Similar posts

Judy Mikovits; Larry Klayman #conspiracy #crackpot mediamatters.org

[ERIC] BOLLING [(HOST)]: Dr. Mikovits, tell me about the -- what you believe Dr. Fauci has done wrong?

JUDY MIKOVITS: I believe Dr. Fauci has manufactured the coronaviruses in monkey cell lines and shipped them from and paid for and shipped the cell lines to Wuhan, China, now for at least since 2014. He published that fact and funded the studies that were published in 2015 in Nature Medicine that stated that the original cell line the Chinese used to grow the virus was shipped from Ft. Detrick, USAMRIID, the biosafety level 4 facility there.

BOLLING: Doctor, that’s a pretty hefty claim. You’re claiming that there was a virus that Fauci discovered, the coronavirus -- again, there are many coronaviruses -- but he shipped this specific version to China --

MIKOVITS: No.

BOLLING: And then somehow it leaked? Tell us.

MIKOVITS: No. I’m not saying that he discovered it, I’m saying they were manufacturing these animal tissues. They were using these animal tissues at Ft. Detrick, and this has been done for decades. It was illegal in this country, so instead of continuing the work there, he funded the studies. He’s the head of NIAID. He didn’t discover this particular coronavirus, but they had been working on isolating coronaviruses from bats, both at USAMRIID since the mid to late ‘90s, and they had shipped -- originally funded the studies to Wuhan, China, when it was illegal in this country to do these types of studies further.

BOLLING: All right, let’s bring you in Larry, let’s talk about the law here. What is your claim and, you know, how is it steeped in law?

LARRY KLAYMAN: Well we’re looking at a possible RICO case, Eric, and we’re analyzing that right now, but what it appears happened is the Chinese got that virus. And we know that $3.7 million was given as a grant during the Obama administration to that Wuhan laboratory, that’s not in dispute. And the Chinese then engineered it into a bioweapon. So what happened here, actually, is relevant to our lawsuit in Dallas, Texas, our class action against the communist Chinese who are releasing, either accidentally or by design, this pandemic. So, it’s a very serious matter, and it needs to be looked into. No one wants to discuss it, and I suspect the president probably knows about this right now, which is why -- and I support the president personally, but I don’t think that’s why he’s -- I think that’s why he’s going not real strong against China right now, because this virus actually had its origins, apparently, in a lab in Ft. Detrick, Maryland.

BOLLING: And Larry, we know about the funding the Obama administration sent to China, the Wuhan lab, but allegedly it was for discovery of a vaccine of this exact virus. Earlier, the doctor talked about something that Fauci may have been doing, experimenting here illegal. Tell us about that piece of it.

KLAYMAN: Well, let me just say this. I think one thing the left and the right have in common these days, Eric, is that we don’t believe a word the government tells us. And the fact that they claim they’re looking for a vaccine -- you know, they were doing research, and Judy could talk about this more, at Ft. Detrick to combat bioweapons. OK, so, they weren’t there just for vaccines. I mean, they were there for a number of different reasons. But let me turn it over to her because she’s the expert here.

BOLLING: Go ahead, doctor.

MIKOVITS: Ah, yes, Eric, these -- since the mid ‘90s, we’ve been working with Ebola and other strains of viruses from bats and animals. And we -- I did that work at USAMRIID, that means U.S. Army Research Institute for Infectious Disease. So we were doing those studies, allegedly then, to provide vaccines or therapeutics, but we were working, mixing animal tissues in these human cell lines, the exact same cell lines used in China. And these viruses have escaped before, the Ebola strain in 2014 that killed 21,000 Liberians came from that same USAMRIID facility in Ft. Detrick, Frederick, Maryland.

Robert Hampton #racist amren.com

Pathological Altruism in Tennessee

Blacks attacked a white teenager in Tennessee. The victim’s mother is furious — not at the attackers, but at neighbors who noticed their race.

“I am highly offended by people saying that this was stereotypical black children acting violently,” Edith Love told WREG. Miss love is a Unitarian minister who specializes in officiating at same-sex weddings.

Two young black men noticed her son had a $20 bill and asked for a dollar. He gave them a one-dollar bill, but they wanted more, and threatened to shoot him if he didn’t hand it over. They punched him, breaking his glasses and leaving him temporarily deaf.

Rev. Love does not want to press charges. She wants to have a discussion: “With them, with their families and say, ‘look this is my baby. This is your baby.’ Let’s talk this through.”

The blacks have reportedly harassed other neighbors and cursed at them with racial slurs. Rev. Love thinks she can convince them to “alter their path.” She holds a bachelor’s degree in “social and racial justice” and lectures on this subject.

Her bio states that she “believes her calling is to holding sacred space with everyone who has ever felt unwelcome, unloved, or outcast in her beloved hometown of Memphis, Tennessee. . . She believes all people are her people, the streets are her parish, and everywhere we are, we are standing on holy ground.”

In one interview, a young black girl was sitting next to her son, the victim. She may be an adopted daughter.

Rev. Love is a textbook case of pathological altruism. Jared Taylor defines it as “a sincere attempt to help others that instead harms others or oneself, and is ‘an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one’s own needs.’ ”

Rev. Love believes she is helping blacks, but she’s just hurting her family and neighbors. The blacks will terrorize others unless they’re stopped, but Rev. Love is using the crime to promote herself and claim she’s a “fierce defender of those oppressed” who is “more at home at a protest than a picnic.”

White liberals often behave this way. In November, Usman Khan murdered Jack Merritt, a Cambridge University graduate who worked in prisoner rehabilitation. Merritt had promoted mass immigration and criminal-coddling, two policies that contributed to his death: His killer was the child of Pakistani immigrants, and he got early release after a terrorism conviction. Merritt’s father denounced anyone who saw the connection: “’Don’t use my son’s death . . . to promote your vile propaganda. Jack stood against everything you stand for — hatred, division, ignorance.” Liberals loved his statement.

An illegal alien murdered University of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts in 2018. Her family blasted anyone who connected the murder to illegal immigration. “To the Hispanic community, my family stands with you and offers its heartfelt apology,” Rob Tibbetts wrote in a Des Moines Register op-ed. “That you’ve been beset by the circumstances of Mollie’s death is wrong. We treasure the contribution you bring to the American tapestry in all its color and melody. And yes, we love your food.” Mr. Tibbetts also warned: “[D]o not appropriate Mollie’s soul in advancing views she believed were profoundly racist.”

The Washington Post and other media outlets praised this response.

An Afghan migrant raped and murdered 19-year-old German, Maria Ladenburger in 2016. Her family asked mourners to donate to a refugee charity in their daughter’s memory. Ladenburger’s parents won the “Citizen of the Year” prize from the Federal Association of German Newspaper Publishers in 2018.

