Saturday, February 06, 2010

Though Judaism Is Not Necessarily Zionism, Zionism Is Judaism

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

Stating that, "Catholicism is Christianity," is not the same thing as stating that "Christianity is Catholicism." Catholicism is a Christian belief system, but there are Christians who are not Catholics. Zionism is a Judaic belief system, but there are Jews who are not Zionists. However, the fact that there are Jews who are not Zionists does not mean that Zionism is not Judaism; just as the fact that there are Christians who are not Catholics does not mean that Catholicism is not Christianity.

The Judaism of the Old Testament is devoid of spirituality or any advanced Metaphysics. Instead, it posits a creator god who is just like the stereotypical Jew, selfish (Genesis 3:5, 22), jealous (Exodus 34:14), supremacist (Zechariah 14:9), desiring all the gold, silver and jewels of the whole World (Joshua 6:19. Proverbs 1:13-14. Ezekiel 28:13. Joel 3:5. Haggai 2:7-8. Zechariah 14:14), and wanting to rule the World from Jerusalem and impose Jewish law on every human being (Exodus 34:11-17. Psalm 2; 72. Isaiah 2:1-4; 9:6-7; 11:4, 9-10; 42:1; 61:6. Jeremiah 3:17. Joel 3:16-17. Micah 4:2-3. Zechariah 8:20-23; 14:9).

Just as Jews are jealous of others and seek to exterminate them, the Jewish god is jealous of other gods and seeks to exterminate them. Just as the Jews seek to horde all the gold, silver and jewels of the World and bring them to Jerusalem, so too does the Jewish god. Just as the Jews seek to rule the World from Jerusalem, so too does the Jewish god. "As above, so below," or, "On Earth as it is in Heaven," says the Jew.

The point is, Judaism is ultimately mundane and political, and the Jewish god is a reflection of the Jewish person. Judaism is a plan for World conquest and a call to the Jew to be racist, segregated and to steal the land of Palestine/Canaan from the native inhabitants.

The fact that there is no distinction between Zionism and Judaism can be easily proven in a simple example, one of a large number of such examples. Consider the fact that the Zionists want to make Jerusalem the capital of Israel and to drive out all non-Jews from Jerusalem.

It is important to note that the Jews were never the native population of Jerusalem, but were instead always genocidal, racist and segregationist invaders. The Jews have only been majority residents of Jerusalem for relatively short periods of time in their history, and never natives. The same is true of the Jewish god, who sought to drive out and exterminate the native peoples and their gods and make Jerusalem an exclusively Jewish city. The Zionists are in the process of making this Judaic quest a reality, not because politics demands that the Jews be absolutely segregated and that no non-Jews ever again be allowed into Jerusalem, but rather because Judaism demands these things of the Jews, in the Old Testament.

Isaiah 52:1, states:

"Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean."

Joel 3:16-17, states:

"16 The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel. 17 So shall ye know that I am the LORD your God dwelling in Zion, my holy mountain: then shall Jerusalem be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more."

Zionism and Judaism are indistinguishable, but this does not mean that Judaism must be interpreted as the Zionists interpret it, or that every aspect of Judaism is Zionist. It does, however, mean that Zionism is Judaism. And what is it that prominent Zionists say?

Yehoshafat Harkabi noted that Rabbi Meir Kahane wrote in modern times,

"The Arabs of Israel are a desecration of God's name. Their non-acceptance of Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel is a rejection of the sovereignty of the God of Israel and of his kingdom. Removing them from the land is therefore more than a political matter. It is a religious matter, a religious obligation to wipe out the desecration of God's name. Instead of worrying about the reactions of the Gentiles if we act, we should tremble at the thought of God's wrath if we do not act. Tragedy will befall us if we do not remove the Arabs from the land, since redemption can come at once in its full glory if we do, as God commands us. . . . Let us remove the Arabs from Israel and hasten the Redemption (Thorns in Your Eyes, pp. 244-245)."-- English translation in: Y. Harkabi, Israel's Fateful Hour, Harper & Row, New York, (1988), p. 148. Harkabi cites: M. Kahane, Thorns in Your Eyes, New York, Jerusalem, (1980?), pp. 244-245.

Yehoshafat Harkabi noted that Maimonides wrote long ago,

"An affirmative precept is enjoined for the destruction of idolatry and its worshippers, and everything made for its sake. . . . In the Land of Israel, it is a duty actively to chase out idolatry until we have exterminated it from the whole of our country. Outside of the holy land, however, we are not so commanded; but only that whenever we acquire any territory by conquest, we should destroy all the idolatry found there (Hilkhot Avodah Zara, ch. 7:1)."--Y. Harkabi, Israel's Fateful Hour, Harper & Row, New York, (1988), p. 156.


"It is forbidden to show them mercy, as it was said, ‘nor show mercy unto them' (Deut. 7:2). Hence, if one sees one of them who worships idols perishing or drowning, one is not to save him. . . . Hence you learn that it is forbidden to heal idolators even for a fee. But if one is afraid of them or apprehends that refusal might cause ill will, medical treatment may be given for a fee but not gratuitously. . . . The foregoing rules apply to the time when the people of Israel live exiled among the nations, or when the Gentiles' power is predominant. But when Israel is predominant over the nations of the world, we are forbidden to permit a gentile who is an idolator to dwell among us. He must not enter our land, even as a temporary resident; or even as a traveler, journeying with merchandise from place to place, until he has undertaken to keep the seven precepts which the Noachides were commanded to observe (Hilkhot Avodah Zara, ch. 10:8)."--Y. Harkabi, Israel's Fateful Hour, Harper & Row, New York, (1988), p. 157.

