Responses to the PaRDeS

MORE Reviews

Here are first interesting responses to the PaRDeS, a new long essay by Israel Shamir. Some of them are quite shocking, some revealing. The PaRDes is available to colleagues, active contributors and correspondents of this list and to donors of the site  http://www.israelshamir.net  just for asking. Send an email to Shamir@home.se with subject 'pardes’ to receive the PDF file.

From Nancy Horn, Pennsylvania:

Dear Israel Adam,

I am reeling, with horror at the subject matter and awe at what you have done with it, the depth and breadth not only of your knowledge but, far more important, your brilliance.

While I adore the elegiac prose you cannot NOT use when describing Palestine, and had thought nothing could surpass Galilee Flowers, I think -- no, I KNOW -- you have done so with this one.

You have not only seen with greater clarity and depth the very things we have noticed, you have explained their interconnectedness with this abhorrent whole. 

My deepest congratulations to you on the production of a really superb, monumental treatment of our world and what ails us.

Thank you, Shamir, for making sense of things.

Nancy


From Hans Olav Brendberg, Norway:

PaRDeS is a tour de force through your main themes.


From Gerald Jugant, France

With the reading of PaRDeS, I feel the spirit of Simone Weil, but in a way even more conscious and obvious, you belong to the great tradition of the Jewish mystic teaching, the Cabbala. Undoubtedly you attempt to revive this very old, mainly lost, wisdom of humanity, who has as a base the golden age,  the original paradise, the very old time of the man in harmony with nature and its own nature.


From John Spritzler, the US

Dear Israel,

I just finished reading all of Pardes.  I found it fascinating because it helped me understand (somewhat) -- for the first time actually -- your overall world view. I see that you use the phrase "the Jews" (without the quotation marks) to denote a world view embodied for thousands of years in Jewish culture and writings -- a world view which individual people (Jew or not) may adopt or reject, or serve (like the Messiah's Donkey) without even being aware of it. I also see that your "the Jews" concept has a lot in common with the modern capitalist ideology of individualism and rejection of the dignity of all human beings (seeing them as objects to be exploited). I think that the source of our agreement on things like opposition to Zionism and support for a one-state solution where Jews and non-Jews are all equal and opposition to oppression in general stems from the fact that your "the Jews" and my "Capitalism" are concepts that overlap a good deal.

 

While I understand that your "the Jews" is not a nationalistic (or racist) concept, don't you worry at all that the phrase (especially without the quotation marks around it) encourages nationalistic thinking? I do. Why not replace it with something less susceptible to misuse? I think "the Jews" is a less useful concept than "Capitalism" for understanding the world we live in. But I guess we will have to agree to disagree about that.

 

 Thank you for sharing your very eloquently written and fascinating-to-read Pardes with me.

 --John


From Windsor, Washington

Dear Israel,
You have produced a powerful indictment of the morally bankrupt and intellectually exhausted Masters of the World.  Money and power are far more addictive and debilitating than any mere narcotic and our Over Lords seem to be so desperate for another fix that they are willing to risk bringing the whole house down around them.  It's funny in a non-haha way to hear them blame the poor on welfare for contributing to the collapse of The Empire through their dependence on food stamps and homeless shelters while they desperately search for that spare hundred million they thought they stashed behind the platinum toilet for a rainy day.
My gut feeling is that 'the Jews' are just hired guns, or rather hired accountants and lawyers, plantation overseers, who went into that line of work because they had and uncle who could get them on with CitiBank or ABC.  I'm having a really hard time getting mad at anyone involved in this hell.  The devils are the damned, the damned are devils to the other damned.  
Windsor


From Joachim Martillo

I like the analogy to the troops that do not see the big picture during war.  I sometimes use analogies to neural networks or the ideas of management theorists when they discuss organizational behaviour.

I am not sure the analysis of New Christian behaviour in the Iberian peninsula works.  The conversion of Jews in Spain gave them an advantage because they were able to forge even stronger ties (including marriage) with the aristocracy and the nobility.  The attacks on New Christian behaviour seem to have begun in an internal dispute among connected and non-connected New Christians.  Only later did the argument and vitriol spread to the larger public. 