South African blacks murdered white anti-apartheid activist Amy Biehl in 1993. They shouted “Kill the Boer” as they beat and stabbed her to death. Her parents forgave the killers: “We hope they will receive the support necessary to live productive lives in a nonviolent atmosphere. In fact, we hope the spirits of Amy and those like her will be a force in their new lives.” Biehl’s parents started the Amy Biehl Foundation to carry on their daughter’s work and hired one of her killers.

Too many whites would rather burnish their anti-racism credentials than stand up for their own flesh and blood. They want praise from journalists rather than justice.

Pathological altruism stops whites’ ability to defend themselves. It’s reinforced by the media and by elites who want us to accept dispossession. There is nothing more shameful than praise from those who hate us. When enough whites realize that, we can destroy this sickness.

thewatcherfiles #conspiracy #racist thewatcherfiles.com

The History of Jewish Human Sacrifice
By
Willie Martin

At the dawn of civilization, the blood rite, in which human blood is drunk from the body of a still-living victim, was known to many tribes. However, only one people, that has never progressed beyond the Stone Age, has continued to practice the blood rite and ritual murder. This people are know to the world as Jews. Arnold Toynbee, a noted scholar, has called the Jews "a fossil people."

In so doing, he must have been aware of the fact that they still practice ritual murder and the drinking of human blood (especially Christian blood). As a scholar, he could not have failed to note the many attested incidents of this practice of the Jews, for hundreds of example of ritual murder by the Jews are cited in official Catholic books, in every European literature, and in the court records of all the European nations.

It is the official historian of the Jews, (Josef Kastein, in his History of the Jews, who gives the underlying reason for this barbaric custom. On page 173, he says, "According to the primeval Jewish view, the blood was the seat of the soul."

Thus it was not the heart which was the seat of the soul, according to the stone-age Jews, but the blood itself. They believed that by drinking the blood of a Christian victim who was perfect in every way, they could overcome their physical short comings and become as powerful as the intelligent civilized beings among whom they had formed their parasitic communities. Because of this belief, the Jews are known to have practiced drinking blood since they made their first appearance in history.

Jewish Murder Plan Against White Christians Exposed

The Murderous People: The Jews are under a terrible suspicion the world over, and for good reason. Anyone who does not know this, does not understand the Jewish problem. Anyone who merely see the Jews as "a tribe which secures its existence with exchange and old trousers, and whose uniforms are the long noses," is being misled. But anyone who knows the monstrous accusation which has been raised against the jews since the beginning of time, will view these people in a different light. He will begin to see not only a peculiar, strangely fascinating nation; but criminals, murderers, and devils in human form. He will be filled with holy anger and hatred against these people of Satan. (John 8:44)

The suspicion under which the Jews are held is murder. They are charged with enticing White Christian Children (and sometimes blacks to keep them under control - and if necessary they will run black children down in the streets with automobiles to show the blacks their power, and that the blacks had better mind their manners or the same will happen again and again. We all witnessed this a few years ago in New York city when the car of Rabbi Shneerson ran over a black child. And as usual the Jews bought off the blacks who were inciting the mobs against them; if they had been unsuccessful in this they would have had the blacks who dared not be controlled murdered) and at time White Christian adults, butchering them, and draining their blood. They are charged with mixing this blood into their masses (unleaven bread) and using it to practice superstitious magic. They are charged with torturing their victims, especially the children; and during this torture they shout threats, curses, and cast spells against non-Jews. This systematic murder has a special name, it is called,

Ritual Murder

The knowledge of Jewish ritual murder is thousands of years old. It is as old as the Jews themselves. Non-Jews have passed the knowledge of it from generation to generation, and it has been passed down to us thorough writings. It is known of throughout the nation. Knowledge of ritual murder can be found in even the most secluded rural villages. The grand-father told his grand children, who passed it on to his children, and his children's children, until we have inherited the knowledge today from them.

It is also befalling other nations. The accusation is loudly raised immediately, anywhere in te world, where a body is found which bears the marks of ritual murder. This accusation is raised only against the Jews. Hundreds and hundreds of nations, tribes, and races live on this earth, but no one ever thought to accuse them of the planned murdering of children, or to call them murderers. All nations have hurled this accusation only against the Jews.

And many great men have raised such an accusation. Martin Luther wrote in his book "Of The Jews And Their Lies:"

"They stabbed and pierced the body of the young boy Simon of Trent. They have also murdered other children...The sun never did shine on a more bloodthirsty and revengeful people as they who imagine to be the people of God, and who desire to and think they must murder and crush the heathen. Jesus Christ, the Almighty Preacher from Nazareth, spoke to the Jews: ? Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning..."


"He (Martin Luther) accused them (the Jews) of all those fictitious crimes which had made Europe such a hell for them. He, too, claimed that they poisoned the wells used by Christians, assassinated their Christian patients, and murdered Christian children to procure blood for the Passover. He called on the princes and rulers to persecute them mercilessly, and commanded the preachers to set the mobs on them. He declared that if the power were his, he would take all the leaders of the Jews and tear their tongues out by the roots." (Stranger than Fiction, p. 249)

The Struggle of Der Sturmer: The only newspaper in Germany, yes, in the entire world, which often screamed the accusation of ritual murder into the Jewish face, was Der Sturmer. For more than ten yeas Der Sturmer led a gigantic battle against Judaism. Which caused Der Sturmer to be under constant attack by the Jews. Dozens of times it has been confiscated and prohibited.

Its workers, most of all its editor Julius Streicher, were dragged into court hundreds of times. They were convicted, punished and locked into prison. Der Sturmer came to know the Jew from the confession which Dr. Conrad Alberti-Sittenfeld, a Jew, wrote in 1899 in No. 12 of the magazine Gesellschaft:

"One of the most dangerous Jewish qualities is the brutal, direct barbaric intolerance. A worse tyranny cannot be practiced than that which the Jewish clique practices. If you try to move against this Jewish clique, they will, without hesitating, use brutal methods to overcome you. Mainly the Jew tries to destroy his enemy in the mental area, by which he takes his material gain away, and undermines his civil existence. The vilest of all forms of retaliation, the boycott, is characteristically Jewish."

The Der Sturmer was not stopped for several years. Just in Nuremberg alone there have been fought dozens of Talmudic and ritual murder cases in the courts. (Now you know why the Nuremberg trials were held against the German Military leaders, it was retribution by the Jews on their hated enemies the Germans). Because of the Jewish protests the attention of the world was focused on these cases. Thereafter heavy convictions followed. At first no judge had the courage to expose the Jewish problem. Finally in 1932 (court case lasting from October 30th to November 4th) Der Sturmer won its first victory. The jury found the following:

1). Der Sturmer was not fighting against the Jewish religion; but against the Jewish people.
2). The Talmud and Schulchan aruch are not religious books. They have no right to be protected under the religious paragraphs.
3). The laws of the Talmud which are quoted and published in Der Sturmer are exact quotations from the Talmud.
4). The laws of the Talmud are in harsh contradiction to German morals.
5). The Jews of today are being taught from the Talmud.

