Analysis of the Christchurch Attacks: Reactions and Geopolitics (Part 2)

by Sean Jobst
25 April 2019

@7:00 - "It is now second to the United States. That tall tower there is the United States. The United States is bigger than Israel. But it ain't that much bigger than Israel! And Israel is number two. Israel is 1/10th of 1% of the world's population and we are receiving 20% of the global share in private cyber security investments. That's 200 times our weight in the world. What this revolution is doing - big data, AI, and connectivity - is allowing small countries to be big countries."

@9:51 - "Our NSA which is called Unit 8200. It's pretty big. How big do you think it is? Hmm? Well, I'll give you a hint, okay. America, the United States, is about 42 times the size of Israel in terms of population. So how much bigger do you think the American NSA is relative to the Israeli NSA? No brave people among you? 42 times, 40 times? Nah, come on, stop. Its not five times, but its not ten times bigger. It's not even ten times bigger. You know the Five Eyes? Israel is the sixth Eye? No, Israel is the second Eye!"

Netanyahu has his sights on the Five Eyes

At the end of this January, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke at the Cybertech 2019 conference in Tel Aviv, in which he made several revealing statements. Reiterating his recurrent boasts about the growth of Israel among global cyber-security and tech firms, and with the United States led by what's continuously revealed to be the most "Make Israel Great Again" President, an ungrateful Netanyahu made boasts clearly setting up Israel as a competitor seeking to replace the power of its foremost "ally".

What most concerns us here are his boasts about Israel, through the power of its Unit 8200, being the "second Eye" and in the process, implying that Israel will displace Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK in this global intelligence-sharing community. Both its timing only a month-and-a-half before the Christchurch attacks, and the Internet censorship efforts following those attacks, should lead us to wonder if there is a connection? Especially in what I discussed previously about a push to move New Zealand out of the full confidence of the Five Eyes given questions about the vulnerability of their intelligence services. We can further make connections with earlier comments by Netanyahu.

"Declaration of War"

On 23 December 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, which was co-sponsored by New Zealand. It condemned the building of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Despite the fact that many previous resolutions had condemned the settlements and were never enforced, even if the UN had the means to do so never mind the will, Netanyahu took an especially harsh reaction against New Zealand, issuing what he termed a "declaration of war", and recalling the Israeli ambassador. The Foreign Minister's office was vandalized with the words "Traitor Jew Hater McCully". Diplomatic relations were only restored six months later. This followed Israel's warning to New Zealand not to draft a UN resolution supporting peace talks in 2015.


When an earthquake struck Christchurch in 2011, a Mossad ring was accidentally uncovered when five passports were found on the corpse of an Israeli who had died in that earthquake, and three of his colleagues had promptly flew back to Israel. The New Zealand Security Intelligence Service was suspicious that Netanyahu had phoned Prime Minister John Key no less than four times that day; how both the Australia-based Israeli Ambassador and the Israeli Defense Minister rushed to Christchurch; and an Israeli forensics team wandered into the sealed-off "red zone" and were given access to the police national database. We can thus add a concrete Israeli dimension to the "juicier target" threat.

Mossad activities in the region

Ex-Mossad whistleblower Victor Ostrovsky has revealed that Mossad operates a "passport factory" that churns out stolen Australian and New Zealand passports for many of their operations, most notably in the assassination of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai on 19 January 2010. He revealed that passports from those two countries are favored by Mossad due to their geographic isolation and thus their accents not as well-known in many areas of the world. The New Zealand government imposed diplomatic sanctions on Israel after two Mossad agents, Eli Cara and Uriel Kelman, were convicted of passport fraud in Auckland in 2004.

A security official revealed that the two were linked with a fugitive Mossad agent named Zev Barkan, connected to an "Israeli terrorist cell operating out of Thailand": "He goes to Laos, Cambodia, Burma and Thailand and deals with gangs that he pays to kill tourists steal their identity papers, passports, most just disappear or their deaths have been reported as accidents, drownings and such. They like to throw their victims off the side of tour boats. Barkan is mostly interested in passports and identity documents, there have been a number of Australians killed for their passports."

There is a peculiar link to the international Chabad movement, which operates branches throughout the region despite the small population of Jews. While providing a spiritual cover, such as presiding over "Noahide" cults in the Philippines, their activities in Thailand raise the question if their activities could also be used as cover by the Mossad. In August 2017, the Thai Army found smuggled weapons in a raid at the Chabad House and an Israeli's Search and Rescue Clinic. The Chabad House in Bangkok is "a backpacker haven packed with young Israeli travelers", which should make us wonder if any of those "backpackers" are Mossad agents. For that matter, what was Brenton Tarrant doing in Israel for the nine days he spent there in 2016?   

A selection of Tarrant's manifesto; pictures of
the Freemason and "Templar" Anders Breivik

Tarrant, Breivik, and the Reconstituted "Knights Templar"?

In his manifesto, Tarrant went out of his way to disclaim any connection to "any organization or group, though I have donated to many nationalist groups and have interacted with many more," almost like doing the latter was to provide the excuse for censorship as I described in Part 1. He alluded to a "reborn Knights Templar" which allegedly gave him "a blessing in support of the attack". This is the same "group" that Anders Breivik, the Norwegian who killed 77 in a bombing and mass shooting in 2011, claimed to belong. As we read in the above selection, Tarrant cited Breivik as his role model and primary inspiration.

Whereas Tarrant's 77-page manifesto was sloppier and full of grammatical errors, Breivik's 1500-page manifesto which he termed "2083: A European Declaration of Independence", was more complex and sophisticated, purporting to be an academic work for the shadowy group. Indeed, its cover displayed a Templar cross on the cover and the tagline "Christi Templique Solomonici", which aside from Templar connotations also alludes to efforts to rebuild the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, a favored cause of many Chabadist-Zionist groups and whose symbolism has long been employed by Freemasons; until his post-attack expulsion from the order, Breivik was a member of the Lodge of St. Olaf at the Three Columns in Oslo.

Giving himself the rank "Justiciar Knight", Breivik claimed that he refounded the Knights Templar around with eight others in London in 2002, as an "international Christian military order" and "anti-Jihad crusader-organization". The Knights Templar are the notorious subject of acceptable scope of "conspiracies" pushed by the mainstream, but even mainstream media admits there is no link to this modern group or the medieval group of knights. Rather, it seems to be a brand adopted to invest a sense of occultic mystique around some figure or event, adopted even by a group that splintered from the La Familia drug cartel in the Mexican state of Michoacan. In the case of Breivik and Tarrant, it was clearly adopted as imagery of a Clash of Civilizations.

