An abundance of evidence suggests that *state subsidies* for organized religion result in weak leadership, a dull congregation and a dying society. Why do so many Christians, Jews and atheists put up with it?

There are some practices so superficially alluring yet destructive and habit-forming that they linger on for generations with little attention to the personal and public damage they cause. This essay makes a case for subsidized religion being one such a practice—with the common alternatives of militant nationalism or aggressive self-glorification being no better.

This writing will look at the evolution of how Christianity became so entangled with state power and refute the popular myth that American churches and other religious temples are “free” or “independent.” It will also address the undue influence of detached “academics” (religious and otherwise), the weak nature of such leadership, and attempt to offer some corrections to, astonishingly, roughly 18 or 19 centuries of creeping institutional rot that once again smothers the Western church and its secular imitators.

While researching and writing this piece, I re-visited a decent (largely anti-Christian) book from a mainstream scholar that provides two points I found worth including. The first point gives overdue attention to arguably a millennium of hospitable Christian-Muslim coexistence in Eastern civilizations—something Western theologians and neocon war-enthusiasts would rather forget. The second point refutes the teaching of “lost” Gospel fantasies that now permeate many college religious studies departments.

Notes on Writing Style

For starters, I’ll be attempting to cover significantly more relevant content than almost any *book* I can find on the subject with less than a tenth of the typical volume of words. That is to say, this essay is arguably too short for refuting nearly two millennia of intensive “academic” malpractice. But I will try my best.

The historically rare opportunity to bypass the FCC licensing cartel and the Legacy Media crowd—at one of America’s very few independent websites—is duly noted as well. A website with no ideological litmus tests, no reliance on corporate sponsors and no government stamp of approval is such a magnificent thing… well, I’m almost speechless. (Figuratively speaking)

For those expecting a diatribe of pure hostility towards Big Religion or whatever, I issue this trigger warning. I recognize the pattern among state-sponsored “professors” and self-appointed “experts” where any critical analysis of organized religion ends up being at least 99% negative. That tiresome neo-sophist style is not my intent here. However, to avoid going to the other extreme of pretending “everything is awesome” in the corporate church, I’ll settle for 5-10% of my material featuring positive influences of traditional religion, mainly towards the end of this piece. Along the way, I’ll throw in a few rebuttals to some popular conspiracies theories over basic theology of the early church; I’m counting that a “neutral” content, as in criticizing some unhinged critics. Ditto for some analyses of the overrated pagan “classical” period.

For a point of clarity, when I use the word “academics” in quotation marks it refers to the collection of subsidized stage preachers, classroom teachers, book-enthusiasts, conflict avoiders, and pro-government and/or pro-business apologists who usually bear no resemblance to independent scholars. Such “academics” also bear little resemblance to the original thinkers of Plato’s Academy from whence that lofty term has been misappropriated. Beyond those general flaws, religious “academics” have for centuries shown an overwhelming bias towards Greek ideals of philosophy and reason (as fits their subsidized worldview) with little or no need for God, justice, mercy, kindness, charity, compassion, truth, wisdom, progress or anything of actual human value. The results of such “academic” pursuits have been so abysmal that mainline Christian denominations are virtually DEAD in Europe and are rapidly moving in that direction in North America. And the secular “academic” culture around us has gone completely mad.

For those who make it to the latter third of this essay, you may notice that I’m not a fan of the Name & Shame routine that’s popular among some professional agitators. For the more hostile theological experts that I will be citing a few times, I prefer to deal with their puzzling statements and avoid giving free advertising to people who probably don’t deserve it.

Regarding the phrase “self-worship,” the term doesn’t literally mean bowing down and saying prayers to yourself. It just means elevating your personal opinions and self-image beyond the opinions and images of others. It usually involves forcibly imposing those opinions on unwilling victims and inevitably leads to personal attacks on outsiders to injure their image relative to yours.