With this verdict Der Sturmer brought about the first big breach in the Jewish/Roman Administration of Justice, which was given the job before the National Socialist revolution to protect Judaism and its government. The jews, of course, became greatly agitated about this. But for De Sturmer this success was an omen of the victory yet to come. Of course, Der Sturmer did not stop half way. It knew what had to be done. It was their duty, or so they believed. To frustrate the gigantic murder plot of Judaism against humanity. It was their duty! To brand this nation before the world, to uncover its crimes and to render it harmless. It was their duty! To free the world from this national pest and parasitic race. Der Sturmer would fulfill its mission. It would, for a time, light up the darkness with the truth which shall eventually rule the world. And it would always direct itself according to the following proverb: "He who knows the truth and does not speak it truly is a miserable creature."

The Laws of The Talmud: If one wishes to learn and understand why the Jews can commit such insane crimes as ritual murder, they must know the Jewish secrets. They must know the teachings of the Torah (The Talmud), and the Schulchan aruch. These laws and teachings are proof that the Jews feel themselves superior to all nations, that it has declared war on all other races, and that it is the sworn enemy of the whole of non-Jewish humanity. Even Tactius, the Roman historian who lived shortly after Christ (55-120) A.D.) wrote:

"The Jews are a race that hate the gods and mankind. Their laws are in opposition to those of all mortals. They despise what to us is holy. Their laws condone them in committing acts which horrify us." (Historian V. 3-8)

The Jew knows that when the non-Jewish world knows his laws and sees through his plans that he is lost. Therefore, by threat of death he forbids their translation and publication. A well known Jewish scholar (Dibre David) writes:

"If the Gentiles (non-Jews) knew what we are teaching against them, they would kill us."

The Jewish secret laws are based on the fundamental principle which states: Only the Jew is human. In contrast all non-Jews are animals, they are beasts in human form. Anything is permitted against them. The Jew may lie to, cheat and steal from them. He may rape and murder them. There are hundreds of passages in the Talmud which the non-jews are described as animals. Some of them are as follows:


1). "The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts." (Talmud: Baba Mezia 114b)

2). "The Akum (Negro) is like a dog. Yes, the scripture teaches to honor the dog more than the Akum." (Ereget Raschi Erod. 22
30)

3). "Even though God created the non-Jew they are still animals in human form. It is not becoming for a Jew to be served by an
animal. Therefore he will be served by animals in human form." (Midrasch Talpioth, p. 255, Warsaw 1855)

4). "A pregnant non-Jew is no better than a pregnant animal." (Coschen Hamischpat 405)

5). "The souls of non-Jews come from impure spirits and are called pigs." (Jalkut Rubeni gadol 12b)

6). "Although the non-Jew has the same body structure as the Jew, they compare with the Jew like a monkey to a human." (Schene
Luchoth Haberith, p. 250b)

So that the Jew will never forget that he is dealing with animals, he is reminded by eating, by death, and even by sexual intercourse constantly. For The Talmud teaches:

1). "If you eat with a non-Jew, it is the same as eating with a dog." (Tosapoth, Jebamoth 94b)

2). "If a Jew has a non-Jewish servant of maid who dies, one should not express sympathy to the Jew. You should tell to the Jew:
?God will replace ?your loss,' just as if one of his oxen or asses had died." (Jore Dea 377, 1)

3). "Sexual intercoms between non-Jews is like intercourse between animals." (Sanhedrin 74b)

It is written in the Talmud about the murder of the non-Jew:

1). "It is permitted to take the body and the life of a non-Jew." (Sepher Ikkarim IIIc, 25)

2). "It is the law to kill anyone who denies the Torah (Talmud - Sanhedrin 59b). The Christians
belong to the denying ones of the Torah (Talmud)." (Coschen Hamischpat 425, Hagah 425, 5)

3). "Every Jew, who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jew), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." (Bammidber Raba, c 21 & Jalkut 772)

These laws of the Talmud were given to the Jews over 3000 years ago. They are just as valid today as they were back then. This is how the Jews are taught from childhood. The results of this stands before us. It is Jewish Ritual Murder.

The Jews' Bloody History: The Jew is not only the murderer of the Christians in theory. His history proves that he practices what he preaches. The history of the Jewish people is an unbroken chain of mass murders and blood-baths. It started before Christ and has continued with Linen, Trotsky, Sinowjeff, Stalin and etc., up to today:

1). The extreme to which the Jews will go was shown in Persia where the Jew Mordecai and the Jewess Esther had 75,800 Persians murdered. They hanged the Persian King Xerxes' minister Haman along with his ten sons. They celebrated this bloody victory and to this day still celebrate it during the Feast of Purim. (Book of Esther 9:6)

After Christ in the years 115-117, on the island of Cyrene, the Jews revolted under their leader Bar Kochba. They murdered 220,000 Romans, sawed and chopped them, drank their blood, and ate their bloody raw flesh. (Dio Cassius: Roemische Jeschichte XVIII, 32)

The Jews revolted in Russia in 1917 and established bolshevism under the leadership of Trotsky, Sinojeff and other Jews, a total of 35 million Christians were shot, slayed, tortured, and starved to death. In Hungary, under the leadership of the Bolshevik Jew Bela Kuhn, a horrible massacre was prepared in which tens of thousands of Christians were murdered.

"'The Jewish Establishment": 'In the early 1930s, Walter Duranty of the New York Times was in Moscow, covering Joe Stalin the way Joe Stalin wanted to be covered. To maintain favor and access, he expressly denied that there was famine in Ukraine even while millions of Ukrainian Christians were being starved into submission. For his work Duranty won the Pulitzer Prize for journalism. To this day, the Times remains the most magisterial and respectable of American newspapers. How imagine that a major newspaper had had a correspondent in Berlin during roughly the same period who hobnobbed with Hitler, portrayed him in a flattering light, and denied that Jews were being mistreated, thereby not only concealing, but materially assisting the regime's persecution. Would that paper's respectability have been unimpaired several decades later? There you have an epitome of what is lamely called 'media bias.' The Western supporters of Stalin haven't just been excused; they have received the halo of victim hood for the campaign, in what liberals call 'the McCarthy era,' to get them out of the government, the education system, and respectable society itself. Not only persecution of Jews but any critical mention of Jewish power in the media and politics is roundly condemned as 'anti-Semitism.' But there isn't even a term of opprobrium for participation in the mass murders of Christians. Liberals still don't censure the Communist attempt to extirpate Christianity from Soviet Russia and its empire, and for good reason, liberals themselves, particularly Jewish liberals, are still trying to uproot Christianity from America. It's permissible to discuss the power of every other group, from the Black Muslims to the Christian Right, but the much greater power of the Jewish establishment is off-limits. That, in fact, is the chief measure of its power: its ability to impose its own taboos while tearing down the taboos of others, you might almost say its prerogative of offending. You can read articles in Jewish-controlled publications from the Times to Commentary blaming Christianity for the Holocaust or accusing Pope Pius XII of indifference to it, but don't look for articles in any major publication that wants to stay in business examining the Jewish role in Communism and liberalism, however temperately." (The Jewish Establishment, Joseph Sobran, September 1995 issue)

In Jewish-Bolshevik Soviet Russia mass murders are even now (1997) are being carried out. The executioners are mostly Jewish men and women. In inventing new methods of torture the Jews are past masters. To let Christians die under torture give them the greatest pleasure. English reporters write that the Chinese executioners frequently would not carry out their tortures and executions; they shouldered and could not continue. Therefore, Jews and Jewesses took their place.