Anders Breivik, Crusader for Israel

As part of their own effort to push this dialectical Clash of Civilizations, the elites and their media have portrayed Breivik as a "Nazi". Knowing that the public is not prone to appreciate nuances, they portray the gestures he has made in the courtroom as the infamous "Nazi salute". Aside from the fact that the Roman salute long predated anything associated with Hitler, and indeed has its original roots as a votive offering by ancient Iberians (thus the original name Salutatio Iberica), Breivik's clenched fist salute seems to be a copy of the radical Zionist Kahanists, Jewish Defense League (JDL), and Kach movement than anything native European.

Breivik made his reality clear in his manifesto, that he is a crusader for the cause of Israel: "So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists" (page 1166). His manifesto was filled with praise of Israel and Zionism and the standard denunciations of "anti-Semitism" in a way that fits the Zionist narrative: "If one acknowledges that Islam has always oppressed the Jews, one accepts that Israel was a necessary refuge for the Jews fleeing not only the European, but also the Islamic variety of anti-Judaism."

Those last words are especially significant, since they seemed to have bought into the Zionist narrative that European heritage and culture was also intrinsically "anti-Semitic" and so going along with the Zionist agenda is a sort of obligation to shed our "guilt". He expressed his belief in the holocaust: "I don't find the anti-holocaust evidence credible so I don't see a reason why anyone should deny the Jewish holocaust" (page 1366), a simplistic dismissal of revisionist scholarship. All of these and more lead me to agree with the Norwegian sociologist Johan Galtung, that Breivik had Mossad links. At the very least, we can see who clearly benefits from both Breivik and Tarrant.

Analysis of the Christchurch Attacks: Reactions and Geopolitics (Part 1)

by Sean Jobst
19 April 2019

Over a month has passed since the shootings at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and lost in the broader debate are its suspicious consequences and their deeper geopolitical implications. Domestically, the New Zealand government has used it as their casus belli for gun control and to increase their selling the country's assets to foreign corporations and control by their own Globalist clubs. Geopolitically, we can ignore neither the Israeli connections nor the shooter's manifesto which reveals the imprint of Duginism. All of these aspects tie in together as I will demonstrate.

The false flag question

A false flag should not be confused with those co-opted elements who talk of "crisis actors" and events being "fake" (to discredit all false flags), nor should it be a knee-jerk reaction to every single event with no commitment to seeing the evidence play out. Rather, a false flag simply means there are suspicious questions about a violent event that points to deeper involvement than the official narrative suggests. In this case, that there is more to it than just a lone-wolf shooter named Brenton Tarrant.

One recurring theme is that information initially released after an event is quietly withdrawn, never to be spoken of again. It happened on 9/11 with the five cheering Israelis of Urban Moving Systems filming the attacks. As anyone who followed the early coverage of the Christchurch can attest, initial reports said that there were multiple shooters and official reports even said there were others "on the run". These claims were never backtracked, but simply disappeared down the Memory Hole. What happened to these "multiple shooters"?

The backdoor for gun control

Barely had the dust settled or the blood dried than the New Zealand government under Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern pushed through with wide-sweeping gun control legislation - 600 pages (!) - which we are to believe was a spontaneous reaction to a traumatic attack and not something pre-planned, just waiting for the perfect opportunity to be released. Just as the various leading Zionist-Neocons in my own country called for a "cataclysmic event" on the eve of 9/11, why were these two attacks which exceeded the entire annual murder rate in all New Zealand, allowed to affect such permanent changes?

Especially since Tarrant himself, in the 74-page Manifesto he wrote entitled "The Great Replacement: Towards a New Society", predictably saw gun control as the first result toward this "new society": "Finally, to create conflict between the two ideologies within the United States on the ownership of firearms in order to further the social, cultural, political and racial divide within the United states [sic]. This conflict over the 2nd amendment [sic] and the attempted removal of firearms rights will ultimately result in a civil war that will eventually balkanize the US along political, cultural and, most importantly, racial lines." So, you react to the attacks in the exact way the shooter envisioned and sought?

How was an Australian citizen able to so easily secure assault weapons in New Zealand? Why were New Zealand citizens to bear the brunt of a foreigner's actions? Based on what various ANZAC speakers have noted about the gun situation in their countries, there were already strict rules within New Zealand against possessing handguns and semi-automatic weapons, and strict government regulations of weapons. We are confronted with the same parallel as EU intelligence agencies "monitoring" various Islamist shooters who nevertheless manage to move and procure weapons more freely than the actual natives.

These speakers also suggest the easiest ways to obtain weapons are through certain "clubs" with deep links to well-connected Masonic circles. Keep this in mind as we see the alleged Masonic connections of Tarrant and the role of the Labour government in privatizing ports, the only entry for such weapons into the island country. We are confronted once again with elites who use real loss of lives for their own purposes, while playing out the very scripted response cited by the manifesto.

What was John Podesta doing in New Zealand?

Increasingly in a Globalized world, events in one corner of the world can affect those in another. This includes reviving the talking points of our own domestic advocates for gun control, and we have to point out the suspicious activities of one: John Podesta, former campaign manager for the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016. In other words, the anointed talking head for the left pole of the Left/Right dialectic just happened to be in New Zealand around the time of the attacks, lending his support to his NZ counterparts and in the process dropping clues to the deeper implications of these attacks.

Podesta was a keynote speaker for "A Global Progressives Event" in Australia on 7th March, and we know that sometime afterwards he traveled to New Zealand where he praised Ardern as a "superstar" and "somebody that people are paying attention to". Asked to comment on the warning by New Zealand's top spies to Parliament the month earlier that their elections were extremely vulnerable from cyber attacks, Podesta agreed that NZ was a "juicier target" than the other members of the "Five Eyes" intelligence community (US, Canada, UK, Australia) and warned about "the use of social media to spread discord, lies, dissastisfaction". He added: "There are other actors in the region including China that may have a high degree of interest in being able to penetrate what the private conversations of people in NZ politics and NZ Government are looking at."

Globalist connections of Ardern and NZ Labour

What anointed Ardern as such a "superstar" but her Globalist connections? This gave her a ready platform before the global Zionist-Corporatist media, which indeed made a heroine out of Ardern. We should cut through the emotion-driven sound-bytes to look at the track record of Ardern and her Labour Party predecessors, who on more than one level pursued actions that fostered the attacks via the Problem - Reaction - Solution dialectic. That is, they laid the groundwork for the socio-political factors leading to the attack; through their censorship and media, engineering the reaction; and then proposing the "solutions".

