You are about to enter another dimension. A dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind. Next stop, the Twilight Zone
Submitted for your approval, one Sally Edelstein age 69 artist writer seeker of truth and regrettably finder of truth. What you are about to watch is a nightmare a combat for freedom vs censure. Sally Edelstein who in a moment will awake and have all her artwork destroyed, ripped from her studio, gallery walls unable to create her work ever again. A strange man knocked on her door, the door from the outer recesses of the Twilight Zone.
Fiction?
We have folks, already begun to enter the Twilight Zone.
Donald Trump’s seizing control of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is the start of the process of dictating what art is allowed in America.
Just like Hitler in Germany who censored and totally controlled the art of his nation.
Our philistine president has proclaimed himself chairman of that venerated Center terminating multiple board of trustees “who do not share our Vision for a Golden Age in Arts and Culture,” and decreed the Center would only show work that fits in with his values. He ousted the center’s longtime president Deborah F. Rutter.
We’ve seen this before, but never in my lifetime.
The Nazis called any art that did not conform to their standard or presented the Nazi regime in a negative light “degenerate art.”
This included modern art such as Expressionism, Dada, Cubism, and Surrealism as well as art produced by Jewish artists.
While modern styles of art were prohibited, the Nazis promoted paintings and sculptures that were traditional in a manner and that exalted the “blood and soil” values of racial purity, militarism, and obedience. Similar restrictions were placed on films, plays, and music which was expected to be tonal and free of any jazz influences.
Hitler’s own Golden Age of Arts and Culture.
By bringing art and artists under state regulations the Nazi party sought to control artistic output in Germany preventing anti-Nazi imagery, promoting Nazi values of Kinder Kuche Kirche ( family/children home church ), and generating hatred towards minority groups, particularly Jews.
Those identified as degenerate artists were subjected to sanctions that included being dismissed from teaching positions, being forbidden to exhibit or sell their art, and in most cases being forbidden to produce art.
The designation of degenerate art was intrinsically linked to Hitler’s personal artistic taste and indicative of the Nazi Party as a cult of personality.
Eerily familiar to our own Fuhrer.
Detail Collage by Sally Edelstein ” Fractured State of the Union” hand-cut collage of appropriated images 20″ x 24″
As an artist whose work is both political and social commentary, it would not be a stretch that I would be seen as a degenerate artist .
In fact, I came close to that happening as hints of that Twilight Zone episode had already touched my life.
In the winter of 2023, I received an award for my political art that was in a prestigious exhibit at the Reece Museum, in Tennessee. The FL3TCH3R exhibit is an international juried art exhibit featuring socially and politically engaged art that explores contemporary social and political movements.
Busy with other shows I did not enter the 2024 exhibit which elicited an entirely different reception drawing condemnation from conservatives.
Last November, right-wing media honed in on images they found offensive such as swastikas that morphed into the Christian Cross, and Klu Klux Klan hand made from an American flag . Lawmakers called the works hateful and accused them of making a mockery of the Christian faith. US Representative Tim Burchett wrote a letter to the Dean demanding that the exhibition be taken down immediately.
Pieces that were meant to critique the hateful symbols they referenced but got twisted around.
After Republican backlash, visitors to the East Tennessee State University Reece Museum were being asked to sign a liability waiver before entering the exhibit displaying works that challenge conservative dogma.
That was only a few months ago. The censuring climate of our culture has only accelerated.
Art is a tool for changing or creating dialogue on existing political or social realities. It is the beating heart and conscious of a healthy society.
The Twilight Zone may not be real.
But Nazi Germany was.
What have we learned from history? Apparently nothing.
The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices…to be found only in the minds of men. For the record, censures and prejudices can kill…and suspicion destroy…and a thoughtless frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all of its own…for the children and the children yet unborn. And the pity of it is…that these things cannot be confined…to the Twilight Zone
Envisioning The American Dream 
Your words are powerful and terrifying. A president using the power of his office to personally take control of a national arts treasure to promote his own agenda is something many would say could never happen in America. Grand overreaching is now an everyday occurrence that has to be a wakeup call. The echoes you have illustrated should be deafening to all Americans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The history of what was done with the arts in Nazi Germany wee something I was acutely aware of but believed it to be consigned to history. Never something that could happen here. But on a daily basis, no,actually on an hourly basis we are seeing so many institutions and rights we took took for granted dismantled. We are in The Twilight Zone and I pray it does not portend to the twilight of our beloved nation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
DIDNT START WITH GAS CHAMBERS IT STARTED WITH ONE PARTY CONTROLLING THE MEDIA. ONE PARTY CONTROLLING THE MESSAGE ONE PARTY DECIDING WHAT IS TRUTH. ONE PARTY CENSORING SPEECH AND SILENCING OPPOSITION. ONE PARTY DIVIDING CITIZENS INTO US AND THEM AND CALLING ON THEIR SUPPORTERS TO HARASS THEM. IT STARTED WHEN GOOD PEOPLE TURNED A BLIND EYE AND LET IT HAPPEN.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We can’t be Good Germans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
North of the border we are watching in horror. Please tell me there’s a group of Democrats, Independents, center Republicans working behind the scenes to stop this madness! Please tell me there’s a group of artists, musicians, actors, writers and poets gathering somewhere lobbying their representatives, and planning protests! Why are we not hearing about it? Are they all really just sitting back and watching in disbelief, or are they all in shock?
