Miracles and Biblical Infallability

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Book: "The Case Against Miracles" (2019) edited by John Loftus.

Publisher's Blurb:
For as long as the idea of “miracles” has been in the public sphere, the conversation about them has been shaped exclusively by religious apologists and Christian leaders. The definitions for what a miracles are have been forged by the same men who fought hard to promote their own beliefs as fitting under that umbrella. It’s time for a change.
Enter John W. Loftus, an atheist author who has earned three master’s degrees from Lincoln Christian Seminary and Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Loftus, a former student of noted Christian apologist William Lane Craig, got some of the biggest names in the field to contribute to this book, which represents a critical analysis of the very idea of miracles.
Incorporating his own thoughts along with those of noted academics, philosophers, and theologians, Loftus is able to properly define “miracle” and then show why there’s no reason to believe such a thing even exists.
Addressing every single issue that touches on miracles in a thorough and academic manner, this compilation represents the most extensive look at the phenomenon ever displayed through the lens of an ardent non-believer.
If you’ve ever wondered exactly what a miracle is, or doubted whether they exist, then this book is for you.


Table of Contents (as with all images uploaded to the discussion forum, please register and/or log-in to see full size):

819

820
 

Ruby Gray

Member
I am saddened to see that you believe the obviously bullshit story that Jesus could command the wind and waves.
Sorry to see that you are sad about this!
What I do present is the Biblical viewpoint as a counterpoint to the critical one promoted here.
I think that is fair on a conversational forum, whatever you may construe to be my beliefs.

At this great historical distance in time, you accept Roman wartime propaganda at face value.
Well I cannot agree with this site's premise that Christianity is a product of the Romans rather than the fulfilment of the Mosaic religion through the coming of the promised Messiah, the Saviour of the Jews and ultimately also of the Gentiles.

I think you mentioned having been raised in the Roman Catholic religion.
That would, to me, explain your bias towards this idea of postflavianism.

My view is that there is no relationship between Roman Catholicism and the Messianic path revealed in the bible.

The Jews of the first century AD spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, and the lingua franca of that time, which was Greek. Hence the term "ho Christos", Greek for "ha Mashiach", the Messiah.

It is unfortunate that language differences erect barriers to our comprehension of the original texts. Christianity was not originally called this of course. The disciples called it "The Way" which in Greek was "The Road" or "The Journey" etc.

Much later, the Romans persecuted Christians and eventually perverted their faith and doctrines, absorbing them into the pantheon of religions which they practised and tolerated among Roman subjects.

Christians were martyred because they refused to worship the Roman emperor above their own God.

Other conquered nations were all content to worship the emperor first, as well as practising their own religious rituals. This was acceptable to Rome, and they allowed all other religions to be maintained in the empire on this basis.

But the uncompromising monotheistic Mosaic religion, and its Messianic fulfilment, was intolerable to Rome, therefore to be crushed and annihilated.

Hence the historical evidence of tje destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD,, and of vast numbers of Christians being slaughtered by many barbaric means, which continued through e.g. the Spanish Inquisition, and in Northern Ireland etc.
 

windhorse

Member
I'd like to throw in my two cents on this topic.

I am a survivor of cult brainwashing - and ALL religions are cults, there are NO exceptions.

Look up a few of the numerous psychological/psychiatric descriptions of what qualifies as a cult, and your "religion" fits like a glove, as do all the rest.

Black and white. God/Devil. That processing belongs to an infantile, undeveloped brain. And that's what every cult - yours included - feeds on.

Your undeveloped baby brain continues to operate inside your skull regardless of your age. You as an adult are supposed to use your more developed prefrontal cortex so you don't get brainwashed into the Babyland of cult traps and scripts. "Scripture" is a SCRIPT. Christianity is a CULT.

I see nothing wrong with fantasy, kids play with fantasy, and imagination is healthy at any age as long as you know fact/reality from fiction/fantasies.

Cults aka "religions" are parasites/viruses that bind to the early infantile processing part of your brain, and these cults USE you as the host to propagate/replicate their virus.