The reality is that Ardern government and the entire NZ Labour apparatus is stocked full of politicians with memberships in various Globalist clubs like the Parliamentarians for Global Action, who decide policies beyond the prying eyes of their citizens. That they have overseen increased military expenditures and involved New Zealand in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and vocally supporting airstrikes against Syria, while promoting mass-immigration into her own country.

Like her predecessors, Ardern has pursued Neoliberal policies literally selling out the country to foreign corporations, especially from the US and China. And most significantly in light of Christchurch, privatized and deregulated the literal ports of entry for guns into the island country. The global media anointing her as a "superstar" through this horrific event - including a gushing interview already a full year earlier, and talks of her creating an internationalist "progressive foreign policy" - is a dress rehearsal for her desired career with the United Nations after she leaves office, much like her mentor and predecessor Helen Clark and like politicians worldwide use their political careers as resume builders for their ultimate careers in banking, lobbying, the UN, or Globalist NGOs.

Insanity of the multicultural dialectic

As I am increasingly seeing and have pointed out in past articles, I see the same elites that are pushing for wars abroad and creating the socio-economic conditions driving emigration from mostly-Muslim countries, also pushing for open borders and unfettered immigration to mostly-White and Western countries, including the psycho-social conditions for declining birthrates in our countries. All the same, they are able to shed crocodile tears when Muslims are the "victims" of the new "white nationalist" bogeyman, while simultaneously killing or looting Muslims in their own countries.

Tarrant the alleged "white ethno-nationalist", mentioned absolutely nothing about the role of Zionist-Jewish organizations and prominent figures in promoting mass-immigration, just like the various controlled opposition voices that condemn open borders only when it comes to Muslim immigrants while still championing Israel and ignoring the Zionist inspiration behind the Kalergi Plan. The same can be said for Renaud Camus, the Frenchman who coined the "great replacement" phrase used by Tarrant in his own manifesto, and exhibits pro-Israeli sympathies. These represent nothing but a false "opposition" who enable the very policies they oppose, because of their buying into the Zionist dialectic that Israel represents "Western values" and lobbying for fighting wars on Israel's behalf.



Co-opting the discourse: Camus and his Zionist friend Finkielkraut

Much the same can be said for the other side of the dialectic, who champion open borders for their own tribal-religious interests, oblivious to the fact that its pushed by the very same elites attacking their countries. They cheer on the publicity stunt of a hijab-wearing, mosque-visiting, salam-uttering Ardern, catering to the victimhood mentality at a mosque where two members had previously been radicalized and killed in drone attacks championed by her government. This trend dismisses every Islamist attack as a false flag and, even while pointing out Israeli connections, buys into the official narrative of "white nationalists". An example is Mint Press News, which even manages to slip in a swipe at Ukraine, being just one of many countries visited by Tarrant, to fit their editorial line which pretends to be "anti-Zionist" while ignoring the deep Zionist-Chabad connections of Putin or Israeli ties to the Kremlin-backed separatists I documented last year.

Tarrant, the "Ethno-Nationalist" Psyop

The elites have used this attack to demonize those in Western countries who oppose open borders and mass-immigration. We have to wonder why Tarrant's social media accounts were shut down within moments, except that they wanted to control the narrative. Or his employing of various memes, the fact that his sending a donation to the anti-immigrant Identitarian movement was used to discredit that movement and refuse its leader entry into the US - like receiving a donation from somebody indicates alleged support for their later actions, which I say despite my own problems with Identitarian leaders never saying anything about the central Jewish-Zionist role or their idolizing of that anti-Western Kabbalist chaos subversive Alexander Dugin.

ADL and HIAS: Advocates of Open Borders for "Goyim",
but an exclusively Jewish ethno-state for Israel

As with gun control, they have used Christchurch to censor and suppress free speech, a slippery slope that has included prosecuting people who merely shared the shooter's video (even while the media itself showed it), anyone expressing a view outside their own tightly-controlled narrative. A leading actor in this effort has been the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), whose leader Jonathan Greenblatt has opened a "command center" in Silicon Valley to "combat cyberhate" and hired a "technology director", thus pressuring tech companies to censor all opinions this subversive Zionist pressure organization deems as "hate".

Almost like a gift to Marxist talking-points which like to condemn all their opponents as "Nazi" or "Fascist", Tarrant described himself as an "eco-fascist". We can take this as yet another indicator of his "manifesto" appearing like a sloppily-constructed meme, but there is something deeper here in how he wrote of his desire not to father any children since they are "ultimately destructive to nature and culture". What "ethno-nationalist" would see the bequething of culture and heritage to successive generations as "destructive"? I find this very peculiar, since its exactly the declining birthrates in the West that are used by the elites to justify open borders.

Peculiar also is how this "ethno-nationalist" idolizes Communist China: "The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People's Republic of China." This is very suspicious given China's technology links with Israel; how Podesta specifically named China as "penetrating" New Zealand politics and intelligence; and how China has been increasing its influence in the country so much that Western countries have ceased sharing information with the New Zealand intelligence agencies for fear it could get into Chinese hands....which brings me to suspicous remarks  Netanyahu made about the "Five Eyes" recently at Cybertech Tel Aviv 2019....

To be continued in Part 2....

Fanatic Israeli rabbis celebrate burning of Notre Dame as Talmudic vengeance

by Sean Jobst
18 April 2019

While the world was watching the historic Notre Dame cathedral in Paris burning in real time, some of the reactions from Israel amounted to celebration. Purveyors of a Haredi Jewish website and a leading rabbi of the Religious Zionist movement cited Jewish scriptures to justify gloating over this tragedy, citing both divine vengeance and laws against "idolatry".

Under the headline "Paris: Notre-Dame church which serves as a house of idol worship, goes up in flames," the Haredi website JDN on Monday night (15th April) greeted the burning as a divine retribution, citing a phrase from the Jewish liturgy "and evil in its entirety will go up like smoke", since "The fire that is raging in the Notre-Dame Cathedral reminds us of the burning of the Talmud which took place in front of the church in 1244."

Even to this day, many Jews lament this 13th-century event

This incident, which actually occurred in 1242, was culmination of the Disputation of Paris two years earlier, in which there was a public debate between Christian scholars led by the Franciscan Jewish convert Nicholas Donin, and leading Jewish scholars. The subject of debate were the specific anti-Christian and general anti-Gentile passages in the Talmud, especially those deemed blasphemous against Jesus and Mary. Rather than massacre Jews, the Christians reacted in a public burning of well over a thousand volumes of the Talmud - not realizing it was committed to memory by many Jewish sages and contained within other Jewish religious works.