Since the term “self-worship” is still foreign to mainstream circles, I’ll elaborate a bit. One example of this behavior includes “academic” racketeers who exalt themselves with honorific titles like “doctor” and “professor” etc. in open disregard of Constitutional prohibitions on any state-granted titles. Another example is the “Publish or Perish” ritual of colleges and universities where school administrators push their staffs to publish (often cryptic) research articles in any of the 28,000 English-language “scholarly peer-reviewed journals” to boost school prestige while padding the resumes of people who can’t point to any lifetime accomplishments. Hollywood elites get into the game with annual self-promotion ceremonies to celebrate their own awesomeness and remind the public just how blessed we are to have them around. Pouring truckloads of gasoline onto that bonfire of narcissism, the fairly recent explosion of “woke” gender-sexual-racial-military-gun fetish “identity” cultures all point in the direction of self-glorification, even if their participants are too dull to realize it.

In hindsight, a condition of self-worship is probably inevitable for any culture that embraces the notion of self-governance. People who still cling to the latter will probably never admit to believing the former.

I will stress that this essay is not a screed against any traditional belief system, including any of the major monotheistic religions. Smug, sneering and mocking attacks on monotheistic beliefs (e.g., Christianity, Islam and Biblical Judaism) are so common in Western culture that another such venture would hardly warrant the effort. My focus here is on the poor excuses for and harmful outcomes of mingling personal belief with the brute force of government.

One would hope that any reasonable Christian, Jew, Muslim or atheist should be able to find common ground that no religion should be subsidized. But as of today, it appears that this position is extremely unpopular—at least among public intellectuals of any significance.

Unwritten Rules of Modern Churches

To begin with a snapshot of where mainstream corporate religion stands on core teachings across a broad spectrum of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish congregations in the U.S., I’ll take the liberty to summarize, to the best of my ability, what I have learned in my 5+ decades of life in direct involvement or close proximity (via marriage, school and work) to all three of those bolded entities. For exposure to pagan and self-worshipping cultures, I endured the standard 17 years (K through college) of indoctrination from government schools in New York; 30+ years of witnessing various corporate management styles in the private sector should help there as well.

For purposes of this essay, I will be identifying as a non-practicing atheist. Membership in ((certain groups)) does offer some advantages. Avoiding the vulgar Us vs. Them mentality, to the greatest extent possible, is also important.

For this initial task, I’ll attempt to use more candid language than most modern clergy—nearly always scholarly mumblers and book-thumpers with no real-world experience—are willing to risk. Ten predominant themes of Western subsidized religion can be summarized as such:

God wants me to build a castle. And he wants you to pay for it.
– paraphrase of any Stage Preacher/Priest/Rabbi on any given Saturday or Sunday

God wants me to be elevated and amplified. And he wants you to sit still and be quiet.
– same

Turning religion into a business is a great idea. Turning it into a centrally

managed behemoth is even better. – same (HQ-franchise model)

As the neutered mascot of this Church of the One Commandment, feel free to join us in celebrating all forms of stealing, killing and coveting. Your idols and addictions are safe here as well. Just don’t have sex with the wrong person. – same

I’m on a mission from God to preach to believers. I reject all forms of teaching that involve spontaneous discussions. I also renounce all efforts for financial independence—such as working in the marketplace. The people I’m lecturing will provide all my financial needs. And it won’t involve pandering. – same (also secular Left/Right “sponsor me” cucks)

Real bombs, Yes! F-bombs, No!
– conservative Preachers, particularly on Sundays preceding the 4^th of July or Memorial Day

We’re ashamed of the Gospel. Seriously. Leave that ‘evangelism’ crap to those vulgar upstarts.

– Old Guard mumbling pietists and corporate stooges

Everyone hates us… for no reason whatsoever!

Only OUR suffering is worthy of remembrance.