Richard I think had an instinctive hostility toward you for that reason, though I certainly cannot speak for him. I do, however, feel an instinctive hostility toward you because it appears to me no matter what facts, reality and verifiable evidence are presented to you, the assumption being that you are a mature adult capable of discernment, autonomy, and critical thinking, it seems your less developed brain takes over and you repeat and regurgitate cult SCRIPTS. You're like a scratched record.

Covid-19 has nothing on the virus/pandemic of "religion!" What humans need is a vaccine against cults since most humans won't use the brains they possess to immunize themselves against them, even though there is plenty of hard evidence and support available. At no cost!

Imagine your mind is free to question, and find/create your own unique spiritual ideas, or none if you so choose - instead of obeying and regurgitating some pre-programmed, politically engineered garbage that has gone viral, literally is viral, in every way. Imagine not being another infected and programmed puppet, but being free....
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hello Ruby,

Last Oct. 5th, I wrote:

I am asking for a conversational approach for your participation in this forum. In my previous post, I asked the following questions, which I will hereby summarize and re-state:
(1) Did Paul mean to say that Nero's authority was established by God? And similarly, what about Dubya's authority, and The Donald?
(2) Why do you have such a negative view of Lucifer? (Do you agree that Lucifer was the ancient name of the planet Venus, the Morning Star?)
(3) How is anyone supposed to tell the difference between the false religions and the true religion?
As far as I can tell, you are agreeing that Paul thought Nero's authority was established by God. If so, doesn't it follow that God was directly responsible for murdering those countless thousands of martyrs, whether they were Jewish nationalists or whether they were something else?
To which you replied:

I don't know what this has to do with the eyewitnesses at the Pentagon, which is why I am not comprehensively answering each point and cluttering up this thread right now.
So I moved the discussion over to this thread, and I've been patiently waiting for answers ever since.

I think you mentioned having been raised in the Roman Catholic religion.
That would, to me, explain your bias towards this idea of postflavianism.
Joe Atwill received some Catholic education. I myself was raised in the Unitarian Universalist church, but in my teenage years I rebelled against that and was baptized into the Evangelical Free Church. That lasted a couple of years, but I eventually came to regard it as a bout with a parasitic mind virus, just as Windhorse says.

My view is that there is no relationship between Roman Catholicism and the Messianic path revealed in the bible.
According to Matt. 16:18, Jesus told Simon Peter that he was the rock upon which he would build his church. As Wikipedia further explains, Peter went on to preside over the Christian church in Rome. This was alluded to in 1 Peter 5:13 and is confirmed in writings by Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome. Paul is thought to have written his epistle to the church in Rome by about 57AD.

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the successors of Simon Peter may be traced in a continuous sequence back to the first century AD. And furthermore, the RCC claims upwards of a billion adherents, far larger than any other single Christian sect.

On what basis do you claim that Roman Catholicism has no relationship to Jesus the Messiah as he is portrayed in the Bible?
 

windhorse

Member
Bible-thumping parroting of script is not obnoxious ranting? Lol. I'll take my own proudly unique obnoxious rants any day to those of brainwashed, programmed dogma-addicts whose "power" and "authority" are proven man-made lies.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I'll take my own proudly unique obnoxious rants any day to those of brainwashed, programmed dogma-addicts whose "power" and "authority" are proven man-made lies.
Hi Windhorse, I too would prefer your "proudly unique obnoxious rants" any day. But we do have a page of "Forum Rules" here, which states that "Each and every member on this forum has a right to be treated with dignity and respect." And, "insulting or abusive behavior that is directed at a specific person" is forbidden.

On the other hand, "Well-grounded and contextualized criticisms of the policies, doctrines, beliefs, and actions of specific groups are permitted, and also encouraged." It's hard to know where to draw the line, and forum members are encouraged to be thick-skinned and take criticism in stride.