While there certainly are large connections between Ashkenazi and proto-Ashkenazi communities and Jews of other ethnic groups, and we can trace these ties back to the 10th century, I am not sure that the distinction between Ashkenazi Jews and Jews of other ethnic groups can be ignored.  In Israel there is a certain homogenizing effect because there was a strong effort to forcibly remould the Jews of other ethnicities to Ashkenazi thinking, behaviour and mores.  You probably deal with the 2nd and 3rd generation descendants of non-Ashkenazi Jews that came to Israel.  They have been fairly thoroughly deracinated from their parents and grandparents cultures.  In some sense so have Ashkenazim because of historical developments since the 1830s. 

Being Ashkenazi today is far different from being Ashkenazi circa 1900.  Without Zionism, small communities of religious Jews might have survived like Zoroastrians, but probably there would be no serious Jewish ethnic identity today. I think one could take some of Uri Ram's analysis to argue that Zionists took the core Ashkenazi identity to create a sort of Jewishness-lite (Yidishkayt-qal)  that they have either disseminated or imposed on Jewish groups and communities throughout the world.  If we follow Baruch Kimmerling's analysis, we might conclude that Jewishness-lite succeeded even as Israeli-ness failed.

This Jewishness-lite connects Israeli Jews to American Jews and Jews throughout the world.  It would probably even survive the demise of Israel.

I admit that the notion is really half-baked, but it might provide an interesting standpoint to analyze Jewish behaviour today.  Jewishness-Lite might also work as a catchy book title.

Joachim Martillo


Dear Shamir, 
I read your essay, PaRDeS. What I think ? Probably you will shock many "petit bourgeois". I apologize, but my English is not good and I follow in French. 
Je suis convaincu que vos objectifs sont des plus dignes et je les partage pleinement. Vous voulez aider les Juifs à leur salut, les rendre bons, qu'ils mettent leur énergie au service du peuple, de l'humanité dans son ensemble. Seulement, à ce stade, seule une élite juive peut vous comprendre et vous suivre dans cette voie. 
Je pense qu'Hitler et le nationalisme européen ont fait considérablement régressé cette perspective d'une solution à la Question Juive, mais que plus de 50 ans après la guerre et la création de l'Etat d'Israël, elle se pose à nouveau dans toute sa plénitude. 
L'assimilation des Juifs est un processus éminemment complexe et discutable. Il semble actuellement bloqué tant pour des raisons historiques que compte tenu des rapports de force mondiaux et de l'hégémonie (néo) libérale sur l'ensemble de la planète. Je verrais plutôt la recherche d'un nouvel internationalisme de citoyenneté mondiale respectueux des identités et des cultures, dans lequel les Juifs trouvent pleinement à s'épanouir sur des rapports d'égalité. Comment concilier son identité juive avec le nouvel universalisme ? La solution passe par la Palestine. Le choix est un scénario à la sud-africaine ou à l'algérienne. 
A la lecture de PaRDeS, je crois quà l'instar de Simone Weil, mais de manière encore plus consciente et évidente, vous êtes dans la grande tradition de la mystique juive, de la kabbale. Il s'agit sans doute aujourd'hui de réssusciter cette sagesse très ancienne de l'humanité, en grande partie perdue, qui a pour fondement l'âge d'or,  le paradis originel , le temps très ancien de l'homme en harmonie avec la nature et sa propre nature.
Friendly yours. 
G. Jugant


From Ron

I want to thank you for the fine work you have done thus far in shedding light on the most fundamental issues plaguing our world. Your essay, Pardes, is rings true on every level. Indeed,  you are doing your job, which, in reality, is the solemn task of all created beings—to discover the truth and speak it plainly and unflinchingly. May God continue to guide and bless your endeavors.

Sincerely,

Ron


From Lucille

Enlightening and enjoyable to read for it's truth and exposure of the 'great game'.