LikeLiked by 2 people
It is all of the above. We simultaneously feel so unempowered , yet everyone I know has been calling their representatives. There have been protesters in cities across the US rallying against Trump, Musk etc, but not sure it has any impact.There have been lawsuits filed against Trump administration, and the Judicial system is the last guardrail. If he chooses to ignore some rulings then all bets are off. Congress is powerless and there has been no real leadership. We feel shocked, frightened and very alone. Who will come save us?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I’m not so sure there’s anyone outside of the U.S. who can save you – we’re all scrambling to save ourselves from your felon leader. Canadians will survive this. We’re more concerned about the people in the U.S., Ukraine and Gaza. There’s got to be someone within who will rise up and do something!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, we need to be saved within, and yet it feels as though those who could help are laying down like lambs.The US which for over 80 years couldbe counted onto save others,no longer can save itself. All within a months time. And now with RFK Jr overseeing our health there will be tremendous negative and deadly consequences.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a reminder, they’ve been banning books for years. The Kennedy Center was a bold shot across the bow, but the battle is already well on its way. As a public library employee, I can tell you I’m fearful of what is coming, not just for my job but for the country. Kids 80 years hence will learn about this in history class.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is terrifying. Yes, they have been banning books for sometime. And they have banned some art shows. This has a different quality to it I suppose against the backdrop of everything happening simultaneously. I am concerned for you and can imagine how anxious it must be to be worried about your employment.
History will paint this as a very dark period.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Recent Israeli History
Many argue that Hillel’s response, particularly in support of Israel, essential for maintaining a sense of security and solidarity for Jewish students, especially in the face of increasing anti-Semitic rhetoric or violence. From this perspective, this strong expression of support for Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism and attacks, such as the one on October 7th, which resulted in the deaths of over 1200 Israelis. For these students, Hillel’s position provides a clear affirmation of Israel’s right to protect its citizens, and a sense of unity for Jewish students who may feel threatened or targeted during times of heightened conflict.
Important to bear in mind that Jewish support for Israel following the Ham-ass surprise attack on Oct 7th, does not equally mean that American Jews hate dhimmi Arabs refugee populations fighting a war against Israel in Gaza. Following the Dec 7th 1941 Japanese surprise attack, Americans fully supported carpet bombing of Japanese cities!
After the horrific attack on October 7th, 2023, in which over 1,200 Israelis were killed by Hamas, many Jewish students and communities in the U.S. expressed unwavering support for Israel’s right to defend itself. This support, rooted in a basic human instinct to stand behind one’s community in the face of violence. Just as Americans rallied around the U.S. government’s response after Pearl Harbor, Jewish Americans naturally feel a strong sense of solidarity with Israel as it defends itself against national terrorism that has explicitly called for its destruction, and engaged in violent pogroms.
For Jewish students, especially those on college campuses, where tensions run high and anti-Semitic rhetoric has dramatically increased during the Oct 7th Abomination war, Hillel’s position of support for Israel provides a sense of security to g’lut Jewry. Acknowledgment of the pain and trauma their community has faced, not just in the present conflict, but through history, especially considering the Holocaust and centuries of persecution. Jewish students struggle to maintain our sense of pride and solidarity with our cultural and religious identity in a time when we feel under attack or isolated.
Jewish support for Israel’s right to defend itself does not, and should not, imply hatred or animosity toward Arab populations, including Palestinians. In fact, many Jewish Americans—like people of all backgrounds—condemn the violence and loss of life that occurs on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Supporting Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorism and violence doesn’t mean condoning or justifying all actions taken in the name of self-defence, and it doesn’t equate to a blanket hatred of Palestinians or Arabs. Support for Israel’s self-defence in the face of violence doesn’t equate to rejecting the humanity of Palestinians or dismissing their suffering.
As of now, there isn’t any official statement from Hillel International specifically endorsing or opposing the Trump administration’s stance on a mass population transfer of Gazans to Arab countries. Hillel, as an organization, primarily focuses on supporting Jewish students, promoting Jewish identity, and fostering dialogue within the Jewish community on campuses, rather than explicitly endorsing particular political positions on such complex international issues.
The idea of population transfer draws on historical events such as the mass displacement of ethnic Germans after World War II and the population exchanges that took place during the partition of British India in 1947. After World War II, millions of ethnic Germans, forcibly relocated from areas in Eastern Europe, particularly from regions in Prussia (modern-day Poland and Russia) and Czechoslovakia, as part of the post-war settlement. These population transfers, justified by some as a way to prevent future conflict between ethnic Germans and the newly established states, and to punish the German population for the role of Nazi Germany in the war.
The partition of British India into India and Pakistan in 1947, largely based on religious identity, with Muslims migrating to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs migrating to India. These precedents shape and determine ”international law”. The Geneva Conventions compare to a pius Baptist preacher who declares the end of days; on par with British and French UN Security Council Resolution 242. After the 7 year war England’s empire expanded to include Canadian territory gained by the surrender of France in that war.
Both Britain and France declared their “neutrality” prior to the expected Arab total victory in 1967. The UN 242 document most definitely not “neutral”. The term “territories occupied” in UN Resolution 242 indeed specifically refers to areas Israel occupied during the 1967 Six-Day War, not to the territories occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967.
