Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism: A History of Conflict Between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism from the Early Church to Our Modern Time

By Jonas Alexis

Our way must be: never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies beginstep back from that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scale of the Ideology, not gather back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will be exposed as such to the world.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Enlightenment writer Voltaire was amazed that twelve fishermen, some of them unlettered, from an obscure place in the world called Galilee, challenged an empire through self-denial and patience and eventually established Christianity. He seriously thought that twelve philosophers or intellectuals, himself included, would do the opposite and crush Christianity. Voltaires self-appointed cheerleaders such as Diderot, Helvitius, dHolbach, DAlembert, Lametrie, and Baron Cloots, among others, tried to do just that and wrote volumes of work trying to tear down the basis of Christianity and erect an edifice of their own.

Diderot in particular declared, I would sacrifice myself, perhaps, if I could annihilate forever the notion of God. Cloots wrote, We shall see the heavenly royalty condemned by the revolutionary tribunal of victorious Reason. Lametrie produced Man: A Machine, and an entire French encyclopedia was written between 1751 and 1772 by those philosophers because Christianity, to a large degree, had to go. Voltaire would send letters to his disciples and friends saying, crasez linfme. Rousseau, of course, was a disciple of Voltaire and declared that Voltaires work inspired me.

The French Revolution failed. Yet like all significant revolutions before and after that period, the French Revolution indirectly had a theological root which was then a categorical and metaphysical rejection of Logos. That theological substratum has jumped from one era to the next and had and still has historical, political, economic, and spiritual ramifications. This book is about the historical and theological struggle of that conflict, which had its inception at the foot of the cross.

• Language: English
• Publisher: WestBow Press
• Release date: Jan 10, 2013
• ISBN: 9781449781606

Book preview

Table of Contents

Preface & Acknowledgements

Introduction

Laying The Historical & Theological Foundations

Chapter 0.1

The Problem Of Anti-Jewish Reactions In Western Culture

Chapter 0.2

The Neoconservative Movement Is A Fifth Column

Chapter 0.3

Defining Terms: A Theological Issue Of Immense Importance

Part I

Consequences Of Revolutionary Activity

Chapter 1.1

Revolutionary Activity In Europe

Chapter 1.2

Revolutionary Activity In

America & Russia

Chapter 1.3

Capitalism, Exploitation,

& Usury

Part II

Dispensational Premillennialism & Zionism

Chapter 2.1 Luther, Calvin, Milton, & Conflict In The Middle East

Chapter 2.2

The Jewish-Christian

Conflict In Early Centuries

Chapter 2.3

Dispensational Premillennialism & Evangelical Christians

Chapter 2.4

Mammon & The

Israel-Christian Alliance

Chapter 2.5

The Implications Of

Christian Zionism

Part III

Double Standards

Chapter 3.1

The Ideology Of Multiculturalism

Chapter 3.2 The Mind Of The Western World

Chapter 3.3

Immigration Laws &

Double Standards

Part IV

The History Of Ideological Weapons

Chapter 4.1

The Finkelstein Affair:

Thought-Control In Academia

Chapter 4.2

Historical Standards

& Scholarship

Chapter 4.3

Challenging The

Uniqueness Doctrine

Chapter 4.4

The Criminalization

Of Historical Inquiry

Part V

The Third Reich & Soviet Russia

Chapter 5.1

Mischlinge In Hitler’s Third Reich

Chapter 5.2

Extermination Of All

The Jews In Europe?

Chapter 5.3 Concentration Camp Prisoners

Chapter 5.4

The Catholic Church

Versus Nazi Germany

Part VI

Ethnic Cleansing

Chapter 6.1

Rape As A Form Of Revenge

Chapter 6.2

Fads & Fallacies In

The Name Of History

Chapter 6.3

Soviet Social Engineering In German Schools

Part VII

Psychoanalysis & Western Culture

Chapter 7.1

Psychoanalysis As Pseudoscience

Chapter 7.2 Carljung & The Land Of The Dead

Chapter 7.3

Psychoanalytic Warfare

Against Western Culture

Chapter 7.4 Freud, Fame, & Worship

Part VIII

Rabbinic Judaism At The End Of Its Tether

Chapter 8.1

The Struggle For The Soul Of The West

Chapter 8.2

The Spirit Of The French Revolution

Chapter 8.3

Antidote To Subversive Activities

Chapter 8.4

Ideology & The Synagogue

Appendix One

Appendix Two

Norman Davies, Russia: The Missing Link In Britain’s Ve Day Mythology, Sunday Times, May 1, 2005.