The bonfire occurred in the Place de Grève (now called the Place de l'Hotel de Ville), within sight of the majestic Notre Dame cathedral, whose construction began in 1160 and completed by 1260. This 13th-century event has been cited by a French-born Orthodox Rabbi named Shlomo Aviner, who is considered one of the spiritual leaders of the Religious Zionist movement. Far from being merely a "radical rabbi", he holds influence as rabbi of the Bet El settlement on the West Bank and "Rosh Yeshiva" of the Yeshivat Ateret Yerushalayim near the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. His words are routinely printed in Israeli newspapers as worthy of consideration in religious matters.

He made the relevant comments on Wednesday (17th April) in a Q&A column on the website Srugim, in response to the question: "The great Christian Church in Paris is on fire. Should we feel sorry for that, or should we rejoice, as it is idolatry, which is a mitzvah to burn?" He first weighed the question of it being a divine vengeance by concluding it was "possible to say so" because: "Indeed, Christianity is a goddess disguised in the belief in unity [monotheism]. But working the father and his son together is idolatry. Christianity is our number one enemy throughout history. [They] tried to convert us by arguments and by force, carried out an inquisition against us, burned the Talmud, expulsions, pogroms. Western anti-Semitism draws from Christianity's hatred of the 'murderers of God.' It also had a role in the Holocaust."




Screenshot of Aviner's statements, reproduced by Mondoweiss

These are all standard talking-points of various Jewish leaders, academics and rabbis, who see "anti-Semitism" as innate within European heritage and history, failing to introspectively ask themselves why Jews were expelled from 109 various countries of different ethnicities, languages and religions, if not perhaps the supremacist mentality and actions bred from the very Talmud whose burning he lamented. Rabbi Avineri continued his answer:

"The first great Talmud burning happened in Paris, right there at the Notre Dame Cathedral square. It was the result of the Paris trial in which Jewish sages were forced to debate Christian sages, and the result was the burning of the Talmud. Volumes of Talmud were brought in 20 carts and burned there, 1,200 Talmud volumes. So 'there is justice and there is a judge'.

"This isn't our job for now. There is no mitzvah to seek out churches abroad and burn them down. In our holy land, however, the issue is more complicated. Indeed, the Satmar Rebbe, in one of is arguments against returning to the land of Israel, wrote that there is a commandment here to burn churches, and the failure to do so is a transgression. Yet Rabbi Menachem Mendel Kasher, in his book 'The Great Period', rejected the Satmar Rebbe's words, citing a midrash, forbidding burning [churches] since if we burn, we'll have to rebuild, and it's a greater sin to rebuild [a church] than leave it standing. That church in Paris, too, will surely be rebuilt."

Aviner

This last statement is especially significant, first because "this isn't our job, for now" is a nod to the messianic impulse, where its believed it will be achieved by their "moshiach" so that its now merely a question of timing. Second, that in lieu of this "moshiach" the State of Israel itself is regarded as the staging ground for such actions which might not be acceptable elsewhere, if for nothing else in the realm of Public Relations so as to not provoke outrage against Jews. Aviner only opposes burning a church or other Gentile religious site, although stressing its a different case within Israel, for fear it would then be rebuilt. But simply allowing those sites to fall into disrepair would absolve Jews from the possible "sin".

The Satmar Rebbe he cited as scion of an anti-Zionist branch of Haredi Judaism, but his words affirm something I have long believed: That far from being the "Torah-true" Jews they are passed off as, the ultra-Orthodox "anti-Zionist" Jews are just as Talmudic and their objections to Israel are a matter of timing. But if it was a matter of their "moshiach", they would completely accept all the actions and more of what Israel is doing. The specific words cited by Aviner suggest that Jews in the "Holy Land" would have more responsibility to eradicate all traces of the "idolatrous" Gentile places, so that rather than "sin" by not fulfilling such a responsibility they regarded it as better to simply wait until their "moshiach" appears to lead the way.

Aviner has deep connections in various segments of the Israeli state, as we can see from this section on his yeshiva's website: "Over the course of the Yeshiva's thirty years existence, the Yeshiva's approximately 2000 graduates have established themselves in a wide variety of professions fields.  Dispersed throughout the country, these men now serve as heads of educational institutions, pre-military and other yeshivot, as senior IDF officers and in key security positions.  Others are active in law, media, hi-tech, management and business."





With Jerusalem as symbolic center of three continents, this
image is much-displayed on many Zionist websites

These obviously include political and academic leaders; their including of "senior officers" learning under the teachings of this faithful servant of the Talmud who holds "idolatrous" Gentiles in such contempt, are worrying on so many levels. Also significant is the mention of business and hi-tech, given the growth of Israel as a primary factor in global cyber-security and other hi-tech firms, tied to their central role in the Chinese-inspired Silk Road/Belt Road Initiative and the push for a "multi-polar world" (a mere rhetorical buzzword to adding another dialectic pole to the Globalist order).

Clearly, the opinions of Aviner carry at least some weight and this is more so when we consider that in 2013, he confirmed that he had been sent to Iran on a mission for Mossad in 1979. He confirmed this in an interview for a religious website called "Kippah": "I received a phone call. 'Shlomo, we need you.'" According to the newspaper Yediot Ahronot, Mossad sent Aviner on a French passport using his aunt's "international chandelier business in France" as the cover to send information back to Israel. The cover was as a representative of the French Rabbinate to provide Iranian Jews with matzos for Passport. But what was the rabbi really up to? "By Way of Deception"....


Primary Sources:
1. "Radical rabbi says Notre Dame fire retribution for 13th-century Talmud burning"
2. "Haredi Media Highlights Medieval Burning of Talmud After Notre-Dame Fire"
3. "After Notre Dame fire, leading Israeli rabbi says ‘There is no mitzvah to [burn down] churches abroad. In our holy land, however, the issue is more complicated’"

Julian on Problems of the Universalist God Concept

by Sean Jobst
22 October 2018

Julian the Apostate

Although most well-known as the Roman Emperor (361-363), Julian the Apostate (331-363) was also a noted Pagan philosopher who sought to revive the native Greco-Roman faith at a time Christianity was quickly establishing itself upon the Empire and subjugating all previous faiths. I have been studying his works lately, foremost among them the fragments that have survived - via those quoted copiously in responses of his Christian detractors - of his Against the Galilaeans, as well as parts of his letters that have survived. His personal life and characteristics are also a perfect model of Pagan morality and ethics, despite the false propaganda of Monotheists.