I am not sure if I agree that Jewish intermarriage is always a way out of Jewry. With American Zionism, it is not that unusual to be a quasi-Jew, a low-class half-breed Jewish family. Usually when Jews marry Christians, they still celebrate all the Jewish holidays in addition to the Christian ones. Most times the Christian half of the intermarriage is even more vehemently pro-Israel and anti-Islam than an average Jew, since a display of fidelity to Jewish causes implies marital fidelity and honour in their minds.
I agree with you in theory that Jews and others should be free to intermarry and mix DNA. However, in experience I do not recommend marriage out of one's culture unless the host culture is actually willing and able to accept newcomers, which is not usually the case. I thought it was not important to be until I tried. We had none of the same common assumptions, language was a huge barrier, he didn't get my jokes, he hated my food, our interaction styles were totally different; His fantasies were not my fantasies...but worst of all the racism of the community. I have no idea how a Russian convert to Christianity would be treated by his or her Palestinian in-laws. I know that white or black Americans in general are never considered real family members by their Arab or other outside-culture in-laws. They are merely tolerated, if that. They are obligated to attend family gatherings but they are not included in the conversations, nor visited in their homes.
I loved the idea of the Biblical exegesis style of explaining your political viewpoints. The only thing was I had to read it 2 or 3 times to get what you were doing. It was unclear what the four levels meant, and how they connected with the subject matter you were discussing. With a little redundancy you might be able to connect your headings and intros and conclusions more clearly. Like you can say, "I am now going to explain to you what the Jews want on four different levels, using these terms...The mystical meaning of these terms relates to this explanation in the following way..." Otherwise people of lesser intellect such as myself are forced to flip back and forth back to the overly brief intro of PaRDeS before the beginning of The Man Higher Up chapter. Also you didn't clarify if PaRDeS is something you came up with on your own or is this an old Hebrew concept, or how do people usually interpret PaRDeS when not connecting it with anti-Zionism?
In fact, you may wish to begin the entire essay with your explanation of PaRDes and then go to the battle scene, pedantically explaining that this is an example illustrating your point ... Again, because what you are trying to do is very unique and charming and people should try to get it.
Like even at the second reading I was unsure how Paradise (peshat) relates to swindlers or a literal reading of swindlers. It just needed a little further clarification.
You quote James Woolsey, "Anti-Semitism threatens the rule of law and intolerance of Jews is a first step toward dictatorial rule." This statement is so absurd that it deserves further analysis.
You are putting forth very bravely a theory, which is accurate, of a rebellion in Judaism against God. However I think you are still contradicting yourself in your assertion that the primary struggle is being waged by The Church on behalf of God against Judaic Satanism. You say: "Yisrael dwelt in the dead bodies of the churchless nations." If Israel is a vampire living in the dead body of the Church, then by your own admission the Church is dead. The lingering remains of Christianity smoulder as embers in the Orthodox Christian community of Palestine, and little embers here and there among the true peacemakers of the world. But the Church in this debilitated or dead state cannot fight this war. If there is a struggle going on it is someone else, not the Church, carrying the torch that Jesus lit.
First of all, Lucifer is a creation of God and Lucifer is the enemy of Mankind. The Eternal Struggle is not, as the Zoroastrians believed, a war between God and Satan. The Jews are not the enemy of God, they cannot even hurt God. The Jews are the enemies of Mankind. The King of Israel recorded in Islamic Prophecy is a False Messiah, a Pharaoh, a master magician and rejecter of Truth. But like the Egyptian Pharaoh of old, this enemy of the Believers is still God's servant. God uses him to test the Believers and to strengthen them internally through purification of other than God.
At one time, the Children of Israel were the Believers because they were the followers of the current prophet of that time, Moses. The covenant was through Moses. Then came Jesus and the Covenant was made through Jesus because he was God's prophet of that time. Those who rejected Jesus became Disbelievers while those who accepted Jesus became the Chosen Ones. After Jesus came Mohammad, who is the prophet that Moses predicted would be like unto him, who would bring the Law to the Gentiles and conquer many nations. Jesus also foretold the coming of Mohammad, the Mercy to Mankind, as the Comforter who would come after him. (Gospel of John 14:16, 15:26, and 16:7)
To reject Mohammad is to reject the most recent Covenant with God. There is no moral excuse for Christians not to accept Mohammad as their prophet and accept Islam. The Christians rejected God's prophet, pretending, like the Jews, that Mohammad was perhaps a great leader of others, but not sent for themselves. Because the Christians rejected Mohammad as their prophet, God revoked His Covenant with them. The Christians are now members of a Church of Disbelief. That is why God destroyed the Church. Your efforts to reform the Church and bring Christians back to Orthodoxy is a sweet idea, but unlikely to work because you cannot go back in time. God's prophet Mohammad already called the true Christians to accept Islam. There is no Church that represents God anymore. Mohammad is the Seal of the Prophet that is the culmination of east and west prophecy, universalizing the Covenant to the world.
I also think that your statement that Jesus came for all of mankind is not supported by the words of Jesus. What you are quoting is the philosophical doctrine of Paul. But if you actually read the Gospel, Jesus is always clear that he came in particular to admonish the Children of Israel.
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them saying, Go ye not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go ye rather unto The Lost Sheep Of The House Of Israel. " Matthew 10:5-6
For more Bible/Quran analysis of Jesus by Shaykh Ahmed Deedat see 
http://www.sharif.org.uk/successor.htm

