nations... So why?"
James asks the same question millions of Americans ask daily as they see their towns, cities and schools flooded with non-English speaking illegal aliens and legal immigrants. What and why is it happening? Zogby, Pew, Roper and Dobbs polls show that a stunning 80 to 95 percent of Americans demand our borders be closed. They want legal immigration reduced back to the pre-1965 levels so immigrants will assimilate instead of what's happening: enclaving and separating.
The Border Patrol is a fiction, because it's established fact they don't stop even 10% of the traffic crossing our border away from ports of entry. There are armed incursions, and now comes a bill in Congress to legalize this de facto invasion. Moral issues aside, this trend is guaranteed to destroy the integrity and identity of the US as a nation. While Woolridge's answer to why is a simplistic assertion it's all about the labor market and multi-national corporate lobbying, the bigger answer is this is what the Rothschilds want.
Conspiracy theorists make much of the Bilderbergers, Club of Rome, Trilateral Council, and the Council on Foreign Relations. It isn't hard to prove these are creatures of the Rothschilds. It's not about forceful government, but the illusion of consensus this is all good for us. If popular opinion can't be swayed, make it appear foolish. Either way, the best thing for the Rothschilds and Zionism is a vast Western economy united, with open borders, and ready to destroy the Muslims. Whether the various tools -- government figures and these global councils -- are actually in on the plan isn't important. Take a look at the Freemasons. At one point, they were useful to the Rothschilds, and there's reason to believe they created it. Through various missteps, it became rather useless, and it's power curtailed. It is now a toothless relic of past power, serving only as a means to train businessmen. They get used to working in secret societies, building strong back-channel business connections, protecting the insiders from minor inconveniences of the law, and occasionally the system identifies someone worthy of advancement for service in the cause. Meanwhile, it weakens their commitment to Jesus Christ, should they be inclined to such a thing, by substituting something with a close resemblance. All these organizations are problem enough, but serve in part as a means to keep attention away from the real source of trouble.
So it is with the Rothschilds themselves. If you are one who believes there is a coming personal Antichrist, rather like Left Behind, look for him to rise on the backs of the Rothschilds. They themselves are not some direct manifestation of the Kingdom of Darkness, though they are the current single greatest threat to human life and liberty today. If we are to encounter a serious case of Tribulation anytime soon, it will come via them. Even so, we could rightly call them a type of Antichrist, but they are hardly going to provide the DNA for the likes of Rosemary's Baby. That's fiction. The real issue will always remain: Satan is our true Enemy (Ephesians 6:12).
We see, then, the New World Order is mostly about Zionism. We also see not every actor on the stage has seen the full script. Because of that, the Rothschilds run into trouble now and then when a tool of theirs fails. Depending on how anxious they may be, expect them to take action independently, or wait for another opportunity. That's why we have Israeli spies in the US. If those whose hands actually guide the policy of the US don't run in the right direction, and can't be corrected, expect the nation to start having troubles -- big troubles. Recently, it seems to me some of the tools have been too zealous for their own profit, and the Rothschilds may be ready to pull the rug out from under us economically. It wouldn't take much. We have a lot of Jews in government, but they don't rule America. As it is, many of those in government aren't consciously on-board the Big Plan. Again, it's not about Jews at large, but about Zionism specifically.
Nor is this a cue to promote Arab or Islamic causes. They are hardly innocent victims. I'll be the first to bring up the pagan background of Islam, and say right off Muslims are going to Hell without Christ as their Savior and Lord. It's the same for Jews and every other human. There is no excuse for wearing a bomb vest and killing civilians, and no nation is under an edict from God to suffer annihilation. If anything, the Israelis have shown far more restraint and civility in recent times than any of their neighbors. They kill just as quickly, but are much more careful about targeting. That neither supports nor denies whether it's a good idea to continue this charade of Jews returning to Israel. If there is to be a Final Ingathering, it must be under a renewed Covenant of the Law. Until that happens, the Christian view of modern Israel is it's all about politics. We are dealing with a pair of implacable enemies, both of whom we cannot afford to alienate. Pick your poison; neither side has a moral claim on us.
Dispensationalism is a lie. No one can prove just yet it was started by the Rothschilds. More likely, it was a response of Catholic theologians to the common Reformation belief the Pope was the Anti-Christ. If you research the names Ribera and Bellarmine with Dispensationalism, you'll find a consistent story tying them to the birth of the concept. It passed through many hands before it ended up in the wild visions of Margaret McDonald and the teaching of Edward Irving and John Nelson Darby. The whole concept nearly died in obscurity until an American scoundrel, C.I. Scofield, picked it up. Here we have the firm imprint of the Rothschilds, for it was their money and their agent, Samuel Untermeyer, who got Scofield's work published. Indeed, it seems Scofield visited England and got some coaching from the infamous duo, Westcott and Hort. These two were closet Catholics, involved in studying black magic, and proclaimed themselves superior Bible scholars so as to justify replacing the KJV with their RSV. Scofield would have preferred using their RSV for his study Bible, but knew better. When finally published, it came from Oxford Press, then clearly under Rothschild control. How sad we've had three or four generations of piety twisted by Zionist propaganda.
It all sounds like a bad movie thriller plot. Confirm the story for yourself; don't take my word for it. The foregoing is simply an outline. What to do? Continue serving the Lord. If you feel compelled to minimize your personal risks, consider getting completely out of debt, and avoid using banks. Prefer cash over any traceable means of exchange. Backup everything important to something you can carry and re-use. Learn to place the highest value on what you know, instead of what you have. Keep your worldly loyalties in the lightest possible grip. Know beyond all doubt all governments move from bad to worse, and the US will soon become a very unpleasant place to live -- unless there are some radical changes. It's all in God's hands. If you place yourself in those hands consciously, your life will not be wasted.
By Ed Hurst
Revised 08 November 2007
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: People of honor need no copyright laws; they are only too happy to give credit where credit is due. Others will ignore copyright laws whenever they please. If you are of the latter, please note what Moses said about dishonorable behavior -- "be sure your sin will find you out" (Numbers 32:23)