Julian took it for granted that each people had their own innate spirituality (what has been called Ethnic Religion), hence his term "Galilaeans" for Christians to stress it as a local phenomenon to Palestine. Just because it has become worldwide, just as has Islam from its own initial beginnings in western Arabia, does not change its historical roots and context. Nor does it make it any more truly relevant for all peoples, despite the amounts the missionaries and conquerors of those religions would absorb certain cultures of the conquered in order to make their own religion more "attractive". What most concerns us here are his arguments against the notion of a "universal God".




Julian's initiation into the Eleusinian Mysteries, one of whose
requirements was that the initiate be of the Greek ethnos

His premise was a Greek Myth explaining the existence of various races and peoples, according to which the gods of different peoples were delegates of a creator God - each responsible for caring for their specific races, nations and cities (Against the Galilaeans, 115D). This concept of different gods responsible for different races and nations, explains why the customs and character of peoples are so different (131C, 143A). Its also in keeping with the fact it was taken for granted by every tribe, that their gods were their own and not those of other peoples. The notion of a universalist missionary zeal to "convert" others to one's own faith is uniquely Abrahamic - there were wars, but it was never about forcing one's own spiritual worldview upon the other.

I see much validity in this, because obviously there are certain natural laws and central truths related to nature and consciousness running through all cultures and spiritual traditions. But each people had their own deities, archetypes and myths unique to them. It was so connected to the tribe, clan or ethnos that those faiths often had no specific names - it was just taken for granted that if one belonged to that community, then their spiritual worldview would also be innately held. One couldn't "convert" to the tribe's faith, but simply had to be born into it, coming from the line of its ancestors which was a central understanding of all Ethnic Religions.

Hermes

The Greek Myth specifically names Hermes, who was said to be the creator of writing and languages. As noted in an informative video, Hermes also represented boundaries and was a god of dogs, symbolic of him as "guarding" the integrity of a tribe and its boundaries. One Greek legend held that it was Hermes who divided people into different nations and created their distinct languages, which angered the supreme god Zeus (whose name correlated with the Proto-Indo-European *Dyeus Pater) who did not want people to be in strife.

Julian cited Plato's account of creation in Timaeus, observing how "when Zeus was setting all things in order there fell from him drops of sacred blood, and from them, as they say, arose the race of men" ("Letter to a Priest," in The Works of the Emperor Julian, trans. W.C. Wright, Vol. 2, p. 307). He thus reasoned that "they who had the power to create one man and one woman only, were able to create many men and women at once" (ibid., p. 305). This passage pointed out the inherent flaws of the Abrahamic creation story of all mankind descending from Adam and Eve, which was unrealistic since it could not explain the inherent differences between nations:

Roman coin issued under Julian, naming him as
"Pater Patriae" (Father of the Nation)

"Therefore, as I said, unless for every nation separately some presiding national god (and under him an angel, a demon, a hero, and a peculiar order of spirits which obey and work for the higher powers) established the differences in our laws and characters, you must demonstrate to me how these differences arose by some other agency. Moreover, it is not sufficient to say, 'God spake and it was so.' For the natures of things that are created ought to harmonize with the commands of God. I will say more clearly what I mean. Did God ordain that fire should mount upwards by chance and earth sink down? Was it not necessary, in order that the ordinance of God should be fulfilled, for the former to be light and the latter to weigh heavy? And in the case of other things also this is equally true....Likewise with respect to things divine. But the reason is that the race of men is doomed to death and perishable. Therefore men's works also are naturally perishable and mutable and subject to every kind of alteration. But since God is eternal, it follows that of such sort are his ordinances also. And since they are such, they are either the natures of things or are accordant with the nature of things. For how could nature be at variance with the ordinance of God? How could it fall out of harmony therewith? Therefore, if he did not ordain that even as our languages are confounded and do not harmonize with one another, so too should it be with the political constitutions of the nations, then it was not by a special, isolated decree that he gave these constitutions their essential characteristics, or framed us also to match this lack of agreement. For different natures must first have existed in all those things that among the nations were to be differentiated. This at any rate is seen if one observes how very different in their bodies are the Germans and Scythians from the Libyans and Ethiopians. Can this also be due to a bare decree, and does not the climate or the country have a joint influence with the gods in determining what sort of complexion they have?" (Against the Galilaeans, 143).

He concluded, "Can we suppose that there is not some mark or symbol indelibly stamped upon the souls of men, which will accurately indicate their descent and vindicate it as legitimate?...When a man has virtuous progenitors and is himself like them, he may with confidence be described as nobly born." Julian was alluding to the notion of Divine Progenitor, which was common in the foundation myths of various peoples. Elsewhere, I discussed this motif in its Germanic context in my article, "Divine Progenitors of the Suebi: Analysis of an Important Germania Passage".

Migratory routes of the Indo-Europeans

Its my contention that different peoples referred to the same divine source by different names, perhaps what the Proto-Indo-Europeans called *Dyeus Pater. But that under that divine source of the cosmos that was perceivable within nature and celestial bodies, were national gods. The Greek god Hermes was known to the Romans as Mercury. Whenever they interacted with a people, the Romans - who were conscious that their gods were not the same as those people's gods - discerned certain commonalities to engage in a practice called Interpretatio romana.

Thus, Julius Caesar noted among the Celtic Gauls that "Among the gods Mercury is the one they principally worship" (Commentarii de Bello Gallico), whom the video linked to earlier identified as the pan-Celtic god Lugus. He can be seen as a national god, especially since he had his local variants throughout the Celtic realm. Similarly, among my own Germanic ancestors the Roman Tacitus identified "Mercury" as Wotan, and indeed despite our various divergences as tribes Wotan was venerated throughout the Germanic world as our national god - with tribes having foundation myths of him being their progenitor.

Interestingly, the Greek Hermes archetype was later expressed through the term "Hermeticism" and the figure of "Hermes Trismegistus", based on the syncretism in Ptolemaic Alexandria between him and the Egyptian Thoth. Among all the Ethnic Religions under the broad category of "Paganism", there are shamanic and magical qualities that speak to seeking wisdom and transformation. There are certain constants common to all human beings, but certainly enough divergences to call into question the idea of a universal god - and this was exactly Julian's argument.

As an archetype, Hermes later gave rise to the symbolic
figure of Hermes Trismegistus, the quest for wisdom,
magic and transformative journeys of the psyche, the
true meaning of "alchemy"

The Biblical Tower of Babel story (Genesis 11:5-6) only purports to account for the difference in languages, but fails to even consider the various physical differences, customs and law or moral codes of various peoples (Against the Galilaeans, 138A). The Qur'an similarly asserts that mankind descended from the pair called Adam and Eve, while being made into different tribes and peoples (49:13) - how to account for the vast divergences between and among our various cultures? Just as the Abrahamic religions represented centralization, by eradicating the unique differences between peoples with this idea of a universal god, universal "true religion", and dogmas and practices that are universal for all peoples to follow, they are now fitting perfectly into the Zionist-Globalist agenda.