"The Jews were now free to indulge in their most fervent fantasies of mass murder of helpless victims. Christians were dragged from their beds, tortured and killed. Some were actually sliced to pieces, bit by bit, while others were branded with hot irons, their eyes poked out to induce unbearable pain. Others were placed in boxes with only their heads, hands and legs sticking out. Then hungry rats were placed in the boxes to gnaw upon their bodies. Some were nailed to the ceiling by their fingers or by their feet, and left hanging until they died of exhaustion. Others were chained to the floor and left hanging until they died of exhaustion.

"Others were chained to the floor and hot lead poured into their mouths. Many were tied to horses and dragged through the streets of the city, while Jewish mobs attacked them with rocks and kicked them to death. Christian mothers were taken to the public square and their babies snatched from their arms. A red Jewish terrorist would take the baby, hold it by the feet, head downward and demand that the Christian mother deny Christ. If she would not, he would toss the baby into the air, and another member of the mob would rush forward and catch it on the tip of his bayonet.

"Pregnant Christian women were chained to trees and their babies cut out of their bodies. There were many places of public execution in Russia during the days of the revolution, one of which was described by the American Rohrbach Commission: 'The whole cement floor of the execution hall of the Jewish Cheka of Kiev was flooded with blood; it formed a level of several inches. It was a horrible mixture of blood, brains and pieces of skull. All the walls were bespattered with blood. Pieces of brains and of scalps were sticking to them. A gutter of 25 centimeters wide by 25 centimeters deep and about 10 meters long was along its length full to the top with blood. Some bodies were disemboweled, others had limbs chopped off, some were literally hacked to pieces. Some had their eyes put out, the head, face and neck and trunk were covered with deep wounds. Further on, we found a corpse with a wedge driven into its chest. Some had no tongues. In a corner we discovered a quantity of dismembered arms and legs belonging to no bodies that we could locate.'" (Defender Magazine, October 1933)

The history of the Jews is written in the blood of Christians.

"Thanks to the terrible power of our International Banks, we have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews, since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews' Harvest: The Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100-million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet." (Rabbi Reichorn, speaking at the funeral of Grand Rabbi Simeon Ben-Judah, 1869, Henry Ford also noted that: 'It was a Jew who said, 'Wars are the Jews' harvest'; but no harvest is so rich as civil wars.' The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem, Vol. III, p. 180)

The history of the Jews is written with Christian blood. Their history proves that the Jew is extremely cruel and at the same time a coward. The Jew is not a born soldier; he is a born sadist and murderer. (John 8:44)

The Law of Human Sacrifice: For a long time the newspaper Der Sturmer endeavored to find the actual law of ritual murder, the law of human sacrifice. It finally succeeded in doing so. In a trial in which Julius Streicher and Karl Holz were being tried (because of "offending the Jewish Religious Society") it was proposed that they call as witness Dr. Erich Bischoff. Dr. Bischoff appeared.


He was the leading German expert on the laws of the Talmud. He had dedicated his entire life to the study of the Jewish law books. Dr. Bischoff brought with him a translation of a secret Jewish law, which clarified with one stroke the question of ritual murder. It comes from the book of Sohar. This book is considered to be holy by the Jews.


"You are right! This reproach of yours, which I feel for certain is at the bottom of your anti-Semitism, is only too well justified; upon this common ground I am quite willing to shake hands with you and defend you against any accusation of promoting Race Hatred...We [Jews] have erred, my friend, we have most grievously erred. And if there is any truth in our error, 3,000, 2,000 maybe 100 years ago, there is nothing now but falseness and madness, a madness which will produce even greater misery and wider anarchy. I confess it to you openly and sincerely and with sorrow...We who have posed as the saviors of the world...We are nothing but the world' seducers, it's destroyers, it's incinderaries, it's executioners...we who promised to lead you to heaven, have finally succeeded in leading you to a new hell...There has been no progress, least of all moral progress...and it is our morality which prohibits all progress, and what is worse -- it stands in the way of every future and natural reconstruction in this ruined world of ours...I look at this world, and shudder at its ghastliness: I shudder all the ore, as I know the spiritual authors of all this ghastliness..." The eastern Jews especially conform to its laws. In the book of Sohar (a companion of the Talmud). The English translation related:

"Further there is a Law concerning the slaughter of foreigners, who are the same as beasts. This slaughter is to be carried out in a lawfully valid manner. The ones who do not follow the Jewish Religious Law have to be offered to God as a sacrifice. It is to them that Psalm 44:22 refers: ?Yea, for thy sake are we killed all the day long; we are counted as sheep for the slaughter." (Thikunne Sohar, edition Berdiwetsch 88b)

Dr. Erich Bischoff declared himself ready to offer an opinion on this expressed law of ritual murder. However he was rejected. He was not admitted by the court for "fear of bias."


The Catholic priest Dr. Gottsberger took his place. The defendants handed him the above mentioned law in Hebrew and German. Dr. Gottsberger was embarrassed and confused.

After a long consideration he stated that he would not be able to deliver an opinion on the law of human sacrifice. Due to this Julius Streicher and Karl Holz were sentenced to several months imprisonment. Later on, however, Dr. Bischoff (in the trial of 30th October - 4th November 1931) established the correct translation of this law.

This translation and publication of the law of human sacrifice is the greatest blow ever struck the Jews in this controversy. This Law commands the Jews to Butcher Christians and non-Jews. This is to be done in a "Lawful Valid Way." This means that Christians are to be sacrificed in the same way as animals. They are to be sacrificed to the Jewish God Baal (Lucifer, Devil, Satan). Therefore, we are dealing with a law which doesn't only permit the practice of Ritual Murder. But commands it.