Looking at this discussion, I think the expression of "extinctive hostility" towards Ruby could be getting pretty close to the line. Perhaps best to keep feelings of hostility to one's self?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I've been re-reading this thread for context, and discovered that we covered some of the same ground before. No wonder there's a sense of deja vu. That is, on July 16, 2019, Richard Stanley asked about Isaiah 45:7. I repeated the question on July 31, and Ruby replied:

Verse 7:
"I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things."
I prefer the English Standard Version.
The KJV's archaic language frequently has words whose meanings have morphed beyond recognition or relevance over more than 4 centuries.
The Hebrew word ra'ah translated "evil" in the KJV, in this context means "adversity, affliction, calamity, sorrow, trouble," etc etc etc, rather than the implication that God behaves in a way that is morally wrong, which by definition, cannot be. God claims to be righteous and holy, and it is a brave or foolhardy man who dares challenge that.
To which I countered:

Isn't it morally wrong for an all-powerful being to inflict adversity, calamity, sorrow and trouble against hapless lesser beings? By definition, God has the capability to prevent all those things, yet he chooses instead to be an active instigator. If that isn't evil, I don't know what the word even means. I'm not being either brave or foolhardy, just applying basic logic.
There was no further discussion after that, as far as I can find. As attorney for the prosecution, I say that God is guilty as charged, for all the wicked actions of his devilish minions, and all the adversity and affliction that have ever been suffered by any sentient being, and deserves to be sentenced to burn in hell for all eternity. That is, if the silly fiction in the Bible is literally true as written.

Also, I've asked (3) How is anyone supposed to tell the difference between the false religions and the true religion? before. Ruby answered:

I agree of course that the plethora of mostly recently-formed and mutually exclusive religions all claiming biblical mandates for their existence, is diagnostic of the counterfeit nature of at least all minus one of them.
The bible does define its own doctrinal standards by which churches are to be judged.
My jaw dropped when I read that, and so I replied: "All completely wrong and "counterfeit", except one?? At my local Unitarian Universalist church, they say all these religions are equally true. But they don't take any of them as Gospel." Richard, as usual more radical than I am, said:

I like that you included "at least", leaving the logical possibility for 'zero' of them. They are all either imperfect interpretations of ultimate reality, and/or corrupt interpretations of same. They all attempt variously to justify why humans must struggle and suffer in the material plane, and in the infantile, cynically derivative case of Christianity, that one will be rewarded mightily for servile and stinky submission till Christ gets off his lazy ass and rewards the faithful suffering servile. Then they all that is currently mundane and banal with be turned into an eternity of endless pleasure, yet eternally ignorant.
Which seems to have been the end of the discussion at that time.

I should've added: how preposterously circular, to say that we should consult Christian scripture to determine whether Christianity is true? Why not consult the Quran, or the Talmud? Or, basic common sense?
 

windhorse

Member
I will then trust my paper-thin skin intuition and say goodbye, and thank you for the experience here, Jerry. I always learn something.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I will then trust my paper-thin skin intuition and say goodbye, and thank you for the experience here, Jerry. I always learn something.
Before you go, could you explain what your intuition is telling you? I didn't mean to come down so hard as to insult you. At any rate, you're more than welcome to come back anytime.
 

Ruby Gray

Member
Hi Jerry, yes, I do recall having this discussion previously with Richard, though it was open ended.
As I recently mentioned, though you wrote that Richard was hopeful of only having like-minded souls comment here, I think it appropriate in a thread titled
"MIRACLES AND BIBLICAL INFALLIBILITY",
to have at least one person present the scriptural context and perhaps a brief exegesis of biblical terminology and concepts. Otherwise there is the danger of every man and his curiously literate dog expressing a biased or unfair opinion about what is written. It is surely fairly safe to say that opponents of biblical Christianity are less familiar with scripture than those who have studied it for many years.
So I (politely) offer a few thoughts as a counterpoint to the generally held opinions.
Thanks Jerry for the reminder about forum etiquette. Differences of opinion or beliefs do not justify publicly expressed personal judgements of strangers, surely.

According to Matt. 16:18, Jesus told Simon Peter that he was the rock upon which he would build his church. As Wikipedia further explains, Peter went on to preside over the Christian church in Rome. This was alluded to in 1 Peter 5:13 and is confirmed in writings by Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome.
This is certainly the RCC version. That has always seemed odd to me, claiming that popes are the direct spiritual and authoritarian descendants of the apostle Peter, for 1 Peter 5:13 also confirms that Peter was married and a father, yet popes are allegedly celibate, and priests are all required to be unmarried. That is in contravention of Paul's instructions at 1 Timothy 3:2, 3:12, and Titus 1:6, where Paul (unmarried for his own reasons, not by constraint) commands that church overseers, deacons and elders must be married and fathers of children, demonstrating that they know how to manage their own families before taking responsibility over the church.