After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan illegally occupied the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza (Egypt’s control), territories that had been part of the Mandate for Palestine. Jordan never intended to establish a Palestinian state in these areas; instead, it annexed the West Bank in 1950, calling it the “West Bank” (a name that has no historical association with a separate Palestinian state). This Jordanian occupation (1948-1967) was widely condemned in the international community, and the West Bank was never recognized as part of a sovereign Palestinian entity. Thus, from a legal and historical perspective, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) under Jordanian occupation was not a Palestinian state or entity—it was simply territory occupied by Jordan, which did not alter the fact that Palestine as an independent state never existed. Hence revisionist history to refer to the “occupied Palestinian State”.
In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank and renamed it the “West Bank” — a term that had no historical or political ties to a Palestinian national identity. The annexation was largely an extension of Jordanian control over the area, and at no point did Jordan declare the creation of a Palestinian state in these territories. The Palestinian identity and call for a Palestinian state would come later and was largely driven by political movements in the 1960s.
From both a legal and historical standpoint, the West Bank (and East Jerusalem) under Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967 was not Palestinian land in the sense that we understand the notion of a sovereign Palestinian state today. It was part of Jordan’s territorial claims, not a Palestinian state. In fact, Jordan’s control was widely condemned by the international community, and its annexation of the West Bank was not recognized except by England and Pakistan within the UN!
The claim that the West Bank and Gaza were part of a Palestinian state under Jordanian or Egyptian control is a modern reinterpretation of the past that doesn’t align with the historical realities of those territories. The West Bank and East Jerusalem were occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967, and there was no Palestinian state in those areas, nor was there any attempt by Jordan to create one.
This revisionist narrative, which often refers to these territories as being part of an “occupied Palestinian state”, overlooks the fact that Palestine as a sovereign entity never existed before 1967. The name “Palestine” itself historically referred to the broader region, and after 1948, Palestinians had no independent state—whether in the West Bank or Gaza.
The West Bank and East Jerusalem under Jordanian control were never part of a Palestinian state. The territory was simply occupied by Jordan, and the Palestinian nationalist movement only began to take shape after 1967, particularly after the Six-Day War when Israel captured these areas. To refer to them as part of an “occupied Palestinian state” is historically inaccurate and a form of revisionism that distorts the legal and political facts of the time.
Israel’s re-capture of Samaria (the West Bank) in 1967 should be seen as a legitimate act, much like other historical territorial changes. Britain originally separated Transjordan from the rest of Mandatory Palestine at the Jordan River, implying that Samaria was always part of the Jewish homeland. Israel took Samaria (West Bank) in 1967 after Jordan attacked Israel during the Six-Day War. Israel argues that this was a defensive war, making its control legitimate under the principle of defensive conquest (self-defense in war).
UN Charter Article 2(4), acquiring territory through war is generally considered illegitimate, utterly bogus. Both Russia and Poland “occupy” Prussia. This contradicts the idea that “acquiring territory by war is always illegitimate.” Selective Enforcement of International Law, the reality is that power, not law, dictates what is accepted. China annexed Tibet by force in 1950, and despite global protests, Tibet remains under Chinese control with no serious consequences. Russia took Crimea in 2014, violating Ukraine’s sovereignty, but because Russia has military power and geopolitical leverage, Crimea remains under Russian control. Yet, when Israel wins a defensive war and takes Samaria (historically part of the Jewish homeland), the world suddenly screams about “occupation.” Why?
The Arab world and Muslim-majority nations lobby heavily against Israel, ensuring that the UN and other global bodies treat Israel’s territorial claims differently than, say, Russia’s or China’s. Many post-colonial nations view Israel as a Western-backed state, making them reflexively oppose its territorial claims, even if they are historically justified. If Israel had the same geopolitical muscle as Russia or China, it could annex Samaria and no one would stop it. The lesson from history is clear: international law is only enforced when convenient.
The term Palestine was essentially a European cartographic imposition on Ottoman Greater Syria. The Ottomans themselves didn’t use Palestine as an official administrative unit but instead governed the area through sanjaks and vilayets, like the Sanjak of Jerusalem, which was directly administered by Istanbul. European mapmakers, influenced by classical and biblical references, conveniently labeled the region Palestine—a subtle yet deliberate act of revisionist history, which later played into the hands of Arab interests to establish a Palestinian state carved out of the heart of Israel. The push for a Palestinian state, became a strategic move to challenge Israel’s sovereignty, rather than an organic, centuries-old national movement. Arafat’s propaganda foists the lie that the Palestinian people originated from the ancient Philistine Greeks!
Many European countries, particularly former colonial powers like Britain and France, see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through the lens of their own history of colonialism and decolonization. The Palestinian cause, often framed as an anti-colonial struggle, similar to Algeria’s fight against France or India’s fight for independence from Britain. This perspective resonates with European political movements, especially on the left.
During the Cold War, leftist and socialist movements across Europe often aligned with the Palestinian cause, viewing Israel as an extension of Western imperialism and the Palestinians as a revolutionary liberation movement. This ideological legacy still influences European political parties and activism today. European countries have significant economic ties with the Arab world, particularly in energy (oil and gas imports) and trade. Supporting the Palestinian cause—or at least taking a stance critical of Israel—helps maintain favorable diplomatic and economic relationships with Arab nations.