One logical proof Julian provided against the "universal god" notion was the absurdity of a "chosen people", the Hebrews. Its hard to believe the Abrahamic god was the god of all creation, if he not only extolled a certain people as his "chosen", but also that he allowed that people to suffer conquests many times over and few successes, in contrast to the neighboring peoples who worshipped their own "false gods" (ibid., 213A). This can also be seen in their historical insignificance, in contrast to their neighbors the Greeks, Egyptians and Phoenicians who were responsible for the great inventions and virtuous philosophies of the ancient world (ibid., 178A). Both Christianity and Islam affirm that the Hebrews were at least once "chosen", even while still extolling their religions as universalist.

Why would a god who described himself as "jealous", who "created" everything and everyone in the world, be content to care for an insignificant tribe in Palestine, while letting all other races worship "false" gods for thousands of years? (ibid., 106D). His conclusion was that this "universal" god of Abraham and Moses was actually just the god of the Hebrews, having no relevance for other peoples. There was some creative source in the universe, but the differences between them is proof that there were multiple deities shaping the matter "created" by this Divine source (ibid., 58C), as they would necessarily be identical if Monotheism was true (ibid., 66A).

We can discern much wisdom from Julian's writings and even in his activities as Emperor. Although at the helm of an Imperium, Julian did much to restore localized control and autonomy to distinct areas and communities. So politically, he was decentralist in the midst of a political-spiritual leveling process. He argued from a Greco-Neo-Platonist perspective, because that was his cultural frame of reference. But he instinctively despised universalism enough to celebrate that every people had their own distinct Ethnic spirituality. Nevertheless, on a broader philosophical level all of us who have the same conclusions can derive a lot of inspiration from his arguments. And these arguments call us to look deep within our own cultures for guidance.

A Spiritual Self-Discovery: My Journey from Christianity and Islam - and Embracing My Germanic Roots

by Sean Jobst
20 September 2018

I haven't written much about politics lately, because I've been focusing primarily on my spiritual studies. The culmination is that I am a proud and confirmed Germanic Pagan, returning to the polytheistic view and folkways of my ancient ancestors, what was theirs before Christianization. This was a radical change for me but something deeply stirring within my soul and my blood, and it has finally found room to surface. And everyday I study, learn and grow more, the more spiritual benefits I can see in the form of such things as synchronicities, the ease at which my personal writings flow and how level-headed I am in these studies. So I can see more balance and being in sync with my true nature. My best description of this is that this was a paradigm shift.

Before these last two years, I had taken monotheism for granted, holding to a dogma of one god - first within the Catholic Christian tradition I was born into, and then as a Muslim since my conversion to Islam at sixteen (the latter due to my problems with the Trinity and other theological problems with Christianity). This included the dogmas of a series of prophets and "divine" books, and afterlife of "heaven" and "hell". These are all mere memories of an old life, as I have purged them from my worldview and finally returned home to what was within my blood this whole time.

This is unlike any conversion experience, nor is it like being "confirmed" or "initiated" into some religion. I was sincere in Islam and was studious in it just like I'm generally studious and research-oriented, as any Muslim who knew me during those years attests and is now bewildered. After so long I came to the conclusion there is no "divine truth" nor is there a "universal" religion valid for every people across all time. Rather, there was an "ethnic faith" specific to every tribe or people on earth, which reflected their unique traditions, honored their ancestors, spoke to their immediate surroundings, and represented the interplay of their archetypes, history and destiny.

Europa My Catalyst

As with any other shifts and transformations, this has been a process and not a single event. But the catalyst was my trip to my paternal lands of Swabia (Southwest Germany) and Castilla (central and parts of north Spain) in July 2016 (my mother is of Flemish descent, but I have yet to visit Belgium). The very moment I stepped foot in Stuttgart and my late father's nearby hometown of Bad Canstatt, many emotions came rushing to me and I responded accordingly. Only later in subsequent research, did I learn about such deeper realities like metagenetics and archetypes, which had escaped my attention before since I simply did not allow myself to conceive of a reality outside monotheism.

Almost like a purification, Germany transformed me as I slowly began to shed the old conscious self and sought to discover the latent true subconscious self. The first to go was the Islamic salat, which I had been doing five times daily since my conversion. I instinctively stopped praying, not even a conscious decision but almost like it was just something that snapped within me and prevented me from praying. This was highly symbolic, as one famous hadith (recorded saying of Muhammad) defines the salat as that which distinguishes between Islam and "kufr" (disbelief). Neither did I have any interest in visiting a mosque there even while planning to do so before arriving, as it hit my psyche that Muslims were innately a foreign element in my ancestral lands, so that my people were not Muslims and nor were any of my ancestors.

I understood this impulse later to be the mystical connection one can form with their ancestral land, as so many who have visited the lands of their ancestors can attest. There was something deep that arose within me as I walked the streets of Bad Canstatt and along the Neckar that my immediate line of ancestors had walked; as I saw the history of Schwaben unfold before me in the Landesmuseum and in the historical buildings where ancestral memories were associated; hiking up the Birkenkopf, reflecting on the surrounding valley including the mystical forests and mountains to the east which were our original home, and the sacrifices of so many of our people during the war, etc.. All these experiences contributed to form a singular stirring of my spirit, and I soon followed it with travels to Madrid, which gave me a strong sense of Castilian heritage and history.

Political Conclusions

Meanwhile, my political awakening was continuing to balance the positive stirring with a negative realization of current events. I had known some about the mass-migrations of mostly Muslims into Germany before that, but seeing it with my own eyes punched me to the stomach and awoke my soul, stirring a fire within me that I am a white American man of European descent, whose direct ancestors and cultural background belong to Europe and not to some abstract concept called the "Umma". I had pride in and an inkling of my heritage before and celebrated it on so many levels, but now it was becoming a holistic reality that should also be graced with a spiritual transformation.

My growing distance from Muslims was already coinciding with the U.S. presidential campaign. I was no supporter of Donald Trump for my own principled reasons, but neither was I any supporter of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I wrote and called out all of them, as any perusal of my writings from that time attest. But seeing the vitriol and hypocrisy of the authoritarian Cultural Marxist Left made it clear that the latter was by far the most dangerous. My own broadly libertarian principles coupled with traditional ideas, were now converging with my awakened sense of ethnic identity as a reaction to the insanity of Cultural Marxism.