Appendix Three

Joel S. Hayward, David Irving, The Third Reich, And The Holocaust, Letter Published By David Irving, 1998.

Appendix Four

Email Interaction With David Turner Of The Jerusalem Post, Fall 2012 (Published With Permission)

Post Interaction

To the Glory of God and His Son Jesus Christ and to the thousands, perhaps millions, of those who follow the truth, no matter where it may lead or what consequences it may bring.

PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am still indebted to Amanda for her trenchant editing work. The second volume was going to be at least twelve hundred pages long, but was reduced to a manageable size with her help, with several sections being moved to the third volume of the trilogy. (I did not include a bibliography in this volume, but will in the final book.) I certainly gave Amanda a hard time with my many requests and updates (almost every other week!) during the editing phase. Thank you so much once again! Since you are a kickboxer, maybe some day I’ll have to make a fool of myself and challenge you to a sparring match.. .as long as paramedics are standing by!

As usual, I have endeavored to ask a number of historians and authors to provide comments on some of the key chapters. Professor Paul Gottfried, author of Conservatism in America and The Strange Death of Marxism, and attorney Ellen Hodgson Brown, author of Web of Debt, both read the chapter on usury and provided some comments, for which I am thankful. Dr. Gary DeMar, president of The American Vision and author of the best-selling Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, read the chapter on Dispensational Premillennialism. Professor Judith Bennett of the University of North Carolina was kind enough to read the section where I disagree with her assessment on monks and nuns during the Middle Ages and provided some useful comments. Historian David Irving read The Criminalization of Historical Inquiry and found it to be a fair representation of what he wants reputable historians to do when examining claims about Nazi Germany.

I also made several attempts to open dialogue with a number of others whose positions I critique in the work. I contacted Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard to get his opinion on chapter 4.1. Within a month, I got a response in which he stood by his actions and ideas, saying that I had not taken [his] position seriously and challenging me to publish his original eight-page letter regarding the DePaul University tenure matter in its entirety. While the space constraints of this volume do not permit me, I will gladly publish it—and address it—in the final volume, while continuing to make it available to any who wish to read it now.

I also contacted Richard Evans of Cambridge and told him that I was taking his work very seriously. We had an interesting interaction and, upon observation, it became obvious to me that although Evans theoretically believes in primary sources (In Defense of History), practically his attachment to the Holocaust Industry does not allow him to follow what he subscribes to, especially when it comes to examining important issues about Nazi Germany. I believe it is that establishment that keeps many historians from reaching their full potential as historical writers.

I also got in touch with Deborah Lipstadt of Emory University, author of Denying the Holocaust, and Michael Shermer of the Skeptic Society, co-author of Denying History. From these interactions, I have come to believe that Shermer in particular superficially believes that extraordinary evidence is important for supporting extraordinary claims, yet does not apply this same standard to some of the claims made by the Holocaust establishment.

I also contacted David Turner and Caroline Glick of the ‘Jerusalem Post, specifically addressing their habit of making sweeping assertions with little or no evidence. While polite, Turner declined to read the chapter I wanted to send him, saying that he couldn’t be sure I wouldn’t turn his words around to support my own polemic, despite my promise that anything he contributed would be quoted fully and completely. Unfortunately, I received no response from Glick. Despite my strong disagreement with Turner, he certainly is to be applauded for granting me permission to put his ideas out there so that they could be examined in light of reason, logic, and historical inquiry. I wish I was also granted permission to publish other interactions with some of the key figures in the Holocaust establishment. The interactions are in Appendix Four.