 When you say "Muslim influence is not liable to help besieged Christendom against its oldest enemy," you are seriously overlooking something. Your oldest enemy is Satan. Satan was your enemy before the Jews were your enemy. Islam will save Christian souls but it will not save the Church. As you mentioned, the Church has no soul except that it is possessed by a vampire called Yisrael. Muslims cannot save a corpse.
But Muslim influence is lacking because Muslims lack knowledge of Christ. The true Christians have to join the Islamic community in order to flood the Muslims' intellectual vacuum with Christ Light. Not in order to take Muslims away from Islam, but to add to the power of Islam in order to defeat the enemy. The Church has to decide what is more important, self-preservation as an institution or preserving the Covenant of God and fighting for Islam with Jesus against the Jews. Muslims need the Christians to convert to Islam in order to counteract the Judaic tendencies of the Wahhabis, who are actually crypto Zionists.
If Christianity dies, it does not mean that the Covenant has been cancelled. Allah is the Ever-Living. The religion of God is something alive and present. If the Church does not embody this spirit, then we must find it elsewhere, for God has promised that if a group to whom He has given guidance refuses to follow that guidance, God will raise another people who will follow Him. So we have to open our eyes. The Arab world is in a state of decline because the Arabs forgot Jesus and took to nationalism. But there is no new Covenant. Islam is still the religion of God, and it is open to the true Believers of any race.
The only group of people on earth who refuse on principle to accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel are the orthodox Muslims. It is a religious issue, because they refuse to consider Jews as the Chosen. For all their faults, they are right about the essential issue that you have described. They recognize Judaism as Satanic. The Christians should stop 
trying to convert these Muslims to Christianity and instead, the Christians 
should join Islam. The influx of Christian manners into Islamic culture 
might be enough of a morale boost to give victory to the Believers.

The Biblical quote "And I will bless them that bless thee (Abraham)" is 
clear to Muslims. Muslims are the only religious group that every day in 
every ritual prayer invoke blessings upon Abraham, his family, his 
descendants and his followers. Whenever you bless a prophet, the prophet 
blesses you. The Muslims are the most blessed people on earth in this 
regard. It is clear that Islam is the religion of Abraham. The essential 
conflict is not Jewish or Christian, as you say, contradicting yourself. The 
Reality is that there is no conflict. There are many universes, and Allah 
created them all.

My belief is that Zionism can be cured through the Buddha's four noble 
truths. The blend of east and west inevitably leads to Mohammad and to 
Islam. This is the final victory of Truth. It's here. 
Maria


From Hermann, Madrid

I have just finished the translation of Pardes. It was, as usual with your writings, but even more so this time, an exceptional pleasure to work on such a masterpiece from the point of view of
intelligence, wit, style and research.


From Jocelyn Braddel

Dear Israel,

Though I am unfortunately not the professional reviewer you might have wished for this letter - I feel obliged to chance my arm for an appraisal as I appreciate your kind gesture in sending the whole text to me.

First I have to tell you of a friend with whom, as a convert from the Protestant religion to the Catholic, I have had many and many an argument. I finally extracted from him in recent years this explanation: "my religion and my life are like the perpetual struggle of Jacob and the Angel, and when I realised that I also realised that I must commit myself to that struggle for a lifetime."

So, to Pardes and you the author. Considering the above anecdote and many of your essays I might almost find you in the same struggle and shrug off any serious interest - but quite unlike the artistic activities of my Irish friend whose windows and paintings cannot be considered for effect outside his  religious concerns - you, by contrast have pitted your belief and course against and into a political fracas that many different people are conjoined to. Because you are tied in this way to a distinctly living struggle your pursuit of a place in the political struggle makes me very uneasy, and this uneasiness is actually largely a result of this document .

In one respect I consider your paper an exceedingly dangerous text.

You have exhibited in this tremendously energetic writing career a lot of strength to carry burdens and arguments forward in time toward the future. What if one of those burdens is not what you believe it to be?

By arrogating freedom seekers of every kind, including of course freedom from belief in God, as an active example of submission to the Jewish move to victory over the goy, you are taking an incredible stance. Can it not occur to you that enclosing all mankind in a "spiritual" religious argument is an unpleasant arrogance?