The RCC celibacy requirement is unscriptural, contributing to the rampancy of paedophilia and clandestine homo- or hetero-sexual liasons; and to claim that this requirement is related to apostolic succession from Peter, is demonstrably false.

Matthew 16:18 says,
"I tell you, you are PETER (petros; pebble; piece of stone), and upon this ROCK (petra, mass of rock ) I will build my church."

Similarly, John 142 says,
"Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called CEPHAS," which is by interoretation, a STONE.

So the clay-footed impetuous married disciple Peter is not the monolithic Rock upon which the church was built, but he was a mere pebble in it.

I have not yet looked up all the patristic references you mentioned, but Ignatius certainly does not mention Peter being the leader of the church at Rome.

So, what was that ROCK on which Jesus built his church? We need to backtrack a few verses to the subject of his revelation. He was asking the disciples a question, and Peter was the first to answer correctly.

Matthew 16:13
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
16:15
"But who do YOU say that i am?"
16:16
Simon Peter answered,
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
16:17
And Jesus answered him,
"Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."

So the ROCK that is the foundation of the church, is this concept, that Jesus was not some random mortal preacher or pretender, but the actual Son of God.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
The RCC celibacy requirement is unscriptural...
Consulting Google, the first search result was this article:

When Did the Catholic Church Decide Priests Should Be Celibate?

Which generally confirms what you say:

...the early Christian church had no hard and fast rule against clergy marrying and having children. Peter, a Galilee fisherman, whom the Catholic Church considers the first Pope, was married. Some Popes were the sons of Popes.
The first written mandate requiring priests to be chaste came in AD 304. Canon 33 of the Council of Elvira stated that all"bishops, presbyters, and deacons and all other clerics" were to"abstain completely from their wives and not to have children." A short time later, in 325, the Council of Nicea, convened by Constantine, rejected a ban on priests marrying requested by Spanish clerics.
The practice of priestly celibacy began to spread in the Western Church in the early Middle Ages. In the early 11th century Pope Benedict VIII responded to the decline in priestly morality by issuing a rule prohibiting the children of priests from inheriting property. A few decades later Pope Gregory VII issued a decree against clerical marriages.
The Church was a thousand years old before it definitively took a stand in favor of celibacy in the twelfth century at the Second Lateran Council held in 1139, when a rule was approved forbidding priests to marry. In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the tradition of celibacy.

But also gives the following as scriptural authority for the policy:

Jesus lived a chaste life and never married and at one point in the Bible is referred to as a eunuch (Matthew 19:12), though most scholars believe that this was intended metaphorically. The implication was that Jesus lived a celibate life like a eunuch. Many of his disciples were also chaste and celibate. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, recommends celibacy for women: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." (1 Cor. 7:8-9)
So chastity was an issue in the early Church. On the one hand, you had Jesus and Paul as exemplars. On the other hand, you had Paul's advice in 1 Timothy and Titus, that church elders should be blameless husbands of one wife. And for the unmarried (men as well as women?), Paul says to stay unmarried and exercise self-control.

I don't think 1 Timothy and Titus are saying that ONLY married people can be priests, otherwise Paul would have been warning against himself! He was saying that if a priest was married, he should at least avoid extramarital hanky-panky.

Perhaps the seeming contradiction could also be resolved by noting that early Christianity was growing rapidly and priests needed to be recruited from the ranks of men who had already married, whereas later on it became feasible to insist that they never got married in the first place?

At any rate: if there is a contradiction in Scripture, which supports various readings and interpretations, then who gets to decide what is right? You and me on an Internet forum, having a debate? Or the Holy Roman Church with a billion adherents, and an apostolic tradition dating back to Peter and Jesus himself?