I genuinely thank all of those who took the time and effort to interact with me, since this is how iron sharpens iron. Critiques are invaluable for challenging you to reexamine the issues, particularly when it comes to logical consistency, historical accuracy, and rational evidence. As I will demonstrate in this work, some historical writers philosophically believe in consistency and accuracy as long as it doesn’t affect their preconceived notions. This is especially true about key aspects of the Holocaust, which have become, in the words of the late Christopher Hitchens, a secular religion, with state support in the form of a national museum (The Strange Case of David Irving, LA Times, May 20, 2001).

So long as this secular religion dictates what can and cannot be said about history, it will coerce truth to take a back seat in historical discussions, since the preservation of the secular religion will always take primary place. This ideological bent has already taken hold in Europe, where a person can go to jail for critiquing it. I believe that the time will come when this secular religion will at last be viewed for what it really is: an ideology that seeks to subvert the pillars of Western Civilization in general and Christianity in particular.

Jonas E. Alexis

November 25, 2012

[e-mail]

INTRODUCTION

LAYING THE HISTORICAL & THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS

We need to read about the past in order to understand the present. People without a grasp of history are like a person without a memory. Many of the current beliefs in our society are properly grasped only when we see how they have emerged. A knowledge of history will help us to understand better both ourselves and those with whom we might disagree.

Tony Lane1

Chapter 0.1

The Problem of Anti-Jewish Reactions in Western Culture

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

2 Corinthians 10:4-5

The summer of 2012 must have been a pivotal point for Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician who, in 2009 and 2010, had likened the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. The ambitious forty-nine-year-old politician attempted to stop the Islamisation of the Netherlands, arguing that Muslims refused to assimilate in the Netherlands. Because they preferred to build their own enclaves, they were not contributing to the future of the country. Wilders wanted the Koran to be outlawed from the Netherlands so that Muslims would have to assimilate in order to unite the country as a whole.

Many of Islam’s critics have observed that it is gaining momentum in some sections of the West;² it has also been criticized by neoconservative writers of various stripes.³ Yet at least one rabbi in Israel considers the Islamization of Europe a good transformation. Baruch Efrati, a yeshiva head and community rabbi in the West Bank settlement, declared that the Islamization of Europe is, in the end, an undertaking that will turn out to be good for the Jews. Efrati declared, Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years we were in exile there. We will never forgive Europe’s Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly.. .not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity.. .Europe is losing its identity in favor of another people and another religion, and there will be no remnants and survivors from the impurity of Christianity, which shed a lot of blood it won’t be able to atone for. Even if we are in a major war with the region’s Arabs over the Land of Israel, Islam is still much better as a gentile culture than Christianity.⁴ (Efrati

The neoconservatives have taken American international relations on an unfortunate detour, veering away from the balanced, consensus-building, and resource-husbandry approach that has characterized traditional Republican internationalism.

Stephen Halper and Jonathan Clarke²⁹⁸

We are witnessing the same thing in Syria, where the Christian minority has been targeted by the Syrian rebels.301 And by October 2012, it was clear that by supporting the Syrian rebels, the U.S. ended up supporting hard-line Islamic Jihadis, says David Sanger of the New York Times.302 The rebels themselves have been known to support senseless destruction, criminal behavior and the cold-blooded killing of prisoners.303 By the end of November 2012, the Syrian war had caused at least 40,000 people to leave their homeland, and 1.2 million have been driven from their homes within the country, according to the United Nations refugee agency. Some 2.5 million people need humanitarian assistance, and the number keeps climbing. That is perhaps a lonely voice, but using Islam as a back-up plan to attack Christianity has happened before. In 614 A.D., the Jews joined the Persian army in slaughtering 66,000 to 90,000 Christians in Jerusalem as a form of revenge.5)

This issue has been raised in many other European countries, particularly in England, where among other issues, they are facing an alarming increase in the number of Muslim pedophiles and predators.6 Rochdale, Greater Manchester, had a group of British Pakistanis known as the Rochdale sex trafficking gang that kidnapped and raped young British girls. This was called an uncomfortable issue7 largely because the police were scared of being called racists for investigating the situation. Two journalists for the British newspaper the Guardian noted, Political correctness and fear of appearing racist had trumped child protection.8 But some of the perpetrators were eventually found guilty.9