Many Europeans see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily through the lens of human rights and humanitarian issues. Reports of civilian casualties, displacement, and settlement expansion drive sympathy for the Palestinian cause, independent of Holocaust-related factors. With growing Muslim populations in European countries, politicians and activists, increasingly attentive to the concerns of these communities. Many European Muslims have direct ties to the Middle East and see the Palestinian issue as a priority, influencing European political discourse.
Bilad al-Sham (Greater Syria) did not permit land ownership to Arabs only Turk Muslims. Christian Arabs strong historical and religious ties to the land has nothing to do with Arab domination of Turkish Greater Syria!
The 1834 Peasants’ Revolt against Egyptian rule (Muhammad Ali’s forces) showed that local Arabs were willing to fight for their land, even before modern nationalism. But that Arab revolt collapsed in total defeat. The Ottoman censuses from the 19th Century show a land almost devoid of population centers. Only when Jewish settlements brought jobs did Arabs move to British Palestine. The 1911 Filastin newspaper, shaped by European maps revisionist history, closed after publication of the Balfour Declaration.
The term Palestine did not originate from “European mapmakers”. The Romans introduced Syria Palaestina after crushing the Bar Kokhba revolt of 135 CE., meant to suppress Jewish identity and memory in the region by renaming the province after the ancient Philistines. This Roman renaming has lasting historical consequences, and sometimes mistakenly attributed to modern European mapmakers, but its origins – firmly rooted in Roman imperialism.
The UN partition plan (Resolution 181) originally proposed a Jewish state, and a pre-state Judea, later recognized as a sovereign nation in 1949; however the UN to this day does not recognize Israel as a country in the Middle East. Israel forced to join the EU in order to head any UN committee. However the assumption that 181 continues to shape Israeli history after the Independence War victory and establishment of the state of Israel – utter revisionist history.
The UN partition plan (Resolution 181) originally proposed a Jewish state, and a pre-state Judea, later recognized as a sovereign nation in 1949; however the UN to this day does not recognize Israel as a country in the Middle East. Israel forced to join the EU in order to head any UN committee. However the assumption that 181 continues to shape Israeli history after the Independence War victory and establishment of the state of Israel – utter revisionist history. Israel’s non-permanent membership in certain UN committees or a specific instance where it held leadership positions through diplomatic efforts, it’s important to differentiate that Israel’s influence is a product of various geopolitical realities and alliances rather than simply joining the EU. It has a complex diplomatic strategy involving multiple international frameworks.
In the light of British and French imperialism in the 1956 War where these empires sought to dominate the Middle East by seizing control of the Suez Canal, the intensions of EU imperialism today stands under this corrupt shadow UN Resolution 242. The distinction that “occupied territories” refers specifically to the Samaria (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza, and not the 1950 UN Condemned illegal Jordanian seizure re-named by Jordan as ‘west bank’. Areas captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, consequent to Jordan’s invasion of Israel. Samaria does not inherently refer to a non-existent Palestinian state, all Arab countries rejected UN Resolution 181. That resolution became null and void in 1947. This distinction, crucial in understanding both the legal and political dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, especially in the context of historical terminology.
The dynamics of imperialism, Cold War geopolitics, and the shifting balance of power in the region indeed play a critical role in understanding the aftermath of the Six-Day War and the resulting international agreements like UN Resolution 242 revisionist history. In the 1956 War, UN intervention – forced a ceasefire, which effectively marked the end of British and French dominance in the Middle East, exposed their diminished global power, and radically altered the balance of international power in the region. Based upon this model, the UN has sought to impose cease fires in each and every Arab Israeli war with the imperialist objective to maintain the political pawn like status of Israel, as existed in the 1956 war. All the many UN condemnations of Israel foist the revisionist history narrative that Israel lost its 1948 War of Independence and remains to this day a UN protectorate territory, the ward of the international community of nations.
During the 1967 War, LBJ tied down in Vietnam. Unlike the Eisenhower government in ’56, Johnson’s government in ’67 permitted Britain and France a dominant hand to write UNSC Resolution 242. Clearly these diminished European powers profited and sought to re-impose Europe’s traditional dominance over ‘’the sick man of Europe’’. Both England and France stuck in the hallucination that they dictate the borders of Middle Eastern states just as they did following WWI. Hence UN Resolution 242 qualifies as British and French revisionist history.
The vagueness of the language in UN Resolution 242, particularly the use of the term “territories occupied” instead of “the territories illegally occupied by Jordan”, gave Arab states the leverage to demand total Israeli withdrawal from Samaria. Jordan’s West Bank and Egypt’s Gaza, both ceased to exist following their total defeat and surrender. Britain and France as already mentioned, had a significant hand in drafting and influencing the resolution. Their involvement an attempt to reassert their diminished political role in the Middle East. Resolution 242, by calling for territorial withdrawal but not specifying the extent of that withdrawal, or Jordan’s illegal annexation of Samaria following the 1948 war, a way to placate the defeated Arab states. As if either “neutral” Britain or France had fought that war and therefore had the right to dictate terms for Israel’s surrender.
