We Fight Back: Militant Muslims as Christ Killers
by Bill Levinson
Whenever anyone sees the phrase “Christ Killers,” an ancient blood libel for demonizing Jews comes immediately to mind. Islamic supremacists use this theme openly; a color cartoon shows an IDF soldier about to bayonet Jesus in the arms of the Virgin Mary, who begs desperately, “Do not kill him TWICE.” However, our own Web page “Islamic Supremacists: The Twenty-First Century’s Christ Killers” has risen to the top 10 (i.e. first page) of Google search results for the phrase “Christ Killers.”
We have always preached an offensive (as opposed to defensive) public relations doctrine that states that enemy attacks should be met not with passive defense but rather with counterattacks, maneuver, and shock. Maneuver means finding something the enemy cannot defend (such as his treatment of women, religious minorities, gay people, and even the wrong “kinds” of Muslims) and shock means hitting that target with everything we have. Lieutenant (later General) George S. Patton Jr. described the offensive spirit perfectly when he discouraged cavalrymen from attempting to parry an enemy’s sword. The soldier should instead attack with the point (which would outreach the opponent’s cut) and rely on the fact that “the most effective parry is a disabled opponent.” In other words, if you kill or incapacitate the other bugger first, he and his weapon cease to be relevant and you don’t have to parry anything. The same principle must guide our public relations against militant “Islam.”
As an example, the International Solidarity Movement bleats that Israel “murdered” peace activist Rachel Corrie, and expects Israel and its advocates to cringe in shame (“circle the wagons”). The last thing the ISM expected was a counterattack that argues that the ISM and/or its Palestinian handlers set up Rachel Corrie to be killed–and there is plenty of factual evidence to support this allegation–for propaganda purposes. This is an example of maneuver and shock; the enemy does not expect to be hit from that direction, and we hit him so hard that he goes down and doesn’t get up again. We leave passive defense to various student groups (many Hillel chapters come to mind) while we embrace General Patton’s doctrine:
- Now there’s another thing I want you to remember. I don’t want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We’re not holding anything, we’ll let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly, and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We’re going to hold onto him by the nose, and we’re going to kick him in the ass. We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time, and we’re going to go through him like crap through a goose.
In the case of the “Christ Killers” blood libel, we do not cringe and bleat that “modern Jews had nothing to do with that.” Instead, we demonstrate with facts that militant “Muslims” persecute and kill Christians today, so there is no doubt that they would kill Jesus if he was around today. Instead of shrinking from the enemy’s weapon, we take that weapon from his hands and use it, figuratively speaking, to beat him to a bloody pulp.
Here, by the way, is what the militant “Muslims” say about Jews:
Anti-Semitic propaganda depicting Israelis as Christ-Killers
Does this image upset you or make you angry? Do you want to do something about it? Well, General Patton told us what to do about it: “When you put your hand into a bunch of goo, that a moment before was your best friends face, you’ll know what to do.” We know what to do:
What would they do to JESUS? The 21st Century's Christ Killers
Effective propaganda has two components:
(1) It must appeal to the most basic emotions and instincts of the target audience (as opposed to academic arguments and reams of facts, of which the man in the street or typical beer hall patron is unlikely to read more than one sentence before boredom drives him away), and incite visceral hatred of the enemy whom we wish to dehumanize.
(2) Its basis must be factual, or our propaganda will lose all credibility.
The facts justify the application of an inflammatory phrase like “Christ Killers” to Islamic supremacists, and we can use the New Testament when we explain this to Christian audiences:
- “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethern, ye have done it unto me.” (Matthew 25:40) No recourse to Christian theology is necessary to understand the truth of this statement. If someone kills someone’s student, he is killing part of the teacher’s work and therefore part of the teacher’s life. If someone burns someone’s book, he is destroying part of that person’s work. When Saudi Arabia burns or shreds Bibles, it is destroying Jesus’ work and therefore part of Jesus’ life.