– Reformed Judahite synagogues and Jewish Pride groups

Friends of Israel: March to battle, kill the sand-Negro! (Just don’t use the N-word)

– Zionist Churches, particularly in the Deep South and federal broadcasters

It’s not stealing, it’s a program. Forced sharing is pleasing to God.
– liberal Preachers, particularly in the Deep North and federal broadcasters

A central theme of the above teachings could be reduced to the profound but unspoked assumption that: “I’m special, I deserve special treatment.” (The presumed entitlement behind this massive favor leads to the arrogance, along with the eventual blindness, that now celebrates much of the West’s cultural decline.)

If there’s a Christian or Jewish congregation in America that rejects any five or more of those ridiculous themes—and makes a passable attempt to hold to Biblical teaching—it would be generous to call them extremely rare. But of course, subsidized religious idiocy and associated problems don’t stop there.

As a long-time church member (three decades in upstate New York, 4 years in Nashville, and the last 15 years in the suburbs of Dallas) I’ve often wondered: how is it that we’ve come to a point where rampant debt-servitude is tolerated ($103 trillion and rising), blind faith in governing officials is expected and supported by a daily loyalty oath at schools and mandatory hymns before sporting events, unprovoked violence against defenseless third-world nations is openly encouraged, organized theft is celebrated and official policies of divisive double standards are the norm?

Despite the fact that all those harmful actions are expressly anti-Biblical (or in the case of debt slavery, just strongly discouraged), all those attitudes are common inside the church today and have been for many decades. Outside, in the secular world, the chaos is even worse. But since Christians are generally held to a higher standard and are expected—even by their harshest critics—to provide some attempt at ethical guidance, I’ll focus today on the misdeeds of the church and the many opportunities for improvement.

As noted, this essay is not at all a broadside against religion itself. However, I will briefly touch on alternative religions as well as the myth that pagans and “atheists” don’t have (often fanatical) levels of faith that many wish to impose on others.

Instead, I’ll be focusing on the widespread corruption and paganistic drift of the New Testament religion—once the basis of Western civilization—that modern clergy and participants have allowed to fester far too long. (Similar conclusions could arguably be made about the Talmudic Theocracy in New Israel—which bears remarkably little resemblance to classical Jewish culture—but that is largely outside the scope of this writing.)

Since America (as of 2010) had about 345,000 religious congregations with 151 million members, I think it’s in everyone’s interest to gain a better understanding of how traditional believers (who founded and built America, Europe and much more) apply their faith in the real world. I have no intention of questioning the object of any traditional faith; it’s the weak application that will be critically analyzed today.

Which brings us to my first observation on the colossal void of logic when it comes to public discussions of religion. Deep thinkers and demagogues alike—of all backgrounds and beliefs—simply will NOT touch the subject of subsidized religion, even if they profess to despise all forms of traditional theology. For starters…

I’ve searched through hours of statements by each of these prolific and powerful individuals and can’t find ONE acknowledgement that Western religion is subsidized by the government, much less any criticism of that arrangement.

At minimum, any reasonable person should recognize the official silence on subsidized religion as an enormous red flag that should prompt greater attention. The idea that tax-grabbing extremists who usually hate “religion” suddenly get bashful when it comes to taxing extravagant religious temples is yet another tip off. (I’ll again note the futility of America’s left/right “sponsor me” crowd on these crucial points and that loss of independence is a killer. For now, I’ll defer my comments on the immense problems associated with political favoritism that render the corporate church largely impotent—as its detractors prefer—and have corroded Western culture to a level approaching catastrophic meltdown.)

One might hope that traditional Christians in particular would recognize subsidized theology as a warped imitation of legitimate faith and a mockery of the concept of “freedom of religion” that Americans supposedly cherish. As arguably the single biggest public policy issue over the last two millennia—causing countless wars and suffering when handled poorly; uplifting society from centuries of pagan squalor, liberating the West from theocratic domination and sparking the original European development of North America when handled more gracefully—much rides on getting it right here. But since the “academic” takeover of the Western Church many centuries ago, questioning the taboo of subsidized religion remains off-limits.