To resume now, from my reading, and from a history of the Jewish Church that I am also reading, I perforce must come to the conclusion that the Jewish notion of their difference and isolation in their notion of being the chosen people of God is utterly fraudulent. Their relationship to the other Arab races is very evident is it not? If Abraham could understand his nomadic journey to the south, if David could acknowledge the crimes of his militancy, if betrayal which from Abraham on was a central twist to tribal loyalties between brothers and then entered national history in David's ancestor, the woman who betrayed her tribes to allow Moses tribal descendents penetrate Palestine, if violence which is evidently crucial to the occupation today as it was under Saul etc., and if the material consequence of a financial ambition can also be said to be mirrored by Arabs, their closest relatives, it becomes of course imperative to you to take a political stand. And for you to use weapons of knowledge and example against the Jewish political militancy in evidence everywhere, from Mossad's secret assignations in distant countries to the televised present occupation, reels of their violence in Palestine.

Because of Jewish history itself the field for your engagement in text and argument is clear and open ground.  Something that curiously enough this protestant history written in 1800’s precisely pinpoints.  This is the fact that tablet, text, history, psalm and song are an intrinsic part of Jewish history, the consequence of which associates them with the origins of their Assyrian background and the parallel of Greece. Both Jews and Greeks developed the written sign, word, to encompass other material than mere agricultural and trade records. They introduced social philosophy, concepts of "the teacher", the poem, and history which was then called prophecy. A surge of development toward the future was thus brought to life. Through Mohammed, later, the Arabs also developed similar themes, paintings, poems and social philosophy that ultimately was frustrated by tribal leaders without these concepts and finally by the English and French mandates and "kings". I think the Arab has always clung to the concept of a personal freedom through poetry despite this.

I would describe this evolution of mental activity as occurring because the mind became "indwelling", that was maintained within a religious "system" exclusive and militant, which the Wahabbis lacked, having only militancy to sustain them beyond the Koran.  However because of this exclusive "indwelling" the Jews failed to develop a co-ordinating life-style of vigorous peasant agriculture. They preferred to use the work of other tribes, as today, having dismissed the thousands of Palestinian workers, they now use Thais and Chinese etc.

The above can easily be found relevant with the development of the swift and vigorous mental life developed in Greece. And don't you see how the Romans, Virgil and others fitted into the understanding that I am emphasising by writing their books of educational agriculture and poetic myths of Ovid in order to maintain the contact with nature and natural life.  Academic knowledge accumulated and enabled the protestant cleric to make an equitable comparison with the Jews as examples of human development with the Greeks(whom as you know all English worship), as it was then in the1800s,when there was a growing European surge of interest in the Middle East.

The misfortune ultimately of the Jews and of the Greeks was in the latter noticeable in Plato, the association of literacy with religion, an aristocracy, and with militant victory.

The diaspora of the Jews however had an extraordinary and different development. Armenians developed, (almost global trading!), all over the surface of Europe and Asia. This trade the Jews permeated and finally took over. And this I suggest is the true source of the energetic enterprise in that activity; money balance, trade and usury that might almost now be considered their "genetic" impulse - ?This trading enabled them make small and useful settlements all over the place, pleasing to themselves and the foreign nations where they settled. One such has just been demonstrated in India of ancient establishment - as there was in Kabul where only two Jews remain (who detest one another!)

However I am neglecting to write a little about your essay, instead of my thoughts on the matter!

The plan of your structure for this essay is very interesting and magnetic, a simple structure of research that allows your profuse talent to illustrate in your very own style that is so much admired. But, man dear, in my opinion you have betrayed it and rushed into it - opening doors here and there for cross currents of illumination for the dark corners you want to turn out. You label and even name some of the political criminals you wish to identify unadvisedly, such as the following: " Sir Conrad Black...admittedly married to a nasty Jewish supremacist." and I think you deserve a strong dose of criticism for that for a start! Another: "for it is not only impossible for you to join the Jews, it is also not to be desired, for Jewry is not a good set-up - as we shall try to show.."