Jewish Confessions: A further and irrefutable proof of the existence of Jewish Ritual Murder are the numerous Jewish confessions. They come from trials, voluntary statements and from confessions by former rabbis. The confessions were made in two court cases. One of them took place in Trent in 1475, and the other one in Damascus in the years 1840 - 1842.

The voluntary statement was made by the young Jewess Ben Noud who made it to the French Count Durfort-Civrac. The confessions were made by the following rabbis who truly converted to Christianity: Drach and Goschler, Fra Sifto of Siena, Paolo Medici, Giovanni da Feltre and by the former chief rabbi Neofito, who later changed his name to Teofito and became a monk. These men more or less confirmed the existence of Ritual Murder. In 1803 the former rabbi Neofito published a sensational book in the Moldavian language. In it he gives details about the terrible Jewish secret of the blood mystery. This book was translated in 1843 into Greek and later in 1883 into Italian, under the title "Il sangue cristiano nei riti ebraici della moderna Sinagoga," causing the Jews to become very excited the world over.

On page 19 of this work the Jew Teofito confesses how he was initiated into the knowledge of Ritual Murder. And how the Jews for thousands of years have concealed it from the Christian and non-Jewish world. Teofito writes:

"This secret of the blood is not know to all the Jews, but only to the Chakam (doctors) or the rabbis and the scholars, who therefore carry the title ?Conservatori del mistero del sangue' (Conservators of the mystery of blood!). They pass it on by word of mouth to the Jewish fathers. They in turn reveal it to their sons who regard this as a great honor. At the same time they make terrible threats of punishment if one of them betrays this secret...


"And all of the anxious sighing, longing and hope of their hearts is directed to the time when some day they would like to deal with us Christians as they dealt with the heathen in Persia at the time of Esther. O how they love that book Esther, which so nicely agrees with their bloodthirsty, revengeful and murderous desire and hope!When I was 13 years old, recalls Teofito; mother took me aside, led me into a room, where nobody could listen and after he described to me the hatred of Christians, he taught me that God ordered the Christians to be slaughtered and to collect their blood...'My son,' he said (as he kissed me): ?With this confession I have placed my trust in you.' With these words he put a crown on my head and explained to me the Blood Secret, adding that Jehovah had revealed it to the Jews and commanded them to practice it ...I was in the future, possessor of the most important secret of the Jewish religion...

"Thereafter followed the curses and threats of punishment if I should ever reveal this secret to anyone, neither my mother nor my sister nor brothers or future wife; but only to one of my future sons who was the most wise, eager, and most suitable. In this way the secret shall be inherited from father to son until the farthest descendant."

This is a part of the monk and former Chief Rabbi Teofito's confession. From other confessions and admissions there is a remarkable agreement on the following points:

1). The laws demand the Jews to butcher non-Jews from time to time. (The Laws of The Talmud and the Law of Human Sacrifice)

2). The sacrifice shall take place chiefly:

a. At the Purim Festival
b. At the Passover Festival

It is demanded of the Jews to butcher an adult Christian if possible, or a black non-Jew for the Purim and to butcher a child for the Passover. The child must not be over seven years old and must die in agony.

3). The blood of the victims must be violently drained. It is to be used at Passover in wine and in the Massen (bread). What this means is that a small part of the blood is mixed into the dough and the wine. The procedure is to be performed by the Jewish father.

4). The procedure takes place in the following manner: The father pours a few drops of fresh or dried and powdered blood into a glass, dips a finger of his left hand into it and sprinkles (blesses) everything which is on the table, saying: "Dam Issardia chynim heroff Jsyn prech harbe hossen mashus pohorus." (Erod, VII, 12) Which translated is: "We therefore beg God to send down the ten plagues upon all the enemies of the Jewish religion (This means the Christians. With this they dine and afterwards the father cries):"Sfach, chaba, moscho kol hagoym!" Which translated: "Thus (like the child whose blood has been mixed in the bread and wine) may all Goyim burn in hell!" (This wicked Jewish ritual is suspiciously similar to Christian Communion. In this the wine is taken in place of the blood and the bread as the body. What Christians do symbolically, the Jews do in reality: this is the unique difference. But it is like all Jewish teachings, it is the reverse of what is taught by God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ in the Bible).

5). The ritual blood is also used other ways:

a. The young married couple is given a hard boiled egg which is seasoned with dried blood which has been pulverized.
b. It is also given to pregnant women in the same way in order to ease their child birth.
c. It is mixed with egg-white, put on a linen cloth and placed on the chest of dead Jews so that they will enter heaven without atonement.
d. At circumcision powdered blood will be sprinkled on the wound so it will heal quickly.
e. Dip fruits or vegetables into it and then eat them, (Schuldran arch Orach cajjim 158,4) or
f. A dying or decrepit Jew can be saved with it. (Jore Deah 155,3)

The Jews have a superstition which originates from the Orient. They believe that old people can become younger by drinking the blood of young children.

6). The remainder of the blood is preserved with the greatest of care by the local rabbis and sold in small bottles by appointed wandering Jews at neighboring synagogues. This same rabbi certifies that the blood is genuine pure Christian blood.

7). The Ritual Murder and the Blood Mystery are acknowledge by all Talmudic Jews, and practiced whenever possible. The Jew believes that he will be "atoned" by it.

The Hurons, the Canadians and the Iroquois were philosophers of humanitarianism in comparison to the jews. These are seven Jewish customs and regulations were established not only in the trials from Trent and Damascus, but in various trials and court cases which took place in different parts of the world throughout history. And of course they were completely independent of each other. This proves beyond a doubt their truth and validity.


Civilized people find this practice so abhorrent that they cannot believe it, despite the hundreds of pages of evidence against the Jews which are found in court records. Historical records for five thousand years have provided irrefutable proof of the blood gu

Jared Taylor #racist #psycho amren.com

Ahmaud Arbery: The Next Trayvon Martin?

Get ready for another massive national convulsion over race. It will be just like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Freddie Gray. This time, the dead black man is Ahmaud Arbery, age 25. The whites who shot him are Gregory McMichael, age 64, and his son, Travis McMichael, 34.

There is no presumption of innocence. Joe Biden tweeted that “Ahmaud Arbery was killed in cold blood.” Elizabeth Warren says that what happened is “sickening.” Ilhan Omar is quite sure that Arbery “was lynched. Killed in cold blood simply for being a Black man in America.” Kamala Harris tweeted that the killing “sickens me to my core.” The president of the Georgia NAACP says, “The modern-day lynching of Mr. Arbery is yet another reminder of the vile and wicked racism that persists in parts of our country.” Even National Review just ran an article called, “The Murder of Ahmaud Arbery.”

The two white men’s addresses are now splashed across the internet and, as this lad notes, “Street gets its revenge always. This guy and his son gone be dead soon enough. And I’ll gladly praise that day.”