Although the two gentlemen in the lower right corner pictured above (Jordan Peterson and Alex Jones) would normally be classified in the conservative camp, I included them here to be inclusive and also because those figures are rare examples of outspoken Men of the Right with the guts to say something original. Yet I can’t find any instance of either man acknowledging or criticizing religious subsidies. I could easily have cited hundreds of regime conservatives (literally all of them) who steadfastly embrace government support of religious institutions, but are too dense or too dishonest to admit that in public. And I think those are major problems—both the stupidity and the subsidies that encourage lying for a living.

Weak Excuses for Subsidized Religion: Distract, Deny, then Fully Apply

Since the topic of subsidized religion has huge ramifications—and is defended by religious conservatives, garbled by liberty zealots and avoided by timid liberals—some elaboration seems necessary. And I’ll begin with the narrative of the status quo.

For a standard viewpoint on subsidized religion (to the extent that anyone is willing to touch it) we have some academics who insist that tax breaks are entirely different than subsidies. Two such libertarian thinkers are Laurence Vance and Joseph Salerno (link below). Both make weak arguments of circular rhetoric, essentially that… government grants of special benefits are not a “subsidy” because subsidies are bad; “tax breaks” on the other hand are good because any effort to starve the Beast of Government must be good.

This wildly simplistic logic, couched in rambling essays, overlooks the enormous problems of official favoritism and divisive double standards that happen to be driving the nation into turmoil. As discussed towards the end of my previous essay, I cannot find ONE person who publicly says anything along the lines of: I support universal rights applicable to everyone and oppose all forms of political favoritism. Political favoritism is just too entrenched, including among conservatives who supposedly disdain government interference.

Any decent historian or religious scholar should be well acquainted with Biblical teachings on the troubles of both practices (differing weights and measures denounced as “detestable” and “abhorrent,” along with the “perversion” and “evil” of favoritism) not to mention the pridefully blinding result of such favor. But leashed “academics” are only allowed to stray so far.

Loyal members of the Church of One Commandment still insist that strongly condemning language (detestable, abhorrent, perversion, evil) is only used in the Bible for certain unapproved sexual practices. This cowardly pandering to inherently conformist—and overwhelmingly married, heterosexual—audiences has increased hostilities, dulled countless minds, and vastly amplified divisive favoritism within our culture. (For what it’s worth, the best political commentary I’ve ever seen on the topic of homosexuality comes from a Russian Christian who identifies as The Saker. Besides his astute “sad/gay” observation, he makes a case for the East’s more tempered approach to sexual deviance as compared the West’s cruel decision to imprison people for private sexual activity.)

Support for subsidized theology is so prevalent among Western religious professionals, as well as secular institutional leadership, that most don’t bother to question or defend it. To the vast majority of Western elites, subsidized religion is merely a fact of life—as universal as death and taxes and as easily triggered as a college student. The two gentlemen cited above (and two more mentioned below) should be given credit for at least having the guts to publicly defend their views, even though I disagree with them.

Mr. Vance—who frequently makes valid arguments against the madness of war, federal drug prohibition and racial revenge—attempts to burnish his politicized religious arguments by invoking the spirit of “libertarianism’s greatest theorist, Murray Rothbard.” Vance echoes his hero and says that all “Taxation is theft. It is theft on a grand scale.”—statements that are foolish and make libertarians look like anti-government extremists. (Even if you strip government down to the legitimate positions of public safety and resolving disputes as a last resort among opposing parties, there is still an administrative cost to that. Ditto for protecting essential property rights and enforcing legal contracts that most libertarians hold dear.)

Mr. Vance clarifies his ideological position in a piece titled: “We Need More Tax Credits and Loopholes.” Ryan McMaken of the Mises Institute adds more libertarian orthodoxy, beginning a 2015 post with the declaration: “The position that a tax exemption is a subsidy has always been wrong.”