The Arab war strategy, largely based upon Hồ Chí Minh’s ”Peoples’ War” strategy. Employed successfully against both the French and American invaders of Vietnam. Arabs with their alliance with the third world non allied nations enjoys a vast majority in the General Assembly of the UN. This strategy emphasizes asymmetrical warfare, using political, diplomatic, and psychological tactics to weaken the enemy and garner international support. In the case of the Arab states, this approach focuses on political warfare rather than directly head-on military engagements with the IDF. Waging a battle for global public opinion through international diplomacy; historically primarily within the framework of the United Nations. Hence, Arab states strategic strategy conducts political warfare as their primary weapon to cause the defeat and destruction of the Jewish state, just as did Hồ Chí Minh’s ”Peoples’ War’ strategy defeated the more powerful armies of France and the US.
One key element of this strategy, the use of the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council to push narratives of the brutal victimization for the Palestinian by Nazi Israel; and portray Israel as brutal barbaric aggressor. Arab revisionist history changed the meaning of Nakba away from the disgraceful failure of 5 Arab Armies to throw the Jews into the Sea in 1948. Nakba now framed to decry the plight and criminal war crimes Israel inflicts upon the Palestinian people. This revisionist history ignores the plain fact that the KGB and Egyptian born Arafat did not embrace the slogan of Palestine, not till 1964. Prior to this opportunistic switch, Arabs condemned the Balfour Declaration which serves as the foundation of Herzl’s political Zionism.
Hence the one key element Arab political warfare strategy, the use of the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council to push a narrative of the cruel victimization for the Palestinian “equal rights to self determination”. This propaganda rhetoric ignores the rejection by all Arab states UN Resolution 181 which called for a two-state division of the British mandate of Palestine. Post the multiple Arab military defeats, Arab propaganda now pretends that Israel rejects UN 181, as if 2025 exists in the shadow of 1947. Palestinian propaganda seeks their own internationally supported “Balfour Declaration”.
By using the UN as a tool for political warfare, the Arab states seek to undermine Israel’s legitimacy and isolate it on the world stage, leveraging their political and economic influence within the broader international system to weaken Israel’s position. Their continuous condemnation of Israel by screaming “International Law” serves as their abra-cadabra 2025 magical Balfour Declaration. This form of “soft power”—using diplomacy and international forums to achieve political goals—a central part of the Arab strategy in all Arab-Israeli conflicts.
Arab rejection of Jewish equal rights to self determination stems from the root of their hatred and condemnation of the 1917 Balfour Declaration by which the League of Nations post WWI awarded the Palestine Mandate to Britain. Hence Arab strategy endeavors to foist UN recognition of Palestine as their Balfour Declaration. The difference between then and now, Britain defeated ‘the sick man of Europe’ in WWI, while the UN exist only as a political puppet of the interests of Great Powers which control and dominate the UN narratives which continually condemns Zionism as a racist entity. The UN Apartheid refuses to acknowledge that Israel a part of the community of nations in the Middle East.
The Arab alliance with South Africa, to slander Israel in the UN, ICJ and ICC, their accusation of genocide in Gaza, a blood libel, which produced the fruits of pogroms across the US and Europe. A prime example of the Arab strategy of political warfare through the corrupt UN puppet; utterly disgraced by the corruption of both UNWRA and UNIFIL. UNWRA’s active participation in the Ham-ass surprise attack on Israel has totally discredited the 4th leg of the Quartet dominance of the balance of power in the Middle East. Another example of Arab soft-power, the anti-Jewish university protests/pogroms. Notice the total lack of European condemnation of this antisemitic violence. The apple never falls far from the tree. European guilt of the Shoah stands upon 2000+ years of Jewish cruel oppression and violence by church oppression. The EU revisionist history now down-plays the dominance of the church in shaping European cultures and customs.
Arab soft-power tactics, the way in which political movements, in particular those supporting Palestinian causes, crossed the line into hate speech and violence after Oct 7th; targeting Jewish individuals not involved in the political or military aspects of the conflict at all. While the Arab states have traditionally used diplomatic channels (such as the UN and international organizations) to advance their narratives and goals, specifically the increasing globalization of the Palestinian cause, in which protests and advocacy perverted platforms to promote not only Palestinian rights but also to delegitimize Israel and Jews globally.
Europeans now project their Shoah guilt and barbarity by condemning Israel as a Nazi regime who must become extinct like Nazi Germany. European political elites—in their desire to distance themselves from their own antisemitic barbaric history—have sought to demonstrate total solidarity the Palestinian cause-as has Ireland. The deeply ingrained history of barbaric antisemitism in Europe, makes it easier for moral cowards to downplay or rationalize actions or protests that target Jews, especially when political movements actively involved.
The increased violence and hatred directed against Jewish communities never condemned by the UN. The UN tolerates, even justifies Arab political agendas, Ham-ass terrorism against Israel and supports violent pogroms against Jewish university students thousands of miles away from the war. Anti-Zionism a controversial political stance; antisemitism—which targets Jewish individuals based on their identity, culture, or religion—a completely separate and dangerous issue denounced unequivocally by all moral Human Beings. Israeli foreign policy therefore strives to permanently diminish the influence of the EU, UN ICJ and ICC within the entire Middle East. The current Gaza war, as an attempt by the EU, UN ICJ and ICC to humiliate Jews in general and Israel in particular.