So the clay-footed impetuous married disciple Peter is not the monolithic Rock upon which the church was built, but he was a mere pebble in it.
Not so fast! A Catholic reply is found here:

https://www.scripturecatholic.com/qa-petros-versus-petra/

1. The Greek word for rock is “petra” (there is no word “petros”).
2. Jesus called Simon “Kepha” which, in Aramaic, means a large rock, or massive rock formation.
3. When the Gospel was translated into Greek, the writers translated Kepha into Petros (not petra). This was done to masculinize the name of Peter as Petros.
4. Because petra in Greek can mean a small rock and the translation reads Petros, Protestants attempt to say that Jesus was calling Peter a small rock, in order to diminish Peter’s significance.
5. But if Jesus wanted to call Peter a small rock, the translation would have read “lithos” (meaning small pebble in Greek), not “Petros.”
6. Nevertheless, Jesus said Kepha (not “evna” meaning small pebble), so the
Petra v. Petros comparison (which really doesn’t exist in Greek anyway) is
irrelevant.
Also remember that this was written in ancient Koine Greek, and there are no living native speakers of ancient Greek. Richard Carrier likes to boast of his knowledge of Koine Greek, and certainly he knows more than I do. But nobody can claim to have more than an indirect, scholarly and ultimately conjectural understanding of this ancient language.

Once again, I have to ask: how dare you think that YOU know more than the Holy Roman and Apostolic Church and its Pope??? At the very least, their opinion deserves at least the same weight as yours or mine, when it comes to determining how to read the Bible.

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I will then trust my paper-thin skin intuition and say goodbye,
I have just had the intuition that perhaps if I ever again get the feeling that some sort of moderation is called for, I should start by raising the issue in a private message, rather than in the public arena. Sorry!!
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
The reason for Priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church was that children can inherit from their male parent.
Consulting Google, the first search result was this article:

When Did the Catholic Church Decide Priests Should Be Celibate?
This means that a powerful Pope with children could disburse much of his power to them, destabilizing the Church in so many ways. Priestly celibacy is not absolute in Spain, where married men can become priests but have to remain celibate once they do.

The classic case here was Rodrigo Borgia who became Pope Alexander VI, and whose daughter Lucretia and son Cesare (near adulthood when Rodrigo became the Pope) almost overthrew the state power. Long term however, given the prohibitions on cousin marriage etc., the Church acquired more and more land, leading e.g. to the French Revolution as the Church had monopolized too much power.

This is why Eunuchs were always so powerful elsewhere - e.g. Ottomans and China - because they focus on the political task at hand. Jerry will no doubt tell us that Hitler had no official children either, and that Putin and his first wife divorced.

The Catholic Church always knew that it had some true secular power over the Feudal hierarchy. This is not true of Calvinist-Anglican Protestantism and Orthodoxy, the latter a tool of the Tsar, the former a tool of businessmen via Freemasonry which brought Jews and Protestants together under the Calvinist belief that worldly wealth acquisition is a sign of God's favor. An egotistic self-referential ideology if ever there was one.

This is also why Jews came to rule only under the former, because the Anglican church leaders have been utterly brainwashed into thinking of Jews as the Chosen People - which is therefore perhaps true, given the un-chosen-ness of the hypocrisy and deceit that the Anglican church revels in. IOW the Catholics are more honest about issues than Protestant are, which is why, nowadays with economic decline, the Protestant churches are declining in proportion to it - the more perceptive Zionists perhaps worried in that Evangelical Christianity, always pro-Zionist, may collapse entirely after ongoing Antifa and BLM activities drive many Whites into joining the Far Right. This is why the Zios have infiltrated the Far Right - to direct their anger against Moslems instead of against Jews, Blacks and Catholics (as the traditional KKK did).

Ultimately, and fortunately, this Zio activity will not succeed since the Far Right, already composite in nature, will argue over who and what is the fundamental source of the trouble. I.e. the conflict will be sorted out on the Far Right - the Zio-funded goons on one side, the true but still very racist anti-Jewish forces on the other. This is also why we have the ever-increasing media censorship by the Zionists, who are already in control of the mass media in the West.

An important person to read here, Windhorse, is E. Michael Jones. While a bigotted Catholic he sees thru the hypocrisy of Judaeo-Christianity. A good text of his to start with is: The Jews and Moral Subversion.