Every time an Islamic supremacist cuts off a Christian’s head, hangs a Christian, or crucifies a Christian as is done in Sudan, the Islamic supremacist is also killing part of Jesus’ work and therefore part of Jesus life. As shown by the above statement from the New Testament, this is the same as killing Jesus himself so Islamic supremacists are truly the Twenty-First Century’s Christ Killers.
We are also 100 percent justified in using crucifixion images to demonize and dehumanize the Islamic supremacists in question.
- Sudan slave ‘crucified’ by master But Christian teen rescued, redeemed, still lives with scars
After being nailed to a board by his master and left for dead – the last in a series of torturous acts – a Sudanese Dinka boy escaped from his bondage and lived to tell his horrific story.
While Joseph was at church, some of the camels he was in charge of escaped, and his master flew into a rage. Ibrahim, Phillips writes, “swore he would kill Joseph and do to him what had been done to Jesus … he would crucify him.
“After brutally beating Joseph on the head and all over his body, the master laid him out on a wooden plank. He then nailed Joseph to the plank by driving nine-inch nails through his hands, knees and feet. He then poured acid on Joseph’s legs to inflict even greater pain, and finally left him for dead.”
There is no doubt that this Islamic supremacist would have crucified Jesus had he been available but, as he was not, he had to settle for the crucifixion of a follower of Jesus.
We might add that Christians are free to practice their religion in Israel, although this moves from offense to defense. We point this out, however, for the benefit of Israelis who want to criminalize proselytizing and missionizing in Israel. Our position is that missionaries can be met with a polite but firm “No.” We recommend, in fact, the Asian Indian greeting “Namaste,” a single word that means “That which is of the Divine in me greets that which is of the Divine in you.” It shows total respect for the other person’s religious faith and way of relating to God without accepting his or her theology in the least, and by implication asks the other person to show similar respect for your way of relating to God. If more people used it, there would be no religious animosity in the world today.
In any event, though, we can resort to numerous images to depict Islamic supremacists as Christ-killers. Some of Cecil de Mille’s most successful movies (e.g. The Sign of the Cross) showed Christians being crucified, fed to lions, and so on in Nero’s arena: Quo Vadis had similar scenes. We should go all-out in adapting scenes of Christian martyrdom to the conduct of Islamic supremacists, all with the caption, “What Would They Do to JESUS?”
In summary, wars–whether physical or public relations–are won by offense and not defense. The best defense is to hit the other bugger first, and hit him so hard that you don’t have to worry about blocking or parrying his actions. Remember that the Islamic supremacists have recourse only to the fact that a few persons of Jewish identity argued for the execution of another person of Jewish identity, probably because he wanted reforms (like overturning the money changers’ tables, something Martin Luther tried to do in the Catholic Church many years later). All of this took place nearly 2000 years ago.
In contrast, we have on our side the fact that Islamic supremacists are persecuting and even crucifying Christians TODAY, and handing out death fatwas for conversion to Christianity. Note that many popular movies, e.g. Sign of the Cross, The Robe, and Quo Vadis, glorify the courage of converts to Christianity who face martyrdom rather than renounce their new faith. In Sign of the Cross, a Roman general falls in love with a beautiful Christian, and runs into the arena to die with her when she is fed to the lions. In The Robe, a Roman tribune (played by Sir Richard Burton) converts to Christianity and, when he is condemned to death by the tyrant Caligula, his girlfriend (played by Jean Simmons) proclaims her faith in Jesus so as to die with him. It is easy to envision the development and enactment of similar story lines about Christians in places like the Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and so on. This aggressive and proactive doctrine means our side will control the argument, and therefore achieve victory.
Too Bad the Jews don’t have the same grit as Muslim Fanatics: We have become a nation of WIMPS:
Israelis apologize over Virgin Mary
Olmert apologizes before Vatican
Jewish racists plead with Arab criminals
Either we destroy islam or it destroys us.
Re: #1
Actually, the Pope just told the Holocaust-denying bishop that he had to recant and recognize the Holocaust before he could return to the church’s good graces.