Mr. Salerno also furnishes lengthy quotes (not reproduced here) of his revered polemicist, Murray the Great, to boost his case. Rothbard’s anti-government fixation led to his belief that any tax break inevitably hurts the State (which is false, since division empowers the State), thus all tax breaks are always “good” (more anti-government fundamentalism).

Both Rothbard and Salerno fail to grasp that: All tax breaks as well as subsidies are a “special grant of privilege,” otherwise they would be universal to everyone. (Rothbard and Salerno claim that the “special grant of privilege,” which they deem as pure evil, only applies to their narrow definition of direct government payments. People who work at tax-favored “non-profit” institutions tend to think that way.)

From any common-sense application in the real world, the special privilege aspect is much more broad, thus more unpopular to criticize. This is true whether the tax deduction is granted to a large swath of wealthy homeowners at the expense of poor renters, given to land-hoarding and water-wasting rural farmers at the expense of urban and suburban citizens, showered on flamboyant castle-church isolationists or applied via thousands of narrow loopholes to a phalanx of corporate lobbyists. Tax breaks and subsidies are always divisive, as they expressly favor one group over the rest of society. (The “moral hazard” of subsidizing wasteful practices is yet another issue.)

All four of the above experts (and everyone else I can find) fail to explain the functional difference between a “tax break” and a “subsidy” for the following real world scenario that so many conservative ideologues choose to ignore. For example, consider these two options for a modest $10 million dollar church or temple that would normally be assessed at a 2% property tax levy:

1. $10 million dollar church is initially treated like everyone else, pays $200,000 in annual property taxes, then gets a $200,000 government check to offset the taxes. This would be viewed as a “subsidy.”

2. $10 million dollar church is treated like royalty, gets a secretive tax exemption, pays nothing, no money exchanges hands. This is supposedly a “tax break.”

How is Option A any different than Option B? In both cases, the church pays no property taxes. But in Option B (our current situation), the special favor is kept quiet and the smugness is allowed to fester in darkness. Option B (favoritism, secrecy, etc.) is what professional libertarians and conservatives prefer. So do approximately 100% of federal politicians—including many God-hating Democrats—an obvious red alert for anyone paying attention. Politicians want corporate religious groups dependent on government favor. Unfortunately, most religious leaders and their bamboozled congregations agree to go along with that bargain.

The additional federal tax benefits/interference for IRS-approved “501(c)(3)” religious bodies since 1954 may have accelerated the decline of the American church, as conservative pastor Chuck Baldwin and a few others have claimed. But government meddling into church affairs didn’t start there. Not even close.

The common defenses for special treatment use arguments like the “government knows that church organizations provide valuable social and religious benefits to the community” and other similar statements, which are pure fantasy. The Deep State hates Christianity so greatly that its acolytes have turned the phrase ‘Jesus Christ!’ into a common curse.

California progressives even used the Corona virus as an excuse to shut down churches (but not strip clubs), while the L.A. Dodgers showed that religious hatred is welcome at big league baseball. Back in 1993, the D.C. Death Cult mercilessly attacked a peaceful group of Christians in Waco, Texas—something they would never attempt to Jews in NYC or Muslims in other cities—then projected their own derangement onto the victims with widespread taunts of the dead “cult” members. Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau called recent church arsons “unacceptable” but “fully understandable.” Across the pond, bigotry towards Christianity is now official policy in Britain and considered fashionable in Germany; but Europe got a long head start on these matters.

Furthermore, any legitimate church or charity can survive without a government stamp of approval. The supreme arrogance of seeking special governmental favor and the blinding fear of ever losing such benefits—thus having to contend with “vulgar upstarts” in the open marketplace—are a much bigger problem, as many centuries of subsidized church folly should make apparent.