Undesirable manifestations indeed of rule and tradition. The "reason" for Hitler's support may have been the money he thought he would have available to prosecute his war in Europe for the German expansion. Expansion that the weak-minded Woodrow Wilson thought he was putting to an end with the Versailles Treaty.  Some of your allusions and quotations refer to problems that were not essentially Jewish but the problems citizens all over the world became familiar with : the World Wars that culminated in the explosions of the Atom Bombs, Problems which for an outcome outcome demanded that citizens everywhere find an escape from the hegemony of government tyranny and military ambitions.  Of course this all appeared to recede as politicians everywhere simply recreated the old formulas for their governance as today we can see that in Europe, Russia, England and USA governments are going to corrupt the rule of Law even further to give them "virtual" control of every citizen. These politicians have the arrogance to describe their intrusions of control the "Art of the Possible".

Israel I am not going to work through your essay nit-picking, I think it is a secure and serious evocation of religious anxieties and certain fates. The system illustrated by the O.Henry story is an amusing introduction and instructive to difficult rigours of Jewish ideas. You develop from this threads that hang from the Gordian knot of this terrible strife. Also your optimism is positively saintly, although side by side with a deep loathing of the violence and material philosophies of the modern world.

The major objection I have is to this notion of yours that of freedom as a form of subjection to Zionist projects. I don't think you have any right to contaminate the innocent human recurrence of the search for an individual's freedom that has been an ancient historical and sustained clangour rung out against oppression, repression and recurring defeat.  Such defeats are nothing whatsoever to do with an overwhelming vision of spiritual development, despite having been entangled again and again in religious claims, heresies, and tragedies from Troy to Joe Soap at war in Iraq.

That is all I can manage to say at the moment, maybe reading it again sometime I will have other acknowledgement. Regards and thanks for the opportunity to read your 2004 magnum opus,

Jocelyn Baddell.


From Marcel

Israel Adam, my dear brother in Christ, thanks for the PARDES text. I read it with great interest and profit. It confirmed me even more in my mission. What an excellent job you're doing to serve Truth and He who said "I am the Truth...". It reminds me of the apocalyptic words: "You must prophecy AGAIN against many peoples, and nations, languages and kings" (Rev 10,11). That's what we're doing, you in your world and I in mine. 

There are points I'd like to exchange with you. I was convinced, and now even more, that honest Jews are the first victims of Zionism offered on the altar of Baal. Just as honest Christians and Muslims are victims of their respective clergy. What you say about Simone Weil changes my opinion favourably about her. 

The revolution you're doing in the Jewish communities is like the one I'm doing on my level and possibilities in the Christian (...or so-called) World. A new apocalyptic priesthood is actually been formed by Jesus. He is already spiritually back in the world to renew the relation between his followers and his Father in a simple family relation. He is to make priests of those who open the door for Him to come in and have supper together en "tête à tête" as we say in France (Revelation 1,6 / 3,20 / 5,6/ 20,6/ Luke12,35-40). I'm sure He'd like you to "open the door and let Him in to have HIS Supper with you", to share his blessed Body and Blood in simplicity, not in Churches where He is no more. This is the time of "the renewal of all things" (Acts 3,21), the "New Jerusalem descending from Heaven and the New World built up by the One who sits on the Throne" (Rev 21,1-5). You are more of a Christian priest than any priest or bishop I met. Now is the Lord's "wedding feast" (Mat 22 / Rev 19,7) now is the time to answer, and for the "wise virgins to wake up" (Mat 25).

I don't think either "that the MISSION of the Church is over". Its sacred Mission will go on being carried by new modern apostles like a certain Israel Adam Shamir and others. Had the Church been alive, she would have spoken like you, like me, and others who dare to speak, and "Simone Weil, the little Communist Christian saint would not have avoided full communion with the Church for she felt the Church to be too pro-Jewish" (I'd even say too pro-zionist. PaRDeS Chapter 2). You also admit that "The Church does not wish to confer priesthood upon its laity" (PaRDeS: chapter "The spiritual Pump"). This is because the Church is dead. But the living and everlasting Messiah, Jesus, explicitly wishes to confer his priesthood to laity because we are all priests. This is one aspect of the New Apocalyptic Earth and Heaven on earth. That's the reason of my indestructible optimistic faith.