What I DON’T like is Pope Benedict telling Catholic politicians in the U.S. that they cannot support abortion, even though I don’t have a dog in the abortion fight (unless someone goes to an extreme like an outright ban or live birth abortion as supported by Obama). This is exactly the same kind of thing that caused England to make Catholicism illegal in the 16th century, followed by distrust and hatred of Catholics for another couple of centuries. We have bishops who are threatening to excommunicate pro-choice politicians, most of whom I despise (e.g. Robert Casey and Joe Biden), but this is a threat to our secular democracy.
The New Testament (supposedly the Pope’s playbook) says to render to Caesar (the state) that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s. King Henry V said, “Every subject’s duty is the King’s, but every subject’s soul is his own.” This means your personal conduct is the business of your religion, but the office you hold in trust for your country is not. E.g. an observant Jew like Joseph Lieberman has a duty to not eat pork, but no business in promoting legislation to ban the sale of pork to those who do eat it.
The Catholic Church’s new aggressive policy intrudes on the realm of Caesar by demanding that subjects, or citizens, impose their religious beliefs on the rest of society upon pain of excommunication or denial of communion for refusal to do so. It is one thing for the Church to say that, as a good Catholic, “YOU cannot have an abortion or, as a doctor, perform an elective abortion” and quite another for it to demand that you legislate so no one can have an abortion. The Church is way out of line for saying that Catholics cannot vote for pro-choice candidates (an attempt to influence an election), although it is perfectly within its rights to preach against abortion and let Catholics vote their consciences as a result.
Joseph Biden is guilty of using his Senate office to cause emotional distress to an innocent person by falsely accusing her deceased father of vehicular homicide while driving drunk. Biden’s Senate Web site says his wife and daughter were killed by a drunk driver, when a police investigation shows that this was not true. This is something the Church SHOULD demand that Biden retract, because I am sure that causing emotional harm to others through the bearing of false witness is in fact a sin. Biden’s conduct as an individual in this manner is certainly under the Church’s jurisdiction, but his conduct of his office is not.
Bill, this is not a political or religious call it’s a human rights call. Taking a life while inside a womans womb is denying a human life the God given right to exist. Unfortunately there are a lot of unwanted pregnancies and abortion is not the solution. There are a number of remedies available and I guess its esier said then done especially if you are not the one faced with the decision. Our prayers go out to all faced with the unwanted pregnancy and decided one way or the other. It’s still painful.
By the way this was not the reason Catholicism became illegal in England, I think it had to do something about a divorce.
I guess I never figured this one out. Whatever God created is not unclean. The four legged creatures, fowl and fish was for us to eat. I Believe what He meant was to be careful what we feed our spirit and goes to our heart and could destroy our soul, as far as taking food, it just fills the belly and is later discharged into the sewer.
Re: #4
The Pope is addressing it as a religious issue, and is threatening to excommunicate pro-choice politicians (thus coercing the American political system). Were he to address it as a human rights issue, I’d probably agree with him except for early-term abortions. I condemned Obama’s support for partial and live birth abortions in the strongest terms.
You are right about Henry VIII forming his own church so he could divorce his wife. Elizabeth I, however, wanted complete religious freedom for Catholics and Protestants. She had to outlaw Catholicism because the Church, and especially the Spanish Inquisition, were calling for Catholics to overthrow her and even murder her, and too many Catholics seemed receptive to these religious edicts. In other words, there was a real question as to whether Catholics were loyal to Elizabeth or to Madrid/Rome. What Pope Benedict may succeed in doing is to force American Catholic churches to separate from Rome to avoid a similar situation. (Poles are, incidentally, devout Catholics but they became very unreceptive when the Pope called for Crusades during the Middle Ages, and they didn’t allow Inquisitions either.)
Re: “I guess I never figured this one out. Whatever God created is not unclean.” There were actually very good reasons for these rules in Biblical times. Undercooked pork could carry diseases (trichinosis), and so could undercooked rabbit (tuleremia). They didn’t have meat thermometers back then, so you were in fact likely to get undercooked meat. Shellfish are bottom-feeders, and carnivores (unclean per Leviticus) often eat carrion. If you ate those things in Biblical times, you were quite likely to get sick or even die.