Wilders, however, did not mince words. He saw Islam as dangerous and had the audacity to make his voice heard. He called Islam a violent, imperialistic and fascist ideology and Muhammad the devil representing this ideology.10 In order to quicken the assimilation process, Wilders suggested that the government should close down Islamic Schools and stop building mosques.11 Muslim protesters counter-attacked in 2009 by displaying signs and posters which read, Sharia for the Netherlands; Islam will dominate; Islam will be superior.12 This action was an obvious sign that multiculturalism—the ideology that all ideas, regardless of their contradictory nature, are equally valid, except European ideas—was failing Europe. Wilders wanted to debate the issue, but it was already too late to gain a hearing; instead, he was accused of inciting hatred against Muslims.13

Throughout all of this, Wilders remained in good standing among the neocon-servatives in America, and was never considered anti-Muslim.14 Wilders even wrote a book on Islam entitled Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me. Neo-conservative writers and those with a penchant for neoconservative ideology, such as Robert Spencer, Mark Steyn, Bruce Bawer, and David Horowitz, have all given Wilders great accolades.15 He has been praised by pro-Israel groups in the United States for being one of Israel’s best friends. Wilder cherished Israel as his home and declared, We see Christians and Jews as part of one culture. When I’m here [inje-rusalem] I’m with my people, my country, my values. I feel more at home here than in many other European countries. Israel’s a democracy—it’s everything we stand for.16 Wilders even bragged about being called a zionist pig and admitted that he has been a Zionist since the 1980s.17 Moreover, Wilders tried to propose a national holy day to commemorate those who died in Auschwitz. So far, so good.

But all of that changed in 2012 when Wilders wanted to ban both Muslim and Jewish ritual slaughter of animals in the Netherlands. Now Wilder was a full-blown anti-Semite.18 Israel’s Ashkenazi chief rabbi Yona Metzger declared of Wilders’ stand: This is the classical anti-Semitic way our rites have been targeted and demon-ized throughout history. Similarly, Manfred Gerstenfeld, an Israeli author, declared that Wilders was spreading anti-Semitism across Europe.19

Metzger and Gerstenfeld did not even mention that the ban was also against Muslim rituals. The ritual slaughter of animals by any group would have been prohibited, but because Jews were included in this ban, Metzger and Gerstenfeld saw the proposed law as anti-Semitic. To put it another way, suppose Wal-Mart closes at midnight and does not allow anyone into the store until the next morning. Would it be anti-Semitic to say that Wal-Mart does not allow Jews into the store after midnight? According to the implications of what Metzger and Gerstenfeld propounded, it is.

We see the logical extension of this in other historical areas. For example, we are told that six million Jews died during the Holocaust, and there are dozens of museums built to memorialize those people. Fair enough. But how many Chinese died in the Second World War? Some historians have put the figure in the neighborhood of 10 million.20 Other historians have estimated it to be between 15 to 20 million.21 Moreover, there were Christians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and political dissidents who lost their lives in concentration camps as well. Why then don’t we memorialise all the dead, as opposed to just one particular people? Why don’t we build a museum for the Chinese too? There is a serious logical disconnect here.

Jewish scholar Yuri Slezkine of the University of California postulates on the first page of his work The Jewish Century, The modern age is the Jewish Century, and the twentieth century, in particular, is the Jewish Century.. .Modernization is about everyone becomingjewish.22jewish scholar Benjamin Ginsberg of Johns Hopkins University and Jewish writerJ.J. Goldberg came to similar conclusions.23 In a speech delivered at the B’nai B’rith in 1902, Solomon Ehrmann, a Viennesejew, envisioned a future in which all of mankind will have been Jewified and joined in union with the B’nai B’rith. When that happens, not only the B’nai B’rith but all of Judaism will have fulfilled its task.24 According to historian Albert S. Lindemann of the University of California, for Ehrmann, Jewification equaled enlightenment.25

One of the greatest weapons used in this ideological war is the concept of anti-Semitism, a term that was invented in the 1870s. By the fall of 2012, European Jewish Union CEO Tormer Orni universally declared that anti-Semitism is part of Europe’s DNA.26 According to this implication, Europe has no choice but to embrace anti-Semitism. In order to understand the root of this logical breakdown, one has to go beyond the realm of the term anti-Semitism and see how it is carelessly applied in the historical and political landscape. The conflict is not about whether you are a Jew or not, or whether you like to support Jews or not, but rather it is about a theological struggle that has been in existence for almost two thousand years between Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism.