In conclusion, the intersection of Arab soft power, antisemitism, and international politics, fraught with tensions. Protests advocating for Palestinian rights utterly forbidden to devolve into violent, discriminatory actions against Jews, whether Israeli or non-Israeli. European political elites must confront their own historical legacy and stop using their guilt over the Holocaust as an excuse to support movements that veer into antisemitism. Legitimate political criticism of Israel, one thing, but hate—directed at Jews as a people or a nation—something else entirely.
LikeLike
How John 13:34 perverts and justifies homosexuality
Intermarriage with the specific of Canaanites – equally applies to all Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. I bring the Book of Ezra as proof. Many early Church Fathers used John 13:34 to claim a supersessionist “new law”, replacing the Torah’s commandments with a simplified ethic of love. Yet ironically, the very idea of loving one’s neighbor—and even one’s enemy. An utter perversion of the oath brit alliance among the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai. Ezra 9–10, post-exile, shows the seriousness of intermarriage with foreign women—because it represents a breach of kedushah and brit, meaning: spiritual allegiance and oath brit fidelity. The Church Fathers (e.g., Justin Martyr, Origen, Chrysostom) weaponized verses like John 13:34 to argue that a new “spiritual” law of love had replaced the “old legalistic” Torah—especially the halakhic boundaries that safeguarded Jewish identity and fidelity to the brit.
Jesus introduced, according to these vile animals, “Love is enough!” A Greek ideal—abstract, universal, de-politicized—divorced from the concrete legal-communal substitutional theology. Love, defined by Torah, defined through the Torah precedent of marriage requires that a man love his wife by acquiring title to her world to come souls. Meaning the children, the product of this union. Based upon the precedent of the brit cut between the pieces whereby Avram had no children and cut a brit over the first born chosen Cohen people. This concept of the chosen Cohen people understands the intent of the prohibition to marry with Goyim who do not accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai.
Xtian supersessionist theology gutted the concept of brit: Shalom became personal inner peace, not oath alliance to pursue fair justice – compensation of damages inflicted by Party A to Party B among our chosen Cohen people within the borders of the oath sworn promised land.
The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted emunah unto belief in Jesus as the son of God and belief in God as a triune mystery of Monotheism. The Torah defines emunah as the righteous pursuit of justice among our people. The Xtian pervert theologians corrupted ‘ahavah’ unto generic love, rather than the Torah brit-bound hesed based upon the oath brit foundation precedent of the oath cut between the pieces.
The Xtian pervert theologians know absolutely nothing of Torah common law which stands upon the foundation of Torah precedents – both positive and negative commandments.
In doing so, the Church replaced the Torah’s vision of a holy people bound in legal, ethical, and national allegiance to Hashem, with a mystical, universalized ethic that denied the enduring chosenness of Israel and the centrality of Sinai. John 13:34, obliterated the Torah common law faith to pursue justice among and between the chosen Cohen people who accept the revelation of the Torah at Sinai in the face of the Goyim “darkness” who reject this light unto the nations.
The Xtian theologian perverts abhor the oath-bound brit alliance which forever discerns between emotional short term vows from remembering from generation to generation the oaths sworn by the Avot by which they cut the brit which permanently established the oath brit Cohen people. Hence the mitzva precedent of the captured woman through war. Whereby the Torah commands that she cut off all her hair and par her nails etc for no less than one month before the Israeli permitted to marry her! Why? Torah marriage cuts an oath brit alliance between man and wife and not a emotional vow which can be easily annulled based upon the Torah precedent which permits the Father or Husband to annul the vows made by either young daughters or wives!
John 13:34 not just evil theology, it perverts marriage unto the metaphor of permitted homosexuality. The chosen Am-segulah (treasured nation) refers directly to the Sinai first-born Cohen people. The Goyim reject to this day the revelation of Torah common law!
The Xtian theologian perverts sought power, hence they slept in the same bed as the Governments which ruled Xtian lands. The American and French Revolutions separated Church from State and cast these Xtian whores to the dogs to sleep with. All agricultural based economies require slave labor. This has absolutely nothing to do with the bankrupt theology of the church great whore of Babylon.
When categories established by Torah law—male/female, Israel/goy, slave/free—are collapsed by when new testament replacement theology which abhors Torah common law and specific Torah abominations such as homosexuality and men and women confusion of genders and clothes. Galatians 3:28 doesn’t just dissolve the legal structure of the Torah, but opens the door to ideological chaos—Same-sex marriage (“There is no male and female”); Gender fluidity and trans ideology; Erasure of Jewish national identity (e.g. no “Jew or Greek”); Social anarchy in place of legal status (no “slave or free”). In many liberal Christian and post-Christian circles, Galatians 3:28 has become the banner verse for LGBTQ+ inclusion, often cited directly to undermine Torah prohibitions in Leviticus 18 and 20. Paul’s statement is interpreted as saying: All categories are now irrelevant in Christ.
Paul’s doctrine, and the super-sessionist theology it spawned, does not merely disagree with Torah—it declares war on Torah categories. Shalom perverted into inner peace, not the righteous pursuit of judicial justice which strives to make fair restitution of damages inflicted by Party A upon Party B. His replacement theology abhors the post Gold Calf Day of Atonement where HaShem first revealed the revelation of the Oral Torah – which the church rejects. Galatians 3:28 is not just heresy—it is the theological root of modern moral collapse.