One thing I don’t like about the “kosher” stamp is that it suggests that something is “clean” and by implication healthy and safe to eat, when it might actually be more harmful than non-kosher shellfish, pork, and so on. As an example, halivah is kosher, but I have seen halivah with hydrogenated vegetable fats that are worse for you than saturated fat, i.e. probably a lot less healthy than pork.
Perhaps rabbis should come up with a “traditional kosher” stamp that guarantees that a food is clean only per traditional Jewish law while making it clear that it could be very unhealthy, and a “modern kosher” stamp that guarantees that it is both clean according to Jewish law and also healthy to consume. The latter would leave out kosher beef sausages, anything with trans-fats, and so on.
Any stage of abortion cannot be acceptable, taking a life is outright taking a life once conceived.
Yes, with respects to Catholics to live by their convictions regardless of their political positions and has nothing to do with sepertion of church and state. I believe not only Catholics but, all Christians and Jews alike don’t approve of abortion period. It hurts and our hearts cry out when abortions take place as well as when precious lives of Jews are taken away by terrorist.
Our forefathers wanted to be sure the government would not institute a church to rule as in England. However, wanted all citizens the right to exercise the faith of their choice. Note they often declared “In God we trust”. Notice how the progressive-secular movement wants to change this.
I buy that, good common sense, something God instilled in us and I am sure you will agree that there are those that sometimes can’t find use for it.
Bill, this was the missing item
I love it when those who are ignorant speak with authority of the fool. The laws of kashrut are mainly found in Leviticus Chapter 11. also in Deut. Jews consider the Torah as the divinely given words of G-d and even if not fully understood we must obey them. Most of the traditional Rabbinic explanations and they are varied are a bit different than my explanation on Kashrut.
http://www.azure.org.il/article.php?id=151
Jews are not prohibited from eating pork specifically. The prohibition is a trivial consequence of the commandment, You shall not murder, which applies equally to humans and animals. Life is sacred, and murder is prohibited. Practical Judaism, however, recognizes that some killing is unavoidable. Sometimes, it is “kill or be killed,” and Judaism allows killing to save other lives. Jews can kill enemies and heinous criminals legally.
People have to eat meat. The moot issue of vegetarianism aside, people cannot live without meat. In order to save their own lives, people have to kill animals. Hence Judaism makes an exception for three or four animals from the general prohibition of murder.
It is not that some animals are prohibited for food. All animals are prohibited, but out of necessity an exception is made for three or four of them. A few other animals were included in the list of permitted animals later, and erroneously—they do not strictly satisfy the criteria about hooves and chewing. Jews don’t eat humans, just as they don’t eat horses, camels, deer, bears, pigs, and most other species.
Animals earmarked for food must be domesticated. People give them life to take it later. Judaism stipulates that animals must be killed painlessly. Murder—even of animals, even out of utter necessity—is still murder and must not be enjoyed; Judaism opposes recreational hunting.
The choice of permitted animals is not accidental. Cows, goats, sheep, and gazelles are the folklore examples of stupidity. If we have to kill some animals, at least kill the least intellectually advanced. Similarly, Judaism prohibits scaleless sea creatures. All fish have at least some scales, and even shrimp have a scale-like chitin cover. The only truly scaleless sea creatures are sea mammals. They are intellectually advanced, and humans should not kill them for food. Similarly, swarming creatures are prohibited. The swarming creatures par excellence are ants and bees, incredibly smart beings.