These two systems have their offspring, and Metzger and Gerstenfeld are the great-grandchildren of the latter. The sources of both systems are theological, not ethnic, and it is here that our study becomes interesting because the conflict of the ages rests on those two key theological building blocks. Western nations and serious intellectuals, in order to understand this conflict, cannot use the term anti-Semitism so loosely anymore because for Christians in particular it is not about hatred toward a certain people, but about the central issue of the ages: Jesus Christ, the Logos and Sustainer of all that exists. Logos gave us reason in all of its manifestations and progressively gave us the foundations of Western culture. It was the central teachings of Christ—and those who took them seriously—that put Western culture back on its feet after the fall of the Roman Empire.27 Rabbinic Judaism, as I will be arguing in these pages, gave us the antithesis of Logos.

From their very inception, both Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism were and still are at war with each other. The issue has never been about attacking or demonizing Jews, as many writers have insinuated.28 This is one reason why in2012 some Jewish settlers, in order to insult Christians in Jerusalem, vandalized at least one monastery and spray-painted Jesus is Monkey on the walls.29 The following month, a similar incident happened on the door of the Church of the Dormitory on Mount Zion, outside the walls of Jerusalem’s Old City, where the inscription read, Jesus , the son of a bitch, price tag.30 The West and Christian Zionists31 acted as if nothing happened; yet we have a plethora of news outlets telling us what happens in the Muslim world when Muslim extremists act against Israelis.

In July 2012, the Bible Society in Israel sent a collection of New Testaments to the members of the Knesset party, the unicameral legislature in Israel. One member, Michael Ben-Ari, an archeologist, tore the New Testament to pieces and declared that it should have been thrown in the trash can of history. Sending the book to lawmakers is a provocation. There is no doubt that this book and all it represents belongs in the garbage can of history, Ben-Ari declared. This abominable book galvanized the murder of millions of Jews.32 When the British government declared in 2010 that Israel was implicated in the Dubai assassination—and the evidence that the Mossad carried out the job is well known33—Ben-Arid declared that the British were lower than dogs. Arieh Eldad, a member of the National Union Party in Israel, said something similar. Eldad declared, I think the British are being hypocritical and I do not wish to insult dogs here, since some dogs show true loyalty.34 The Jerusalem Post reported accurately that Ben-Arid is a devotee of the late Meir Kahane,35 but it did not mention that Kahane was a terrorist who committed radical acts of terrorism.³⁶ Moreover, Israel’s colossal aggression against the Palestinians is well known among Jewish academics and scholars,37 but the Zionist regime in Israel has convinced the Western world that the true enemy of the world is Iran, while simultaneously planning, by May 2010, to place a permanent submarine station carrying nuclear cruise missiles in the Persian Gulf.38 The Western world actually listens to the regime, and sanctions have been placed on Iran which have hurt the Iranian economy a great deal.39 Scholar Trita Parsi warns that this could backfire badly, because the average Iranian believes America is largely responsible for their suffering, adding that sanctions on Iran have led to a lack of medical supplies for patients.40 The Israeli newspaper Haaretz did not hesitate to point out that, according to the Talmud, A man must say three blessings every day during morning prayers: He thanks God ‘that He didn’t make me a gentile, that He didn’t make me a woman, that He didn’t make me an ignoramus. 41 We find similar implications when the Pharisees told Jesus that they are Abraham’s seed and therefore Abraham is our father ( John 8:33, 39). In other words, they were declaring that they are God’s chosen people by blood and therefore Jesus had no business telling them to believe in Him in order to be a part of God’s family. Jesus denied their claims by saying, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham, which means that they would believe in Him, for Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad ( John 8:39, 56). They further declared that God was their father, to which Jesus responded, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me ( John 8:42). After a long back-and-forth conversation, Jesus told them, Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do ( John 8:44). They eventually tried to kill Jesus , but He hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by" ( John 8:59). From this point on, anyone who dared to say that Jesus was the Messiah or the Son of God was cast out of the temple (see John 9). Israel today reiterates that theological system by refusing to give citizenship to Jews who have accepted Jesus .42 In other words, the Apostle John’s position that the issue is theological still stands today.