So, what happened? Unlike previous celebrated “modern lynchings,” at least some of the police findings are public. Their lives may be ruined, but there is good reason to think that what Gregory and Travis McMichael did was perfectly legal.

The father, Gregory McMichael, is a former police officer and investigator for the district attorney. He lived close to a new building under construction where there had been break-ins and trespassing. Mr. McMichael had reportedly seen surveillance video of a black man trespassing. He says that on February 23, he saw a black man — who turned out to be Arbery — “hauling ass” down the street, and thought he looked like the man in the video. He and his son armed themselves and followed in a pickup truck, hoping to hold him until the police came. A friend named Bryan William followed in a second vehicle and took cellphone video. The McMichaels drove ahead of Arbery and stopped in the street.

What happened next is on this short video, and is consistent with what the McMichaels told police. They shouted at Arbery to stop because they wanted to talk to him. They say Arbery ran around the pickup and attacked Travis, the younger McMichael, who was holding a shotgun. There were three shotgun blasts as Travis and Arbery struggled for the weapon, and Arbery died at the scene.

The video recently became public, and proves that people can see the same images and see things that are completely different. George Barnhill, a Georgia DA who investigated the killing, has written a public letter summarizing his findings. He wrote that the three white men “were following, in ‘hot pursuit’, a burglary suspect, with solid first hand probable cause, in their neighborhood, and asking/telling him to stop. . . . to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived.” He added, “Under Georgia Law this is perfectly legal.” He also noted that the McMichaels were legally armed. There may be other reasons besides the surveillance video to think the McMichaels had “first-hand probable cause,” but details are not yet available.

Mr. Barnhill, whose investigation included an autopsy report, reconstructed the struggle between Travel McMichael and Arbery as follows:

The 1st shot is through Arbery’s right hand palm which is consistent with him grabbing and pulling the shotgun at the barrel tip, the 2nd and 3rd wounds are consistent with the struggle for the shotgun as depicted in the video . . . . Given the fact Arbery initiated the fight, at the point Arbery grabbed the shotgun, under Georgia Law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself. Just as importantly, while we know McMichael had his finger on the trigger, we do not know who caused the firings. Arbery would only had to pull the shotgun approximately 1/16th to 1/8th of one inch to fire the weapon himself and in the height of an altercation this is entirely possible. Arbery’s mental health records & prior convictions help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man.

Arbery appears to have had a shoplifting conviction and to have brought a gun to a school illegally and resisted arrest, but it’s not clear what Mr. Barnhill meant by “mental health records.” The DA concluded that he saw no reason to arrest the men, adding that it would be up to a grand jury to hand down an indictment.

A black lawyer named Lee Merritt, who is representing the Arbery family, watched the same video and reached a different conclusion: “Mr. Arbery was pursued by three white men that targeted him solely because of his race and murdered him without justification. . . . [T]hese men must be taken into custody pending their indictment.”

DA Barnhill has recused himself from the investigation because of previous law-enforcement work with Gregory McMichael. The outside prosecutor now assigned to the case, Tom Durden, says he will take the case to the grand jury as soon as the Georgia courts end their virus shutdown. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation will also investigate.

What will happen next? Let us not forget that blacks rioted in Ferguson, Missouri, when a grand jury refused to indict the white officer, Darren Wilson, who shot Michael Brown. I think therefore it is a near certainly that Gregory and Travis McMichael will be charged with murder. They can’t risk a plea bargain because in a superheated case like this, even admitting to involuntary manslaughter will mean years in jail.

A trial could be as sensational as the Trayvon Martin case — and could turn out the same. To get a conviction, the prosecutor will have to prove guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Based on the facts as they appear now — and under current Georgia law — that may not be easy. There could be another spectacular acquittal that brings howls of fury and dismay.

Whatever happens, there are many ironies here. First, all the people who are calling this a “lynching” and are screaming for punishment are, themselves, acting like a lynch mob. As now-recused DA Barnhill wrote to journalists, “People need to let the American criminal justice system work. After it is completed all of the facts and evidence will be available for the public to review.” There is no chance of that.

Second, people who hate white people — and especially white police — will trumpet this as yet another example of “open season on black men,” as if white police officers and private citizens are on the prowl for innocent black men to shoot. This is foolishness, but the media — as they are in this case — promote it tirelessly. It takes an inquiring mind to discover that a black person is nearly 30 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa, and that police killings of blacks account for about 0.6 percent of all homicides of blacks, justified or not. Recent studies find that white officers are no more likely than black officers to shoot black suspects.

Ahmaud Arbery probably didn’t know these facts. All this reckless talk of “open season” could very well have convinced him that he would be shot no matter what he did. Instead of stopping to talk, he appears to have charged a man with a shotgun. He would surely be alive today if he had not attacked.

But the facts don’t matter; all that matters is a chance to accuse whites of racism, and many whites get just as wild a thrill out of this as blacks.

Third, Gregory and Travis McMichael have just learned what “white privilege” means. It is only because they are white and the dead man is black that the whole world knows their names. I suspect that most of the people who see this video as proof of first-degree murder would see it as justifiable self defense if this were not one of those rare acts of white-on-black violence that we are supposed to think are so common.

A society that promotes the notion of “white privilege” is admitting the opposite: Whites will always be scrutinized for “racism,” will never get the benefit of the doubt, will always be assumed guilty, and will always be held to higher and even impossible standards.

Controversies like this are inevitable when whites and blacks try to live together. Life in a multiracial society is always full of tension and conflict. In “white supremacist” America, “white privilege” means contempt and persecution. And it will get only worse.

USS Sokal Award

American Research Journal of Biosciences #fundie io9.gizmodo.com

Fake Research Paper Based on Star Trek: Voyager's Worst Episode Was Published by a Scientific Journal

“Threshold” is one of the most infamous Star Trek episodes ever. You know what’ we’re talking about—the one with Warp 10 and the weird evolved amphibians. Well, it was also the recent subject of a fake scientific research paper submitted in a test to expose the ever-growing problem of “predatory” scientific journals.

An anonymous biologist looking to expose how easy it was to get fake news into supposedly peer-reviewed scientific journals—inspired by a recent attempt that got a paper about Star Wars’ midi-chlorians published in three different journals—recently submitted a paper titled “Rapid Genetic and Developmental Morphological Change Following Extreme Celerity.” The author was listed as “Doctor Lewis Zimmerman,” which is actually the name of the holoengineer that programmed Voyager’s Emergency Medical Hologram.

The paper was essentially a recap of the events of “Threshold,” the godawful season two episode in which Voyager’s helmsman Tom Paris attempts to break the theoretical “Warp 10” speed barrier, something never done in Trek’s universe. Turns out, it’s for good reason, because apparently when you do reach the “extreme celerity” of Warp 10, you turn into a weird amphibian-person, capture your captain, evolve them into a weird amphibian-person, and then fully evolve into actual space salamanders and mate with each other.