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:

windhorse

Member
The reason for Priestly celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church was that children can inherit from their male parent.This means that a powerful Pope with children could disburse much of his power to them, destabilizing the Church in so many ways. Priestly celibacy is not absolute in Spain, where married men can become priests but have to remain celibate once they do.

The classic case here was Rodrigo Borgia who became Pope Alexander VI, and whose daughter Lucretia and son Cesare (near adulthood when Rodrigo became the Pope) almost overthrew the state power. Long term however, given the prohibitions on cousin marriage etc., the Church acquired more and more land, leading e.g. to the French Revolution as the Church had monopolized too much power.

This is why Eunuchs were always so powerful elsewhere - e.g. Ottomans and China - because they focus on the political task at hand. Jerry will no doubt tell us that Hitler had no official children either, and that Putin and his first wife divorced.

The Catholic Church always knew that it had some true secular power over the Feudal hierarchy. This is not true of Calvinist-Anglican Protestantism and Orthodoxy, the latter a tool of the Tsar, the former a tool of businessmen via Freemasonry which brought Jews and Protestants together under the Calvinist belief that worldly wealth acquisition is a sign of God's favor. An egotistic self-referential ideology if ever there was one.

This is also why Jews came to rule only under the former, because the Anglican church leaders have been utterly brainwashed into thinking of Jews as the Chosen People - which is therefore perhaps true, given the un-chosen-ness of the hypocrisy and deceit that the Anglican church revels in. IOW the Catholics are more honest about issues than Protestant are, which is why, nowadays with economic decline, the Protestant churches are declining in proportion to it - the Zionists worried in that Evangelical Christianity, always pro-Zionist, may collapse entirely after ongoing Antifa and BLM activities drive many Whites into joining the Far Right.

An important person to read here, Windhorse, is E Michael Jones. While a bigotted Catholic he sees thru the hypocrisy of Judaeo-Christianity.

Yours faithfully
Claude
I've googled E. Michael Jones and bookmarked it for future reading, thank you Claude.
 

Claude Badley

Registered Guest
Fascist
Dear Windhorse,
I've googled E. Michael Jones and bookmarked it for future reading, thank you Claude.
Looking over what I wrote I should give you some of my own context.

I grew up in a nominally Anglican family; I didn't go to Sunday School because my grandfather was an Anglican minister so my parents already thought I would know enough about Christianity - perhaps because at age 5 I was struggling to understand who Pontius Pilate was and why Jesus lived in Roman Palestine.

However I did not become a full unbeliever until age 20. When eventually I read Friedrich Engels' Outline of a Critique of Political Economy...

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/df-jahrbucher/outlines.htm


I had a good laugh at his comparison of Catholicism and Protestantism there, he having a Prot. background like myself.

As you grow intellectually, due to your own thinking, rather than parroting mine, you will see the difficulties we face from the Judaeo-Christian mass media. When I woke up this morning, I had an earworm of a 1970s song:

Take me back to Hollywood
That's where dreams come true...


I had not thought of that song since before I met with Joe Atwill in July last year. I had learnt that song decades before, because I had a girlfriend who used to hum it obsessionally as she loved the tune. Though Australian like myself, she was also a descendant of George Washington, a fact she wanted to deny to herself and keep hidden, though when she told me I knew it was true, since her mother somewhat resembled him, and when I first met her I was trying to work out whom it was that her mother resembled. This girlfriend, a fellow medical student, used to smoke (cigarettes) before we became an item, and I always worried about it (and finally broke from her) in that she seemed too amenable to what I would later understand as the counterculture (Woodstock etc.) fostered by the Frankfurt School (Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse etc.). When I found Joe Atwill's work on the Frankfurt School in late 2018 I was profoundly shocked, since while I knew of the Jewish domination of Hollywood I did not realize that the cultural perversion was so much greater than I had ever imagined. Staying in LA last year and seeing the poverty-stricken scrawny homeless everywhere merely brought the issue to a head, and perhaps the true nausea of the situation only came to me last night!

Only study and investigation from mid-2019 through this year revealed to me the ideological background and connection between Einstein's posturings and those of the Frankfurt School - the key figure here being the early 20th century philosopher Edmund Husserl and this philosopher's misrepresentation and trashing of - of all people - Galileo!

Yours faithfully
Claude
 
Last edited:
Top