Christ of Saint John of the Cross | Salvador Dalí, 1951

Evil

Ambiguous terms are handy for those willing to create an ambiguous reality susceptible to semantic manipulations; George Orwell gave an extraordinary exposition of the theme in his 1984. Nowadays, semantics are actively used by governments in order to manipulate their citizens. “The year was 1983, but at school we were already studying Orwell’s 1984, a book which frightened us by its similarity to life in Israel. The Lebanon War, which had begun a year earlier, was still called ‘the War for the Peace of Galilee’ by the government. The Hebrew possessive contraction brought together the two words which sounded exactly like ‘War-Peace,’ creating a perfect Orwellian oxymoron. We all skipped the obvious contemporaneous context of the book in our commentaries; such semantics could belong only to the enemy and we lived in an enlightened society. Our government could not have made such an Orwellian choice consciously. And yet a little voice in my head told a different story, one that must be kept to myself. The glitch allowing such a subversive book to be on our reading list could only be interpreted as some inconsistency of the system. However, a frightening alternative explanation was that 1984 had been placed on the Education Ministry’s official list of books intentionally, so that we would forever fear authority and behave. It was our first lesson in government manipulation of its people.” This text belongs to The Cross of Bethlehem; it describes the similarities between the Israeli society, and the futuristic society described by George Orwell. One of the largest contradictions of our times is the fact that so many people calling themselves “Israelis,” and recently defined as belonging to a terror inflicting organization, live their lives oppressing others while claiming to be lambs led to the slaughterhouse. Israel is not an ideological island; a short comparison with four cardinal ideologies manages to pinpoint exactly where the problem lies. Why these people behave in such a way without apparently any scruples?

“Humanism” is such an ambiguous term. Even a short exposition of the uses of this misleading term would be larger than this article permits; yet, one short definition touches the core issue. The Oxford English Dictionary recorded use of the word “humanism” by an English clergyman in 1812 to indicate those who believe in “mere humanity.” In other words, “humanism” is an ideology denying God and putting man at the center of the universe; a “homocentric” ideology. Liberal reformers and radicals embraced the idea of Humanism as an alternative religion of humanity, and it became the ideological center of most Western states. Look at the way religious studies are looked at nowadays in Western schools. This is crucial; being an ambiguous ideology it doesn’t have existence by itself, it exists by denying God. Thus, if looking at humanist textbooks, one will find a truly peculiar characteristic: they are void of values. Western children are not raised upon the knowledge of good and evil. “This is a democracy, we are free people, we do what we like,” they say before turning on the radio at 90 decibel one foot from their neighbor’s ears. “Bravo, what a great child I have,” the father says nearby while plugging cotton balls into his suffering ears. Both did evil; neither of them is aware of this. The humanist society surrounding them doesn’t care; indifference to suffering is another characteristic of these societies.

This humanism was reflected onto political ideologies. Communism denied God and values. In The Cross of Bethlehem, I described how in the kibbutz where I grew up, which was a crypto-communist society defining itself as “socialist,” “work” was described as the only value. Yet, “work” is not a value, but the means of achieving one. Again, we find an ideology which denies values as “good” and “evil” for the sake of an ambiguity which can be manipulated as per the current politruk—a Communist commissar—wishes.

Not surprisingly, the third ideology I want to check is Judaism. Both, Pharisaic-Rabbinical and Karaite Judaism claim they must follow a set of rules given by God. Pharisees claim God revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah, while Karaites reject the oral form. The last is more correct, since there is no mention of an Oral Law in the Bible; it appeared much later as a manipulative instrument of the Pharisees. This fulfillment of a set of material rules known as “laws” is important.

For example, in the modern State of Israel that means all the meat available in supermarkets and Jewish owned shops is "kosher," that means the poor beast was killed in a way that its corpse is left without blood. Yet, every time my fork pierced the cooked meat, invariably a drop or two of blood would appear. There is no technical way of separating all the blood from the meat. This is an example of a law that cannot be fulfilled, unless we become vegetarians. The purpose of the Mosaic Law is to humble us and to bring us to the recognition that there is nothing we can do for our redemption. In the past I made a longer analysis of the impossibility to fulfill the Mosaic Law and why it was designed so. In order to avoid the unavoidable conclusion, the Talmud was written. In a wild orgy of violence and violations, this book interprets the law so that it becomes viable. In other words, it enforces an imaginary Oral Law on the Written Law, so that the result can be manipulated for the joy of an advantaged class of priests. As with Humanism and Communism, there are no intrinsic values in Judaism. Everything goes. That’s why these three had mixed so happily together in the State of Israel.

The obvious result is that unless one met extraordinary mentors along the way, Israeli citizens graduating from a state school cannot differentiate between good and evil. Look at the soldiers that attacked Gaza in Operation Cast Lead, during December 2009. We saw the testimonies of assassin-soldiers given at Beit Oranim in the newspapers. Grandmothers, mothers, and children were killed by snipers. A mother and her two children were killed in such a way. What was the order? Did the mother see her children killed and was then killed, or was it the other way around? Is that the behavior of proper soldiers?

Fanatics

Ambiguity allows manipulations. Nowhere is that more clear that with the modern misuse of the word “fanatics.” All religious people accept that not everyone can choose this path. The beautiful text on the Judgment Day, in Matthew 25:31-46, explains how there are two types of people, those accepting God and His vales and those not. Here is part of it:

Matthew 25:34-40 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

In other words, a religious life allows pluralism. That’s true also for Islam. The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes non-Islamic people. In sharp contrast, humanists expect everybody to accept their valueless world. In their narrow-minded interpretation, they call “fanatics” everyone rejecting their foolish chit-chat. They are the only fanatics in this equation.

Modern states, not only Israel, expect their citizens to sacrifice their lives and kill innocents for the sake of the financial gains of the secular state. There is no way any of this would be classified as good. People raised as humanists lack the tools needed to evaluate their actions and, for the joy of the oligarchs, run amok into the bloodshed.

The antithesis is clear: it is called religion. It is call goodness. It is called love. It is called God.

Even here, humanists have gains. One of my seminary students invited me to a meeting with “American preachers.” Shortly afterwards, I was in a crowded room. Two Americans were speaking in English; a translator rendered the message in Spanish. They belonged to an American organization called Pointman, which also operates in Russia. They kept bombarding the innocent lambs with the following message:

“The correct order for a Christian to follow in his loyalties is God, Nation, Family.” I couldn’t believe this. When did Jesus say “nation?” Never. It is all about loving God and fellow humans. Human organizations are never values. This was the same Humanist, Communist, Jewish valueless ideology now attempting to spoil the Kingdom of Good. State sponsored fanaticism attempting to conquer the last barricade fighting evil. Around me, people watched Satan with stars in their eyes.

Subscribe to Roi Tov

KIDNAPPED BY BOLIVIA!—I am being tortured by the Bolivian Government I have been declared a Political Prisoner of Bolivia, a country which does not respect human life. I am held in Bolivia illegitimately, violently and against my will. I am violated daily; please make this public in any possible way. Before writing to me, please read 15-Day Execution Order and the Bolivia section of the website.