The Church is dead because, as mentioned in PaRDeS, chapter 'The Spiritual Pump': "small agreements with the Jews caused the submission of Christendom- not only to the Jews, but also to their Guiding Spirit. It begins (it began already) with small things...An even worse folly was the idea of two valid Covenants of Vatican II...In no way may a Christian state that the Jewish covenant is valid; for it undermines the very meaning of Christ's sacrifice". This undermining killed the Church, NOT ITS MISSION. No dialogue with Satan other than a kick in his buttocks. Our poor "mother" Eve only established an "innocent" symbolical dialogue with him. She killed humanity. Christ rescued us. You reveal that Joseph della Reina only lit an innocent candle at Satan's command. The Church, through John Paul II, did even more, much more, She visited the Antichrist up to the Wailing Wall, In Jerusalem, She even sat on a throne with the Cross of Jesus up side down, She even received Christ's declared enemy gloriously in the Vatican, exclaiming heartily: "God bless Israel!". I don't see Jesus saying nor doing all that. I understand why He asked: "When the Son of man comes, will he find faith on earth?" (Luke 18,8). The Church is morally dead by becoming Israel's "zombie". But her holy Mission will go on and on and on and, as you say ending up PaRDeS : "After Crucifixion (and death) there is Resurrection". This has already discreetly started in many lay Christian priests. Whether the traditional Church wants it or not. God's holy Will be done; It is already being done. My answer to Jesus' question : "Yes, Brother Lord and Saviour, Yes! You'll find faith on earth in our welcoming hearts and souls. Our doors are widely open for You".

Glory be to the everlasting living Jesus, the one and only Christ, our Lord and Saviour...and to his discreet Holy Mother, our Mediator.

Brotherly yours in Jesus, the "semite", our Saviour.

Daniel


From Vic

Dear Shamir.

I read your manuscript PaRDeS and I am indebted to you for bring out and expanding on the genesis of the problem the world is experiencing today. I agree with you that only a very small percentage of Jews know of the plans drawn by even a smaller minority of their compatriots.

You mention that in the past, until the turn of the 20th Century a good number of Jews happily assimilated themselves with the various nations where their wanderings took them and they became fully fledged French, English, German etc., etc. nationals. You conclude that the salvation of the world rests with the quick assimilation of this race.

As a Christian you also look as the present struggle as a Good versus Evil contest for the soul of humanity and place your hopes in the Christian Church and its principles based on the teachings of Paul – “there is not Jew or Greek, male or female” – within the consciousness of Christ.

But look at the Jews. Here is a race that has covered the 5 continents with their presence for thousands of years and despite the claim of assimilation it did not stop them from being a race. Nowhere was where they settled this assimilation truly successful. They did not assimilate with the Egyptians in the time of Moses nor with the Babylonians in the time of Ezra. They did not assimilate with the Romans, Greeks, Arabs or the Europeans, and they are not assimilating now.

In the span of 2500 years no meaningful change has been noted from the original prophetic utterance of “a people that dwell alone”. Isn’t it time we all called it quits?

I once heard someone mention the Catholic Church had a saying that “Give me a child for the first 7 years of his life and he will always be a Roman Catholic” Jews remain Jews due to two factors – race (or blood) and ideology (one could also call it Religion) – and every new born Jew, apart from the ‘blood-tie’ spends more than seven years in an environment that will indoctrinate him in “the way of the fathers”  Samuel Roth in “Jews Must Live” gives an apt description of this environment in his “The Bringing Up Of The Little Jew” chapter. You still call yourself a Jew, although you were born and brought up in Russia. It may well explain your quote regarding the locusts not having or needing a leader.

I believe in the concept of Race and its genetic code, in its many ramifications and in its numerous groups and sub-groups down to the single individual and accept the differences between individual units, and these differences increase as one moves up to sub-groups, groups and eventually to the general trends of a particular race, where these differences are most noticeable. Inequality in everything is the norm in Nature, not equality. This is true also of the human psyche. It is different in every individual, group and race. And assimilation and interracial propagation is an aberration of natural principles. It is, in fact, the true meaning of “adultery” in the Biblical sense.

The Church, in its belief that the material world is only a ‘stop-over’, contributed no end to this aberration of Natural Law in their perceived mission to convert the world to its ideology. It is still believed that Christ’s second coming will not take place until the Gospel has been preached to all the people of the world. While the Church believes in its method of Salvation through Christ, the Jews believe that their Salvation is in being Jews. I have no quarrel with either.

The White race has buckled under a two-pronged attack.

The Jews, as part of their plan to reach the ultimate goal of world dominance have supplanted the natural instinct of the preservation of the race and the inequality principle with an ideology of equality in all spheres of existence, transformed genes into environment and injected a guilt complex into the blood stream of the nations.