It dismantles the sacred distinctions that uphold holiness, family, justice, and national brit identity. It replaces Torah law with a boundaryless mysticism that justifies everything from homosexuality to gender nihilism to the erasure of Jewish nationhood.
This verse is often cited to support a universalist theology—that all human beings are one, created by God, and therefore equal and interchangeable. Viewed in the context of Paul’s theology, especially in Acts and Galatians, this verse becomes part of a larger Pauline strategy to undermine: Israel’s distinct chosen Cohen oath brit status, the chosenness of the Jewish people. The Torah’s territorial inheritance laws, and the culture and customs established by halakhic and the idea that only within the borders of the Promised lands to Jews possess the wisdom to keep and remember the oaths sworn by the Avot לשמה, from generation to generation.
Paul’s replacement theology perverts the oath brit alliance to that of a temporary vow, which his perverted theology attempts to annul through the new testament. The Torah establishes the vision that the nations inherit distinct national cultural and customs inheritances. Distinct languages, lands and destinies (Genesis 10-11). The essential concept of Israel’s national identity as a people relies upon and defined by the promised lands which Arab nationalism absolutely rejects. Deuteronomy 32:8 (LXX): “When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God.” Deuteronomy 7:6: “You are a people holy to Hashem… a chosen people from all the peoples on the face of the earth.” Paul’s replacement theology, like Arab hatred of Zionism which bases itself upon the 1917 Balfour Declaration wherein first Britain and later 2\3rd of all UN member states recognized Jewish equal rights to achieve self-determination within the borders of a distinct Middle Eastern nation.
His replacement theology abomination of shared human origin which collapses national distinctions cultures and customs, like modern Arab racist nationalism rejects Jewish national sanctity. Paul’s Acts 17:26 (universal origin) with Galatians 3:28 (category collapse) replacement theology destroys the chosen Cohen people of Israel; dissolves the laws of inheritance and land; undermines the Oral Torah halakhic requirements concerning intermarriage with Goyim and promotes modern Wokeism that emphasize awareness of social injustices and systemic inequalities, particularly related to race and identity. It is often viewed critically by some as being overly doctrinaire or insincere in its approach to social issues. Acts 17:26 is the philosophical foundation for Christian universalism.
It sounds innocent—but in Pauline context, it’s a soft prelude to the hard abolition of Israel’s unique brit. It paves the way for the erasure of identity, the rejection of Oral Torah Talmudic common law judicial lateral courts.
Paul’s 1 Corinthians 7:39 (KJV): Formula: “Only in the Lord” — Coded Supersessionist Halakhah? Paul doesn’t outright reject the binding nature of marriage—but it’s loaded with subtle replacement theology logic. Torah marriage flatly not just a temporary transitional vow–but rather an oath brit, contractual alliance with family generations and national implications. Governed by halakhic precedent, rooted in Exodus 22, Deuteronomy 24, and the Oral Torah. Validated by witnesses, contract (ketubah), and understood as part of a nation’s framework of kedushah and inheritance. Paul substitutes this with a subjective spiritual criterion: his “Only in the Lord.”, directly implies – Marry a fellow believer in Christ. It’s not about cutting an oath brit alliance—rather replaced by a shared belief in Xtian faith that declares Jesus as God.
This “Only in the Lord” phrase, exist as the key supersessionist pivot of Pauling propaganda. It nullifies the Torah -brit based marital framework model, replaces halakhic structure with doctrinal allegiance to the church abomination. And renders Torah marmital law as obsolete for “believers”. Ewwwwww! It detaches marriage from the promised land, nation, and halackhic authority. Sets the foundation for spiritual intermarriage theology – a direct violation of Torah common law; leading to full Goyim-Xtian identity formation apart from Israel. If one can marry “in the Lord”, then one need not marry “in the nation”. If faith in the belief of Jesus as God replaces Israel as the chosen Cohen nation, then the new covenant has replaced the oath brit cut between the pieces with Avram.
Paul’s “Only in the Lord” is not a neutral phrase. It functions as a Trojan horse for an entire redefinition of marriage: no longer a national covenant rooted in generational Torah obligations, but a private, spiritualized union under Church doctrine.
Xtianity, especially in its Pauline and post-Constantinian forms, intentionally dissolves ethnic, legal, and national distinctions. This is central to its theology. Galatians 3:28 – “There is neither Jew nor Greek… male and female… all are one in Christ.” This replacement theology erased halakhic distinctions, promotes spiritual unity over ethnic/national differences. Recasts marriage as a personal vow like sacrament, which replaces the oath sworn to remember dedication which any and all brit alliances fundamentally requires.
Liberal Protestant thoughts concerning marriage emphasize: romantic love and personal choice; Xtian values of inclusivity; detachment from ancestry, tribe, nation, or land. The Torah oath NOT vow, brit relationship cut between man and wife binds Jews to Torah Constitutional Law, tohorat ha’beit requirements for the woman to visit a mikveh prior to sexual activity; and the standards of keeping tohor & tuma distinctions like kosher foods etc. A man commits that he will educate his future born children in the oath brit faith – not to worship other Gods through intermarriage and assimilation which embraces Goyim cultures and customs.