The consensus of the Muslim community in America was to support the Democratic Party along with the alliances with the Cultural Marxist Left - their dogmas of mass immigration, multiculturalism and Political Correctness. The hypocrisy of those who demand that our countries must be "open" to even our own demographic replacement, to those who say nothing against the wars of the Clintons or Obama, even while shedding crocodile tears about "refugees" while ignoring the reality of economic migration. I was seeing the broader agenda here, with various Zionist/Globalist bankers supporting both wars in the Middle East and open borders in the West, so that all the political obsessions I had about the Middle East (as indeed was common with any of us in the "Truth" movement) were now being transferred to my own environment.

Every fiber of my being was repulsed by these hypocrites, growing more and more as I became more conscious of things I overlooked before. I was seeing Muslims converge behind these dogmas not for truly altruistic reasons but purely for the same reasons that so many Jews have been the driving force behind mass immigration in our European or North American societies - the resulting multicultural, leveling process benefits their own identity politics. And so it was with Muslims who obviously support more mass immigration of Muslims, resulting in Islamization (not through "creeping sharia" but through PC thought-crime laws masked as "hate laws", just as had been done with "anti-Semitism") and hence the growth of the religion they obviously regard as the "Haqq" that everyone should be "convinced" about as is the nature of these universalist religions.

Separating the Cultural from the Spiritual

My approach to Islam had always been more spiritual than legalistic, which is why I gravitated for most of my time as a Muslim towards Sufism - a balance between the spiritual and legal, but still with a more mystical perspective. Nevertheless, I remained open-minded, critically thinking about things such as the hadith - downplaying or rejecting some as opposed to others that seemed more logical. I was able to see that some were direct reflections of 7th-century Arabia, so had a specific cultural context and were far from "infallible". So it was that I possessed a more "nuanced" view of what constituted "Sunna", or recorded actions and behavior of Muhammad.

No matter what religion they possess, the typical person will always bring their own nature and their own unique experiences to that religion, making it work for them whether by focusing on some aspects or downplaying others. This is especially the case with Islam,  which as received to us in the West is certainly not the Islam as practiced in Muslim countries. And this is indeed true of all the universalist religions, which ultimately take on local cultural flavors and expressions.

After a certain point, this process crystallizes where the local culture becomes identified with the religion. Yet there is a hypocrisy where the convert is expected to take on those cultural traits while rejecting their own cultural background. I came to know others who resisted this tendency, but they were always a small minority constantly at odds with the majority trends and even they tried hard to reconcile their true nature with what is essentially a foreign religion. No matter how much we try to reconcile it, all the Abrahamic religions arose from and within the Middle East, so how does it apply to all people in all places and at all times?

Looking back at it, I always had these inclinations that were stirrings of my true self putting up its resistance. I was never circumcised, even after my conversion, always viewing it as a strange custom that belonged to a different culture and foreign to me who actually embraces his intactness. Although I memorized several chapters of the Qur'an and learned the prayers and other acts of worship, neither did I ever focus much attention on learning to read and write Arabic. This is especially significant, because I was always very studious in learning so much about Islam; it just was never an inclination towards the Arabic language. And for the last few years of being Muslim, I eschewed the traditional clothing that symbolized being "Muslim", never obligatory but still viewed as "pious" and "spiritual".

Other stirrings were felt in my behavior and outlook. I was always put off by those who proselytize or apologize for a religion, being sanctimonious like their outer act is a crutch to convince themselves or make themselves feel better. Nor did I give in to a fear/guilt/shame mentality, focusing more on the loving and forgiving qualities of the divine, not beating myself up over "sins" - this should not be confused with being a libertine. I never felt the need to "convince" myself about my own spirituality, a security that ironically brought me to rejecting it because ultimately everything is a life journey - the unfolding of a holistic process towards spiritual growth, always being in a "state of change" and discerning a broader story we continuously write.

Why Monotheism?

Upon my return from Europe and following the election here in America, I dug deeper into spiritual studies as it became clear there was something more than just politics in why I was becoming more conscious of my psychological distance from the Muslim community and a deeper awareness of my ethnicity. Neither was I returning to Christianity, despite some visits to historical cathedrals in Spain and seeking transcendence there and in the religious procession in Madrid. Why I never conceived of anything outside the two religions before? Why this dogmatic belief in One God, Bible and Qur'an, judging one religion by the standards of the other (a reason for my conversion to Islam) - but why not step out of the paradigm itself? After all, I valued myself on my open-mindedness, but simply took monotheism for granted.

They may extol one god, but in practice the monotheistic religions have some being with control over specific natural phenomenon, calling them prophets, angels, or saints. Why would an omnipresent, all-powerful, all-knowing god delegate his powers to these admittedly lesser beings? If he allegedly knows all that we do and has control over all the natural phenomenon, what need for the angels to intervene or record our deeds? If everything is according to his divine will, the natural laws he put in place when "creating" the world, how can this "perfect" god fail so much where he later found the need to send out "prophets" or "messiahs" to correct his earlier mistakes?

Apologists of the Abrahamic religions pride themselves on their "logic", which they use against each other and even within their own sect-ridden religions; its the same with how they will use "science" whenever it seems to "prove" their books, yet disregard it as a false idol otherwise (and I have my own serious problems with scientism). But when we strip the matter down from all the convoluted theological reasonings, we come up with these simple, logical problems left unresolved beyond the circular answer that refers it all back to the book and "belief".

The reality is that Monotheism is very simplistic, reducing the complexities of the world down to one single being. At least that's the theory, because in practice they believe it still "monotheistic" to delegate some of that one being's powers to lesser beings. As one who studied theology, I know the monotheist proposes that for there to be more than one deity means there would be conflict, that their powers would inevitably overstep the other's powers. One central problem is that it ignores the complexities inherent within nature, how every phenomenon shows a myriad of different forces that interact with each other. This principle of one divine being creating a "harmony" in the world by controlling all in his own will or power, is contradicted by the chaos and complexities within nature that nevertheless culminates in balance.

I saw that Polytheism, the nature-based faiths tied to a specific tribe and ethnos, has all the answers for the complexities and chaos we can observe within nature, as opposed to the revelation-based monotheistic religions with their linear view of time and history (ignoring the cycles within nature and history), their separation of the human being from the natural world (rather than seeing them as interconnected, the interplay of all living forms), and viewing our existence as only one temporary life here followed by a permanent existence somewhere else; due to the latter simply not being its focus, how can it satisfactorily explain or reconcile itself to forces within nature?