Similarly, creeping creatures are prohibited. Their prototype, the serpent, is the symbol of wisdom in Judaism and other cultures. Prohibition of pork has nothing to do with uncleanness. Horses are clean, but Jews do not eat them. Deer are nice, clean animals, yet prohibited for food. Jewish children can play with pigs in a zoo just as they would play with horses. Judaism prohibits murdering animals, not playing with them or using them. Drinking camel’s milk is okay for the Jews just like eating honey produced by non-kosher bees. Jews must not derive benefits from pigs murdered by others, particularly by wearing pig leather clothes. Everything in Judaism is defined by borders that which is permitted and that which is permissible. Separation in everything we do, from the common and mundane to that which we elevate to a higher spiritual plane, like the shabbat. Food therefore takes on a spiritual context. As well as a nationalistic context in that Jews can identify and relate to ea other as a people by means of kashrut, circumcision, and Sabbath.
I should have known better, leave it to Yamit to set the record straight.
Are there such a thing as kosher bees? Son of bitch, last summer I got stung by one, I bet he wasn’t kosher otherwise the kosher ones know I love Jews and I would have gotten a bye.
Re: #15
Horses do not chew their cuds, so they are unclean for consumption. Same for deer.
Catfish are genuine fish, but they are considered unclean.
Bill and Yamit, your both are screwing up my food chain. By the way yesterday I made a large pot of (15 bean)bean and ham soup. I love soup for breakfast, especially in the winter, beats cold cereal. Tell me am good to go with it? If not am I safe with hot oatmeal?
rongrand: In accordance with our resident Labovitcher rebbe, yamit, any food, be it a pork product or shell fish can be kosherized by merely having it immersed in a vat of Jack daniel- but make sure that the liquid is totally imbibed afterwards. This is the secret of the survival of the Jews throughout the ages.
peskin, I am not big on seafood however, shell fish I love, clams on the half-shell, steamed, shimp, oysters raw, fried and stew, king crabs, Maryland crabs, lobster, mussles, the list goes on. Now when I am having pork must I immerse it or am I good to go with the JD on the side?
rongrand: By all means keep immersing, the more the merrier and if you imbibe on the side you will be blessed and have a guararanted location in paradise, for ever.
And may we all say amen.
Rongard: Kosher food is for the purposes of promoting good health. Pork is not permitted simply because it is not amenable to hygienic preservation.We just do not have the refrigeration facilities to ensure the safety of non kosher food.
On the other hand:
Smoking yourself to death is quite permissable.
Ingesting excessive salt (part of the kosherizing process) which is associated with stroke and heart conditions, is quite permissable.
Eating excessively, associated with obesity and reduced lifespan is permissable.
GO FIGURE.
Rongrand: One last point which I should have included in the last post.
Meat and dairy products are forbidden to be mixed.
Example,you are forbidden to drink milk after eating meat.
However,drinking milk prior to eating meat is quite acceptable.
Rongard, now that you are thoroughly befuddled,
May I say good night and good luck.
Re: #11
I make Bean Cuisine soups all the time.
(1) It is a good idea to soak the beans in hot water for a couple of hours to avoid a common problem that comes with consumption of beans.
(2) Fat-free turkey breast is a good meat substitute for ham. Come to think of it, it’s probably kosher as well.
Side note: this entry is #3 on Google for the phrase “Christ Killers.”
Pingback: Israpundit » Blog Archive » Iranian Christ Killers Hang Man for Being a Christian
#12-16, I find it very telling that the self proclaimed Joooos commenting on this site are more ignorant of Judaism than most Goyim, an intelligent person knows when to shut up less we know what he doesn’t, which in this case is less than zero.
In response to #19 and the countless other posts written in the same vein.
the problem cited above might be associated with the author of #19
Peskin; you are a fart, the most putrid smelling one at that. In the vernacular you are mans equivalent to pollution; air, sea, and land. It is not what you say or don’t say. Know or don’t know, You are just a stinking rotten excuse for a living being. You soil even in cyberspace anyone in contact with that that stink known to all here as Hyman Peskin.
I don’t really think those things about you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7-zlrWervc
(1) I do
(2) I think I will try this.
Thanks
I do hate people, who hold back and never express in explicit terms how they feel.
re post 22. Bill Narvey, the deputy sheriff of Israpundit and the fastest gun in the west,why is it you are never around when we really need you?!