An even greater absurdity emotes from some conservative Christians who still fuss about “separation of church and state” and often advocate more government intrusion into spiritual matters. These groveling clowns fail to grasp that the imperial headquarters of Washington, London, Paris, Moscow, Rome and elsewhere fiercely despise any expression of independent faith. They always have and always will. If misguided conservatives had any historical bearing or a shred of financial integrity they might realize that separation of church and state exists to protect religious liberties, not to protect the state from too much religious influence.

Of course, far greater government interference infects the secular religion presented as “education.” Government funding of K-12 classroom instruction totaled a whopping $905 billion with another $420 billion spent to control college indoctrination for FY2023. Episodes of extreme intolerance involving the latter institution are chronicled daily by groups like Campus Reform and The College Fix—above and beyond the tyranny of routine self-censoring. I would think it logical and consistent to reject both the slow poison of religious subsidies and the rapid-onset-dementia of educational subsidies. But I realize that such viewpoints rarely go together.

I count it as small progress that in April 2022 a few liberty warriors woke up to the nature of some corporate tax breaks… at least when left-wing companies like Disney and LGBTQ politics are involved.

But that still leaves some huge loopholes for the original “woke” corporation, namely organized religion.

The Best of Pagan Culture

To provide some balanced perspective to what has so far been predominantly critical analysis of corporate Church bureaucracy, I’ll switch over to the “secular” side of history. For some reason, the failures of atheistic and pagan societies have largely been excused, and often praised, in Western “academia” despite the repressive and violent nature of those cultures over many millennia.

I’ll start with a look at the best of secular achievements, as picking on the worst of pagan dysfunction would be too easy. Let’s keep in mind that it took roughly 300 years (or 15 generations) and many cycles of extreme duress for Western Christianity to go off the rails for an extended period of time, most noticeably starting with Emperor Constantine in the 4^th century. The dreadful “crusades,” which many still anguish over, began centuries later.

In ancient Greek culture, it took only three generations for followers of its most enshrined teacher, Socrates, to descend into the blood-thirsty psychosis of megalomania. His star pupil, Plato, went on to set up a free Academy and taught Aristotle, among others. Aristotle drifted considerably and accepted payment to tutor political prince Alexander “the Great,” the mass-murderer and serial rapist who tried to take over the world. So one can conclude that the intellectual yet hollow teachings of Socrates and Plato leave something to be desired. Yet their big thoughts and empty rhetoric are still admired by many who think and talk for a living.

As to the alleged glory of the “classical” Greek and Roman Empires, their modest literacy rates and intellectual openness coincidentally (or perhaps by design) helped develop and spread the Christian gospel in its early centuries. But the combined Roman Republic and subsequent Empire—while commendable on protecting property rights and creating a stable currency for a while—did rather little during its nearly ten centuries of dominance (509 B.C. to 476 A.D.) to promote equal application of law or individual rights. Evidence of actual scientific progress is also sparse… unless you give inordinate credit to rambling speeches, mindless sports fanaticism, mid-quality concrete, gravity water conveyances and stone arches (as many folks do). It’s often forgotten that the Roman Republic and Empire both had widespread slavery and extremely cruel senses of justice, harsh treatment of women and children, along with their relentless habits of imperial warfare against weaker neighbors. Hardly what any rational person would call “classic.”

Where Christianity eventually recovered from the 1300s to 1500s and went on to build virtually all that is the Western culture of prosperity, enlightenment and personal freedoms of speech/worship/assembly, pagan society never again contributed anything of significant value in those bolded areas. Putting aside Hollywood, mass media and university glamorization of Anything-but-Christian (ABC) cultures—the more submissive and impoverished, the better, in their view—can we honestly name one majority “atheist” or pagan culture that has amounted to anything but servility or madness?

Imperial Japan, with its polytheistic culture of Shintoism and reverence towards ancestors, was probably the closest thing to sustained growth, up until the recent ascent of China. But their militant nationalism, grueling work ethic and smothering conformity would not please many Westerners if they had the option to live there.