The Jews have been saying, "Next year in Jerusalem" (Leshana Habaa Birushalayim) far longer than the term "Zionist" has been in existence. The Jews have wanted to exterminate the natives of Palestine and make it an absolutely segregated "Jewish State" from the beginning. The Jews want to take Jerusalem and make it an entirely segregated Jewish city, not because Zionism arose in the Nineteenth Century, but rather because the conquest and segregation of Jerusalem means for the Jews that they will then rule the entire Earth, judge and then exterminate the Goyim, which is the ultimate goal of Judaism, and was from the beginning. Christian Zionists know this and support it based on Luke 21:24, which states:

"And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."

Christian Zionists are traitors to their own nations, traitors who want to destroy all Gentile countries and make the Jews and the Jewish god masters of the World. This is not a new plan. It is clearly stated in the Old Testament, as I have proven, and those Jews who disapprove of the Zionists' interpretation nevertheless embrace the racism, segregationism and desire for World conquest of the Jewish Old Testament and its god, who is just like them.

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

The Brendon O'Connell Case: Sentenced to Death for Chewing Gum?

Christopher Jon Bjerknes

In order for an indictment to be a legal accusation based upon probable cause and made in good faith, it must at a minimum allege that an offense has occurred, specify the alleged offense with sufficient clarity to enable the defendant to prepare and assert a defense, and establish each and every element of the alleged offense. Consider the following quotation of jury instructions which names the four elements of first degree murder:

"Murder in the first degree is the wilful, deliberate, malicious and premeditated killing of a human being. Malice, wilfulness, premeditation and deliberation, these four things, must co-exist before a defendant can be convicted of murder in the first degree. And the burden is upon the State of Alabama in this case to convince you gentlemen of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and to a moral certainty, that these four elements did co-exist before the defendant can be convicted of murder in the first degree, the highest degree of unlawful homicide."--Ala. Code, tit. 14, §§ 314-20 (1958 recomp.) (repealed):

An indictment alleging murder in the first degree must, at a minimum, allege that a human being has been killed, that the accused caused the death, and that the accused did so with malice, wilfulness, premeditation and deliberation. An allegation which fails to allege each and every one of these elements, fails to allege the crime of murder in the first degree.

Not only must the government allege each and every element of the offense being alleged, the government must also prove each and every element beyond a reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the jury in order for the jury to find the defendant guilty of the accusation. However, where no elements are alleged, the jury will not be asked to determine if the elements which were not alleged in fact occurred. Therein lies the danger of an insubstantial accusation. A person can be convicted and sentenced based upon conduct that is entirely legal.

Assume that the government issued an indictment which stated,

"Person X commited murder in the first degree in violation of Statute 10001 of the Looneyland Criminal Code; in that he chewed bubble gum."

The government could issue such an indictment despite the fact that it is obviously fatally defective on its face due to its failure to allege that a crime has been committed. Nevertheless, if defendant X failed to object to the indictment and demand that it be dismissed on the grounds that it failed to allege an offense and all of the elements of the offense, the defendant could be tried, and the government would need only prove what it had alleged, that the defendant chewed bubble gum, in order for the defendant to be found guilty and sentenced to death. An innocent man who fails to defend himself from an illegal charge that fails to state that a crime has been committed can conceivably be executed if the government simply proves what it has alleged.

There are, of course, remedies and rights to prevent such an occurrence. The defendant has the right to have the indictment dismissed before trial. The defendant has the right to demand specific jury instructions which require the jury to find as fact that all of the elements of the offense in fact occurred. The defendant has the right to claim innocence at trial that despite the fact that the allegation is factually correct, it fails to allege that a crime has occurred. After the trial, if convicted, the defendant has the right to move to quash the conviction on the basis that no crime was proven. Then, the defendant has the right to appeal.

However, how many Pro Se defendants know these rights and requirements under the law and know how to exercise them? Very, very, few, I suspect. So it is possible that a man could be sentenced to death for chewing bubble gum.

An indictment for "racial vilification" must allege all of the elements of the alleged offense and in so doing: specify the exact language of the alleged "vilification" and explain how it constitutes "vilification" and how it constitutes the "vilification" of a "racial" trait; allege that the accused believed the "vilification" to be false statements; allege that the defendant did not intend to forward the public interest by making the alleged "vilification"; allege that the defendant believed the group allegedly "vilified" is a "race" as defined by the statute; demonstrate that the group allegedly "vilified" is a racial group under the letter of the law; allege that the law provided the defendant with notice that the "vilified" group is a "race"; allege that the defendant intended to "vilify" what the defendant believed to be a "race"; allege that the defendant had no legal right to make the statements he is accused of having made; allege that the alleged "vilification" in fact plainly vilified the "race", was heard in public and was meant to be heard in public; allege that the "vilification" was unambiguous and could only be interpreted by a reasonable man as the "vilification" of a "race"; etc. etc. etc.

Of course, no such lawful indictment could be had alleging that a person, believing his statements to be true and in the public interest, made a valid and accurate critique of religious beliefs; because such conduct violates no laws, is not an offense and does not constitute a crime. Any such fatally flawed indictment must be dismissed at the earliest possible date so as to end the illegal harassment of the wrongfully accused; and, where the court refuses to dismiss such a fatally defective indictment, and society suffers the suppression of public debate on a matter of public interest as a result, the denial of the motion to dismiss ought to be appealable directly and immediately to the highest court as a matter of substantial, pressing and urgent public interest.