Look, there’s a reason even the people who made this episode call it a “real low point.”

But nonetheless, the paper—which, while obfuscating its language a bit, was still very clearly fake, including mentions of the transwarp barrier Paris breaks in the episode and even concluded by thanking the United Federation of Planets and Voyager producer Brannon Braga—was accepted by four different journals, and actually published in one, American Research Journal of Biosciences. According to a Space.com interview with the anonymous biologist who submitted the paper, the journal asked for just $50 to do so. ARJ have now pulled the text from their website in light of media reports discovering that the paper is essentially a fancier-worded Memory Alpha page.

In the world of science publishing, the rise of “predatory” journals and a lack of proper checks on the papers that get accepted into them is a growing, disconcerting problem. Multiple sting operations into exposing the issue—including an alarming report by journalist John Bohannon in 2015, who managed to get a scientifically accurate, but intentionally poor and catchily-presented study, into predatory journals that then went on to work its way into the media—have occurred in recent years.

But with efforts like this Trek-themed paper and last year’s midi-chlorian one, it shows that it’s not just poorly-conducted research making its way into journals, but blatantly false papers as well. In a time when public faith in science is more important than ever, practices that allow for jokey incidents like this to happen only help to erode public trust in even the best science publishing.

Jason Colin #racist stormfront.org

(What do you mean by "odd acting people"? Otakus/hikikomoris? If so, then how are the reasons hidden from the public?)

Japan is a Zionist controlled entry way into asia accepting of the LGBT agenda before the AGenda even really started in the west without even excuses that are made up to justify it, has a high murder rate covered up by saying they are suicides because the suicide rate is so high and they abrely do autopsys. Threaten people to plead guilty to crimes. Filled with child sexualization and some of it is legal in terms of age. Real life and in media. They act nuts and demand things in other asian countries they aren't even from and constantly instigate and start fights because they think they are better than everyone. And the government keeps the country disorganized by allowing everyone to be drawn in my all these immoral and shutting the country off from the rest of the world.

Mark Jones #fundie theologyreview.co.uk

So yesterday I was on Facebook and numerous articles came across my news feed, all relating to someone I’ve had a lot of respect for over the years, that is Eugene Peterson. For those who don’t know who Peterson is, he is best known for his work in putting together one of the world’s most popular paraphrase Bibles, The Message. The Message came in at number 10 of the most popular Bible translations of 2016 according to Nielson. Because of the success of The Message, Peterson has long been in the public eye. But this past week he has come under a little scrutiny because of an article that was released by Religion News Service entitled Eugene Peterson on Changing His Mind About Same-Sex Issues and Marriage.

However, as with most stories that come out on the internet, there’s a little more to this story than meets the eye, so let’s investigate and try to get to the bottom of this issue that has the Christian online world in a bit of a storm. Let’s dig in shall we.

The RNS Article

The article is quite interesting, the contributor Jonathan Merritt introduces the piece by saying he wants to investigate Peterson’s views on homosexuality and gay marriage, as it is a very hot topic in the world today. This is certainly the case when you look at the way the world is today.

The question Merritt asks Peterson is interesting here, as is Peterson’s response. The question asked is what is the morality of same-sex relationships, and has your view changed on this over the years? Below is Peterson’s response to the question.

...

“In my own congregation — when I left, we had about 500 people — I don’t think we ever really made a big deal out of it. When I left, the minister of music left. She’d been there ever since I had been there. There we were, looking for a new minister of music. One of the young people that had grown up under my pastorship, he was a high school teacher and a musician. When he found out about the opening, he showed up in church one day and stood up and said, “I’d like to apply for the job of music director here, and I’m gay.” We didn’t have any gay people in the whole congregation. Well, some of them weren’t openly gay. But I was so pleased with the congregation. Nobody made any questions about it. And he was a really good musician.”

Peterson closes his answer by saying:

“I wouldn’t have said this 20 years ago, but now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do. I think that kind of debate about lesbians and gays might be over. People who disapprove of it, they’ll probably just go to another church. So we’re in a transition and I think it’s a transition for the best, for the good. I don’t think it’s something that you can parade, but it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned.”

One thing to be immediately aware of here is that Peterson answer does not actually bring Scripture into play, but solely focuses on his experience with people who are of a homosexual persuasion who identify themselves as believers in Christ. Peterson also states that this would not have been his answer 20 years ago, the question is why? This is an assumption, but here’s my guess, gay marriage was not being pushed down the throats of society in 1997, whereas it is now.

Merritt then follows this initial question up with the question of would you ever perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, Peterson’s answer is YES.

This response has led to many Christian outlets writing response pieces on this. Including The Gospel Coalition, Church Leaders, and Christianity Today.

However, that is not the end of the story here, as Peterson has since retracted his comment on performing a same-sex marriage.

Peterson’s Retraction in the Washington Post

In an article released yesterday (13 July) entitled Popular Author Eugene Peterson: Actually, I Would Not Perform a Gay Marriage, Peterson retracted his comments on being willing to perform a same-sex wedding ceremony, saying.

“When put on the spot by this particular interviewer, I said yes in the moment. But on further reflection and prayer, I would like to retract that.”

Peterson says a lot more on the subject than this, so I would encourage you to read the full article as we won’t be covering every detail covered in the retraction story. However, Peterson did clarify what his view on homosexuality and gay marriage was in the following statement:

“To clarify, I affirm a biblical view of marriage: one man to one woman. I affirm a biblical view of everything.”

Peterson carries on with this:

“When I told this reporter that there are gay and lesbian people who “seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do,” I meant it. But then again, the goodness of a spiritual life is functionally irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. We are saved by faith through grace that operates independent of our resolve or our good behavior. It operates by the hand of a loving God who desires for us to live in grace and truth and who does not tire of turning us toward both grace and truth. There have been gay people in a variety of congregations, campuses, and communities where I have served. My responsibility to them was the work of a pastor—to visit them, to care for their souls, to pray for them, to preach the Scriptures for them.”

Peterson closes the statement by saying that he regrets the confusion caused by the interview, this coming on the back of the statement earlier in the article that he prefers questions ahead of time to allow him to prepare appropriately for the interview that is to come.

RNS responded to this in an article released yesterday entitled Eugene Peterson Backtracks on Same-Sex Marriage. The article basically goes down the line that Peterson’s retraction is yet another blow to those who identify themselves as gay Christian’s and that God doesn’t love them any less because yet another prominent voice in the Church has stated that they do not affirm same-sex marriage.

Peterson’s retraction also came on the heels of Lifeway Christian Stores saying that they were considering pulling Peterson’s work out of its stores due to Peterson’s apparent new view on same-sex marriage.

So with all this information, and more in the sources linked below, what are we to make of the comments of Peterson on the subject of homosexuality and is it even relevant?