India, also polytheistic, was (and in many ways still is) a fractured mess to put it nicely, before semi-Christian British authorities infused a common language, extensive infrastructure upgrades, healthcare advances and educational systems, albeit with much unnecessary abuse. To this day, millions of wealthy and middle-class Indians use class warfare and licensing gimmicks to exploit poor “untouchables” as their cooks, drivers and cleaning servants. (Tribal hatred of *only Britain* by Indian nationalists denies any benefit whatsoever from Western influence, just as they conveniently omit prior Indian subjugation under the oppressive Muslim Mughals from roughly 1526 to 1757. Western isolationists selectively operate under the rubric of “anti-imperialism” only when it involves anything too European.)

After a promising start a few thousand years ago followed more recently by zealous isolationism and many centuries stagnating in poverty, China now stands as arguably the greatest example of human progress in the entire world. Two important ingredients that get almost zero credit from mainstream pundits: 1) China’s growing underground church of many millions that provides a calming stability while challenging its lingering culture of honor and shame, and 2) its wise rejection of the divisive influence of “democracy.” A third and somewhat mutually beneficial “gift” from formerly Christian nations to China would be the trillions of dollars in local investments and technology transfers, which many hypocritical Western corporatists denounce as “IP theft.” Regarding the Chinese Renaissance of today, the alternative explanation that communism really works will no doubt be preferred by those still enthralled by the Cult of Mao.

Even the more intelligent assessments of China’s stunning growth usually overlook all of the above plus seven additional benefits to prosperity (most of which are consistent with Biblical teaching, it just so happens) namely: 4) being free from devastating union fascism that cripples productivity, 5) being free from the racial revenge industry of poisoning political favoritism, 6) being free from the anti-growth mentality of mindless eco-zealotry (which cares little about real pollution), 7) being free from the crushing hyper-legalism of the lawfare industry that attacks productive enterprise, 8) being free of the extreme feminist aversion to male leadership, 9) being free from public displays of “woke” cultural suicide, and 10) encouraging intact families by rejecting the lure of “social security”—all traits that currently suck the life out of Western populations.

One common thread that linked Japan, India and China—long before any Christian influence—was that none of those enduring civilizations showed any significant evidence of self-worship. With the possible exception of Indian Brahmins, the aura of the supreme individual is an overwhelmingly Western invention. So is the off-shoot of LGBTQ+ sexual identity dysphoria—an alleged proof of “progress” that some wish to export eastward.

Mighty Europe, the jewel of civilization from roughly the 1500s up until World War 1, was a primitive hoard of tribal foraging before the Roman Catholic Church and later the Eastern Orthodox Church—in their more vibrant and tolerant years—brought life-affirming vision, hope and purpose to millions. (Prior Roman occupation and Muslim culture in some areas probably left some positive influences as well.)

By a similar vein, any objective person—regardless of one’s view of Zionism or Talmudic teachings—should be impressed by the stunning economic growth of New Israel in comparison to its impoverished fundamentalist neighbors. (Most rich Arab leaders today owe their wealth to the free inheritance of vast oil deposits which are extracted and refined overwhelmingly by foreign contractors and European “colonists.”) Along with the previous paragraphs on unrecognized Christian influences, the wildly hostile attitudes for and against modern Israel reveal a major folly of our time.

Hatred of Israel is so great that everyone from Christian nationalists like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to “anti-religious” ideologues give a free pass to the abject failure of subsidized “Orthodox” Christianity in Russia circa 1917 and blame The Jews, The Jews, The Jews for Russia’s spectacular collapse and pretty much everything else wrong with Western culture. In turn, some Zionists exploit this hatred to promote fantasies of their own suffering, endless wars in the Middle-East, cruel treatment of Palestinians and bewildering claims that everyone hates us… just because we’re awesome and they’re evil.

Print