Statement from Joe

[Jerry Russell]

Joe Atwill sent me this email and asked me to post here, directly linked from the Wordpress article. This is part of an email thread. I used the yellow-box quote formatting to identify material that originally came from me.

_________________________

First, as the author of Caesar’s Messiah I do not need to respond to charges of anti-Semitism.

Second, Jerry’s theory of a ‘Catholic Shakespeare’ is far too complicated to have any analytic strength. A Catholic who understood the Flavian typology in the Gospels is a contradiction in terms. Moreover, how would such an individual have learned about the typology? The conjecture that this bizarre individual also had a girlfriend who spoke Hebrew and for some reason taught him the language, which he then slyly put into his works, though no other Catholic could have understood it, just compounds the analytic weakness of the ‘Catholic Shakespeare’.

For a solid analysis of why the Jewess Emilia Bassano is the only real candidate as the Shakespearian author see Dark Lady, John Judson, p 238 (Hudson used information I provided him)

I am happy to report that Jerry is no longer trying to support the notion that Catcher is the Rye is not an occulted description of a violent Freemasonry!

Our recent exchange went as follows:

Jerry: “Allan would be an example of a conspiracy researcher who seems a little unbalanced psychologically... even though I agree with him here that Catcher in the Rye is not “an ode to the bastards”.

Joe: why did he put in the NLP (see Pedaphile in the Rye below) if he wasn't a bastard?

Jerry: “Maybe Salinger got into the military for all the typical patriotic reasons, and he wanted to be a writer because he had some ideas. Then he fell in with the CIA / freemason characters, and had a mixed reaction to them at first. Maybe they fed him some rhetoric about enlightenment, freedom, democracy and so forth, and he believed it. Who knows, maybe some of these freemasons really are looking for enlightenment. Then later on, he got disillusioned and realized that they were (are) power mad, as well as dangerously vindictive.

So let’s suppose Salinger also had some childhood issues about sexuality. Lots of people do. And hanging out with the military crowd, maybe he got confused about what sort of affection is appropriate for children.

So he wrote this weird semi-autographical novel, attacking the freemasons in a covert way that wouldn’t get himself killed. And he also threw in this pedophilic subtext, because he was into pedophilia. It was presented in a way that didn’t call attention to itself in the novel, because he didn’t see anything wrong with it.

Well, that’s a lot of maybees. Maybe he did design the whole novel as propaganda for a particular purpose, like you say.”

I am confident Jerry will abandon he efforts to promote Shakespeare as a Catholic for the same reasons shortly. Way too many maybes.

Finally, Jerry’s concern over DNA testing make no sense to be. For example, we could simply test all of the signers of the infamous PNAC documents. If there is no family or ethnic relationship between the purportedly Jewish and purportedly non-Jewish individuals, I stand corrected. If there is we have a greatest problem and the most important truth ever presented to our nation.

 

[Richard Stanley]

A Catholic who understood the Flavian typology in the Gospels is a contradiction in terms.

Is the pope Catholic? Some might say that's a matter of context.

The Catholic ecclesia doesn't understand its own canon? Just a bunch of rubes who randomly adopted the Flavian vanity?

 

[Marcilla Smith]

If it helps further the discussion, last Sunday, I started RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults aka how to have the stain of Protestantism flushed out of your system by the transsubstantiated blood of the Vatican-endorsed Lamb)

PS, Sorry, Joe, not to be argumentative :: awkward grin ::