The Church, with their cry of “mea culpa, mea culpa”, gladly accepted this ‘guilt trip’ and taught its flock that we are all guilty of sin and that sin was what made Christ – a Jew – suffer and die at Calvary. No wonder those that saw Mel’s film came out of the theatre with a better understanding of how they, personally, crucified Jesus. (The irony of it all is that the Bible, and Jesus himself, clearly states that his mission on earth was for the Jews only) It went further by depicting Jews as the “chosen ones” who, albeit misguided for now, would eventually have their names (and their names only) engraved over the 12 portals of the New Jerusalem, built by God in heaven and beamed down to earth at the end of time. This is the position today. At the start it tried to differentiate between old and new Israel (itself) but it was eventually infiltrated with a new ideology and lost its primary zeal. It was bound to happen for it used the Old Testament to formulate its doctrines.

The Bible is, in my view, a Jewish book – from Genesis to Revelation - that concerns itself primarily (‘overwhelmingly’, I should say) with Jewish fortunes and all other nations are treated as side items, whose people may get some of the crumbs that fall from the Master’s table. The New Testament was produced to, perhaps, counteract the Old but in trying to prove their point by using the  fulfilment of prophecy as their ‘proof ‘ the writers tied the Old to the New in a way that cannot easily be undone. Thus the acceptance that both parts formed a whole, indivisible, and this is further endorsed with the stamp of ‘holiness’.

It matters little if one spiritualises the stories presented or if one accepts them as historical facts. And it matter even less if one is to marry both. Then one gets a myriad of interpretations and beliefs as is the case today.

I accept Hitler’s interpretation of National Socialism. A State is a racial organism. One is a member of that State by the virtue that your psyche and your blood is German, from German parents and carries the genetic code of that particular sub-group. Place of birth, religious belief and group association does not make one a German, neither does one loose one’s ‘German ness’ through these factors. The same goes for any other people. A Chinese does not alter his features because he/she was born in Europe He may became fully Europeanised but he remains a Chinese. 

Another point you bring out in connection with the destruction of Europe during WWII that it was due to National Socialist policies is, to me, not valid. War came because the Jews wanted it for they saw National Socialism as a threat to their own plans, and the Holocaust myth gave a tremendous impetus to their cult of ‘victimhood’ and helped their cause, no end.

Throughout history, and before, men and nations always had the desire to rule others – it seems it is a human trait – so there is no ‘sin’ in the Jews wanting to control the rest of the peoples in the world. Some conquerors are magnanimous, others tyrannical. From what you describe the Jews fall in the latter category. Still, borders were not drawn by God on a world map so man is under no obligation to maintain them

I understand that nobody can change somebody else unless that someone is willing to change, thus I admire the Jews for remaining Jews and in their endeavours to reach the goal they were ‘promised’ so long ago and reserve my utter contempt to my so-called leaders who were elected to the task of ensuring my independence and well-being. They are the traitors and criminals. And the ‘shabbesgoyim’ fall in this same category.

Somehow, I cannot see myself including Ariel Sharon in this list. He and the Jews believe that the end justifies the means, albeit with some self sacrifices, and are prepared to allow some Jews to perish for the greater good of the race. And to counteract their racial ideology only a similar ideology has any chance of success. If the nations of the world adopted similar trends in their respective lands it would lead to equilibrium.

I see no need for a belief in a higher plane as a fundamental requirement for people. I believe that Hitler sought to replace the Judeo-Christian religion with a ‘Nature’ religion which he referred to as “Fate” and having spoken to some Germans, Hungarians and Italians (those not too scared to talk), that lived through those days, it seems they look at that period as a Golden Era of Central Europe. In fact, I spoke to British veterans that said that ‘if they knew then what they know now’ they would have fought on the German side.

Having read “Mein Kampf” I can honestly say that I find no fault in the book, taking into consideration the period in which it was written.

Please look at this letter as my own interpretation of events and not as a critique of your most excellently formulated manuscript. I hope you forgive its length. .

I am puzzled, though, seeing that you live in Israel, that you have been allowed to remain, so far, relatively untouched by the powers that be and able to write what you write on a subject that seems to be taboo in the Western nations. May you be allowed to continue, as the world needs people such as yourself.

Keep well.

Vic


From Xavier Lavaud

Dear Israel,
I have read the first three parts of Pardes.
My opinion is that it is absolutely perfect.
And purely Marxist as far as I understand.
I want to check this point with a few Marxist experts, sooner or later they
will have to make a choice.