Xtianity’s doctrine of spiritual unity and its deconstruction of Torah-based national distinctions directly laid the groundwork for both the theological legitimation and cultural normalization of interracial marriage. It treats distinctions—whether between Israel and the nations, or male and female—as obstacles to spiritual truth, not as sacred boundaries tied to divine law and oath brit consciously remembered dedications passed down from generation to generations just as DNA. From Augustine to modern liberal Protestants, modern issues like Wokeism and identity dissolution directly consequential to the Pauline doctrines of utter abomination.
“Only in the lard” totally unique to Xtianity. “Only in the lard” totally unique to Xtianity. It’s a theological phrase that doesn’t exist in Torah, halakhah, or any Jewish learning on the Torah. 1 Corinthians 7:39 a total Xtian new testament new religion of avoda zarah Av tuma. This phrase is nowhere in Tanakh. Paul creates a new criterion: shared belief in “the Lord” (i.e., Jesus).
The Xtian church does not define faith compliance any more than the Nicene Creed defines Monotheism. Monotheism rapes the 2nd Sinai commandment. This new testament perversion marks a supersessionist turn: marriage is no longer a national-legal act, but a spiritual-sacramental one. “Only in the Lord” = Trojan Horse. It reflects a super-sessionist marriage ethics; it perverts the negative commandment of “cross-dressing” between Males and Females; it lies totally outside of the customs and cultures of the Jewish people.
Furthermore, it establishes a faith-based “intermarriage” theology. A spiritual identity, which replaces ethnic-national boundaries as the Torah fundamentally and absolutely commands. Prior to the establishment of the Jewish Republic of the 12 Tribes the Torah commanded the negative commandment not to marry between Jewish Tribes! This horrid abomination serves as justification for assimilation unto universalist Xtian structures. From “Only in the Lord” to Modern Abominations … Xtian approval of interfaith/interracial marriages; same-sex marriage under the banner of “shared love in the Lord”; trans marriages and gender deconstruction as “inclusive theology”.
From ghetto walls to gas chambers, “By their fruits you shall know them”— Jesus’ own words condemns the tree that claimed to grow from the root of the chosen Cohen nation which Paul declared Xtians as a graft to this Tree. The fruit of Xtianity utter poison, the culmination of theological poison.
Germany was a Lutheran nation. The Vatican signed a Concordat with Hitler. The Catholic Church blessed Nazi flags, and baptized perpetrators. The Protestant churches in Germany developed a theology of “Dejudaizing” Xtianity. Xtian anti-Judaism became racial antisemitism—but it started in pulpits, not politics.
The British White Paper (1939): Effectively sealed Europe’s Jews into a death zone, blocking aliyah to Eretz Yisrael. Not one major church authority condemned it. FDR’s administration turned away ships carrying Jewish refugees. Where were the bishops? The pastors? The popes? Silent. No call to bomb Auschwitz or the railways…Xtian theology had already written the Jews out of the covenant.
Today’s South African legal attack on Israel at the Hague is a blood libel with a UN suit and tie. Yet again, the churches are silent, or worse—supportive of the lie. World Council of Churches? Silent. Mainline Protestantism? Often openly anti-Israel. Catholic voices? Muted or muddled, more concerned with interfaith optics than justice. This continues the same pattern: Christendom aligns with empires, betrays the Jews, and offers theological cover to the murderers. Revelation’s image of the Great Whore riding the beast—but this time it’s Rome on the back of political empire, intoxicated with the blood of the saints and martyrs of the Torah. Xtianity slept with kings—and their offspring were inquisitions, expulsions, and Auschwitz.
This Ephesians 5:25–28 passage—on the surface poetic, lofty, and seemingly elevating marriage—is in fact deeply super-sessionist, and functionally replaces the Torah mitzva of kiddushin. This worthless Xtological abstraction amounts to the value of tits on a boar hog when the piglets cry for milk! Torah mitzva of kiddushin rooted in precedent of the sworn oath made at the brit between the pieces which eternally established the chosen Cohen nation – born into the future/O’lam Ha’Bah!
Halakhic boundaries interpreted through the Oral Torah define and understand the mitzva of kiddushin within Mesechta Kiddushin of the Talmud. The Torah requires mikveh, which is about ritual purity in relation to the woman’s cycle and the marital household—a national law rooted in Genesis–Deuteronomy. Paul’s version? No mikveh, no Torah. The cleansing comes by “the word”—meaning his gospel, his doctrine—a mystical metaphor that supplants halakhah with belief. “…that he might present it to himself a glorious church… holy and without blemish.” … Temple language, stolen and re-applied to “the Church”, as if she were now the bride, the Temple, the chosen.
It uproots Jeremiah 31:31. Torah marriage simply not about emotion or romantic identification—this mitzva cuts a brit, a legal alliance with concrete halakhic duties, inheritance laws, and national continuation. Paul dilutes this into a private spiritual metaphor: love your wife because she is you—a move away from oath sworn alliance obligations that live on throughout the generations, perverted and change unto worthless abstract emotionalism. The Church now pictured as the bride, not Israel. Faith in Christ, not halakhic brit, serves as the glue. Love and purity merely symbolic, not legal categories tied to Torah. Just as Galatians 3:28 dissolves categories, and Acts 17:26 universalizes origin, so too does Ephesians 5:25–28 spiritualize and replace Torah marriage—making it subordinate to Christ, not the Torah Constitution of Israel.
LikeLike