Problems of Historiography

Neither can the Abrahamic religions reconcile themselves to historiography. For example, the Jewish fables of Moses and the Exodus are completely contradicted by any archaeological evidence and all recorded timelines outside the Bible/Qur'an paradigm. There are no unbiased historical evidences the various Hebrew prophets even existed, much less the various stories repeated about them in both books. One passage of the Qur'an alleges a prophet was sent to "every nation" in antiquity, clarified by a hadith as 124,000, yet the Islamic scriptures only mentions those in the Middle East. Why does it state an alleged universality but then reduces itself to only Semitic stories? The timeline of the Bible is likewise reduced to stories about the Hebrews, so what relevance do either of these books and their stories have for others?

Abrahamics tend to just take their religions for granted, without delving deeper into the historical development of their religions in a holistic rather than a biased piecemeal fashion. Christians would realize how much paganism was absorbed into their faith to spread it, even the holidays and the doctrines about Jesus had their direct parallels in other previous traditions. The Christian of European heritage specifically would realize how this religion was forced upon their ancestors, while the modern secular Abrahamic would shed their apologetic "white guilt" once they realize their ancestors were victims of the very same system of which their ideology is merely a modern outgrowth.

Similarly, Muslims would realize there is a confused historiography about the collection of the Qur'an and the recording of the various ahadith, that would cause any reasonable observer to have serious doubts about their authenticity. The oft-repeated apologist's argument that "Islam was not spread by the sword", by only citing a few select examples where Islam was mostly spread due to the result of traders and mystics, ignores there are indeed innumerable places where Islam was forced upon the people either directly by the sword or indirectly through socio-economic pressures that made their lives miserable. I would simply ask the Muslim of whatever ethnicity, to research from unbiased sources how Islam was spread to your people and what was their native religion before they received Islam - just as I would advise all my fellow Whites to look back into our native traditions.

Much can also be said about the alleged "Golden Age" of Islam, which has some elements of truth but are greatly exaggerated and taken out of context - the latter being that most of these greatest minds were mostly conquered peoples and were notorious freethinkers or "heretics" in one way or another, so how can an orthodox Islam be credited with their impulses? It always annoyed me as one with part-Spanish heritage, how Muslims present the Moorish occupation of Hispania - what they call "al-Andalus" - as a "paradise", ignoring that our ancestors were far from "barbarians", that the Moors (whose invasion was mostly enabled by the vengeful Jews, who hated our Iberian ancestors) were in awe of our ancestors' achievements, and there were many atrocities committed against the occupied across many periods of the Moorish occupation.

Monotheism Is Stolen Paganism

Related to the historiography is an even more serious factor in leading me away from monotheism - the fact that the various stories, motifs and figures of the Abrahamic religions were simply stolen from pre-existing Pagan mythologies; the word "mythology" meant as a profound, deeper spiritual reality conveyed in allegories or archetypes and not synonymous with "superstition" as the various Abrahamic outgrowths assume. Nor is recognizing their Pagan origins negative, unlike the Muslims who point it out against Christianity, the Protestants who point it out against Catholics, etc.. Rather, these Monotheistic religions rest on such shaky ground they needed to absorb the native Pagan motifs and mythologies of the people to even spread their desert religions.

Even the one god figure of the Abrahamics was stolen from Paganism. The Old Testament speaks throughout of the "Elohim", a Semitic plural form for multiple deities. The initial name for the god of the Hebrews was El, which was simply adopted from the surrounding peoples. Initially, "Yahweh" was merely their tribal god which they elevated over all others, without disputing their existence. When we look at "Jesus", we see all elements - a crucified god-man, legend about his birth and its symbols, how his birth was retroactively dated to the Winter Solstice, even the term "son of God" - were already present in various world mythologies. Even Islamic sources admit "Allah" was the name for the Pagan Arabs' chief god, ascribing two daughters and over three hundred lesser gods.

Monotheism itself wasn't new, as there were always tendencies within even the Tribal/Pagan faiths towards reducing all deities to one source. Some of these were rivals to the Abrahamic religions, such as the rise of Mithraism coinciding with Christianity, just like even Islamic sources attest to several prophet claimants throughout Arabia at the time of Muhammad. Yet, these Abrahamic religions (with the exception of Judaism, since they consider themselves "superior' while proposing "Noahide" laws for us "goyim") of Christianity and Islam have stories of their god doing horrible things such as destroying entire peoples for offending him, demanding obedience to him, testing innocent mortals with "sacrifices" to appease him, etc.. This tendency coincided with the centralization of political systems away from the tribal and local to the imperial and even universal, so its easy to see the link.

Conclusion

The more I researched, the more I found there is nothing of wisdom and enlightenment within Islam and Christianity, that wasn't already contained - often with the very same or similar words - within the pre-existing Pagan/Tribal/Ethnic faiths. Yet, these faiths didn't have the negative elements or the fear/guilt and master/slave obedience mentality of the Abrahamic religions, or the rituals trying to govern every single aspect of life. I realized the Pagan/Tribal/Ethnic faiths have a much healthier and holistic ethos, more attuned to nature and accepting human instincts as they are. Quite simply, they have the positive aspects of Christianity or Islam, without all the worst and most destructive aspects.

This is already lengthy, as I don't take any such decision on an impulse and as a complex thinker, have to lay out my reasons for a decision. Yet even with this I am skirting the surface, with many evidences and more specific thoughts to back up each of the statements above. Some of these will be contained in future articles, but as one cannot live only with the negative (of what one is not) my primary focus now is a positive celebration of my heritage, our native spirituality, our traditions, our rich mythos, and both our past and our destiny. I welcome any healthy questions and discussions.

[Update, 2022: Since writing this article, I have learned and grown alot as its all an ongoing process. My failure to join an Asatru group in 2018, due to the paranoia and personality clash of one individual who never truly knew me, forced me to not just settle for the Norse just because it was the only community, but to instead truly find the Gnosis within. The solitary path that I am Continental and Alpine, that there was already much within my family's "Catholic" folk traditions and folklore of our regions just waiting to be reclaimed. I am broadly a Heathen and Pagan, relating to all the Germanic, Celtic, and Iberian parts of my heritage. I learn from closely-related cultures but try to reconstruct down to the Southern Germanic, the Belgae, and the Celtiberians as faithfully as possible. Its all about a self-awakening and rejecting the Abrahamic paradigm rather than a "conversion" to some "religion". Rather, this self-awareness or Gnosis is an alternative to religion, a perspective enriched by my recent discovery of the works of John Lamb Lash. I've also awakened to the Animism that is at the root of all native spiritualities. - SJ]