Getting to Grips With All of This

The honest answer to this subject is that there is no straightforward answer that will please everybody. However, on the question of is this relevant, the answer is a resounding yes.

A number of weeks ago I came across a comment on a Facebook thread about homosexuality, where a commenter asked: “Why are Christian’s so obsessed with homosexuality and gay marriage”? I responded to that question by saying that we are no more “obsessed” with the subject than those who are for homosexuality and gay marriage are. In fact, if you look deep into the debate, most of the time Christian’s are responding to something on the subject, not actively seeking out ways to predicate our view.

The hard truth is that the Bible does not affirm homosexuality, people can argue that Jesus never directly talks about homosexuality and therefore does not have a view on the subject, and therefore we should be “more like Jesus”. However, this argument is an argument from silence and is extremely lacking. For starters it ignores what Jesus says about marriage, that is to be between one man and one woman (a la the book of Genesis), and it also fails to have done a strong investigation on Jesus’ last days’ prophecy, which seems to include a reference to gay marriage in it. So, in reality, Jesus may very well have addressed gay marriage, without using the words gay marriage.

This may upset people who are wanting God to affirm this lifestyle for any reason. However to get the Bible to do this would require the altering of doctrine, ignoring God’s instruction in His word, or manipulating that said instruction to make it what those who want this affirming to say. But I do need to be blunt here and say that homosexuality is just like any other sin noted in scripture, the only real difference between homosexuality and any other sin is the mainstream attention it gets and the twitching ears who listen to big-name “Christian’s” who support same-sex marriage and homosexuality.

The fact of the matter is that as Christian’s it is not our responsibility to judge on this issue, and I mean judge in the Biblical sense of pronouncing a punishment on someone, that’s God’s job, not ours. We are to teach people the word and show what God says on the subject in a manner that is full of grace and truth. It’s like the cliche says, we are called to love the sinner, not the sin. There is a vast difference between saying that God says what someone is up to is a sin, and saying they heinous and full of sin. Because without the grace of God we are all heinous and full of sin.

Whatever your views of Peterson’s comments are, people need to know the love of God and the truth of His word. This means that we shouldn’t cave to societal pressure that tells us that tolerance is affirmation and acceptance, rather than what it actually means. As Christian’s we need to let the love of God be what stands out, and that is a love that is so loving it tells people the truth.

What do you think about Peterson’s recent comments? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

Mark Jones is the Lead Writer at Theology Review. Mark is currently studying theology at Spurgeon's College, working towards completing the Church Training Initiative before moving on to their degree course. Mark has been a Christian since 2001, and now spends a lot of his time studying and researching various topics affecting Biblical and Church History. This has led him to start Theology Review, a place for thought and discussion on historical and current theology.

Carolyn White #conspiracy activistpost.com

“We’ve collected samples from all over the world, and cataloged the genetic information encoded in their DNA,” Dr. Holmes, Phylos’s chief science officer and molecular and evolutionary biologist, in addition to being a co-founder of Phylos Bioscience, told the NY Times, relating the DNA sequencing to an actual bar code in terms of identification and evolutionary relationship relative to other samples.

The data could theoretically help protect the intellectual property rights of growers from potential big business interests, such as Monsanto, from gaining a patent foothold in the growing industry.

Due to the social media attention given to the subject, Monsanto has attempted to refute any interest in producing GMO cannabis, posting on their website that the companies reported interest in GMO marijuana is nothing more than “an Internet rumor.”

Additionally, on April 25, Monsanto spokeswoman Charla Lord told Willamette Week that the company will not be getting involved in the marijuana business.

“Monsanto has not, is not and has no plans for working on cultivating cannabis,” Lord told WW.

Contrary to the public statements by Lord, White says that he expects companies like Monsanto will attempt to eventually patent cannabis.

Russell Moore #fundie erlc.com

The article quotes me telling the photographer that he need not investigate the background of every wedding he performs, but they do not quote the next sentence: “But when there is an obvious deviation from the biblical reality, sacrifice the business for the conscience, your own and those of the ones in your orbit who would be confused.”

Here’s why this matters. The photographer has, in most cases, no ability or authority to find out the sorts of things a pastor or church elders would about a marrying couple. Most evangelical Christians, this one included, believe there are circumstances in which it is biblically moral for a divorced person to remarry. And all Christians—regardless of what we think about a church’s responsibility—think that marriages between otherwise qualified unbelieving men and women are good things, grounded in a creation ordinance.

It’s possible, of course, that the man and woman who’ve contracted with a wedding singer are just marrying to get a green card. It’s possible that they don’t plan to be faithful to one another. It’s possible that she’s already married to three other men. It’s possible that their love is just a reality show stunt. Or, to take us back to Corinth, it’s possible the blushing bride is the groom’s ex-stepmother. But unless the photographer has a reason to think this, he needn’t hire a private investigator or ask for birth certificates and court papers to make sure it’s not.

In the case of a same-sex marriage, the marriage is obviously wrong, in every case. There are no circumstances in which a man and a man or a woman and a woman can be morally involved in a sexual union (I have no reason to assume that Powers and Merritt disagree with apostolic Christianity on this point. If so, they should make that clear).

Now, the question at hand was one of pastoral counsel. How should a Christian think about his own decision about whether to use his creative gifts in a way that might, he believes, celebrate something he believes will result in eternal harm to others. I recognize there are some blurry lines at some of these points. But what isn’t blurry is the question of state coercion.

It’s of no harm to anyone else if Kirsten Powers and Jonathan Merritt (both of whom I love) think me to be a hypocrite. It’s fine for the Daily Beast to ridicule the sexual ethic of the historic Christian church, represented confessionally across the divide of Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy. It’s quite another thing for the state to coerce persons through fines and penalties and licenses to use their creative gifts to support weddings they believe to be sinful.

That’s broader than just homosexuality. I don’t want wedding singers forced to use their lyrics and voices to tell us how great it is that Herod and Herodias or Henry VIII and fill-in-the-blank wife’s name are soul-mates.

This article maintains that there are no circumstances in which the Bible “calls Christians to deny services to people who are engaging in behavior they believe violates the teachings of Christianity regarding marriage.” Really?

Does that apply only to the morality of marriage? Should a Christian (or Muslim or Orthodox Jewish or feminist New Age) web designer be compelled to develop a site platform for a legal pornography company?

Now, again, we might debate the best ways to see to it that consciences are protected by law and in the courts. But acting as though those concerned about such things are the reincarnation of Jim Crow is unworthy of this discussion. Moreover, the implications for conscience protection are broad and long-lasting. This isn’t just a tit-for-tat Internet discussion. The lives and livelihoods of real people are on the line, all because they won’t render unto Caesar (or to Mammon) that which they believe belongs to God.