The gospels largely mark the beginning of the key issues which would set Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism apart for centuries to come, and though some scholars erroneously believe that the conflict happened later, the New Testament and historical writings make it clear that the theological divergence happened during the time of Jesus ‘ ministry.43 Some modern scholars, many of them Jewish, have even gone so far as to propose the historically and theologically untenable idea that the two systems never parted.44 Not so. They parted from the beginning, and the teachings of the Pharisees evolved into Rabbinic Judaism, which became the predominant worldview for the Jewish people.45 Those who followed the theological teachings of the latter routinely began to persecute Christians, and Paul lamented that those people have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost (1 Thessalonians 2:15-16). As Paul begins to explain the work of the law and the work of Christ in his epistles, the Jews’ special relationship progressively becomes mute (Romans 2:28-29; Galatians 3:28-29).46 And by the time the book of Revelation was written, Rabbinic Judaism theologically and exegetically became the synagogue of Satan, the spiritual and diabolical cell from which all significant revolutionary activity springs—from the first century to the twenty-first.

As I will demonstrate in this volume, this theological substratum has historical, political, economic, cultural, and spiritual ramifications throughout the ages. Christ prophesied that He would come and judge first-century Israel for her rebellion, and He did come in the form of the Roman army that destroyed the Temple, never to be reconstructed again.47 After the event, several attempts were made to rebuild the Temple; all failed. In the fourth century, Julian the Apostate ordered the Temple to be rebuilt with state funds,48 and Jews throughout the region gathered together to see it done. Church historian Philip Schaff noted, The Jews now poured from east and west into the holy city of their fathers, which from the time of Hadrian they had been forbidden to visit, and entered with fanatical zeal upon the great national religious work, in hope of the speedy irruption of the Messianic reign and the fulfillment of all the prophecies.49

Julian was aware of Christ’s words that the Temple would be destroyed forever, and was anxious to prove Christ wrong. In a letter entitled To the Community of the Jews, Julian made it clear that he would use all my zeal to make the temple rise to its feet once again, where Jews would be able to perform sacrifices and where Christianity would be proven wrong.50 Julian declared, The high priest of the Hel-lenes would embarrass the god of the Galileans [Christians] on his own terrain, making Him [Christ] to be a charlatan.51 Not only that, in Against the Galileans, Julian put forth a frontal attack against Christianity, accusing Christians of all sorts of things, including impiety and atheism.52

Julian, in the words of late Cambridge historian J. B. Bury, attempted to revive old and expiring paganism.53 For this reason, Julian excites the interest of mankind,54 particularly those who want to challenge some of the prophecies made in the New Testament. In 344, seventeen years prior to Julian becoming an emperor, Con-stantius sent Julian into obscurity in Macellum, which was a luxurious palace, though Julian called it a prison. There he met with Christian clergy, from whom he acquired some superficial knowledge of the Scriptures,55 and it is highly probable that Julian may have learned about the prophecies made by Christ in that palace. Julian already despised Christianity after he saw his relatives murdered by Christian relatives. It is said that he never recovered from that nightmare and carried that bitter hatred with him for much of his life. That nightmare transformed itself into a complete hatred of Christianity, and this almost certainly precipitated Julian toward blatant paganism, considering the fact that the man who murdered his family, Constantius II, was a professing Christian.56

While he was in obscurity and learning the philosophy of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and other Greek writers and thinkers, his eyes were fixed upon paganism, declared Ammianus Marcellinus, one of his close friends.57 When he returned from obscurity after six years, Julian—an erudite student by that time—sought those who took paganism seriously, who had easy access to the ears of the gods, and who could command winds, waves, and earthquakes.58 One of those individuals was Aedesius, who was said to receive oracles from the deities by night.59

Another individual who greatly influenced Julian was Maximus, one of the most well-known mediums of the fourth century, who had the ability to perform seances and call upon the deities with remarkable success. Julian was particularly interested in seeing Maximus because Julian’s friend, Eusebius of Myndus, a Neo-Platonist, told him stories about Maximus’ occult techniques. He made a number of us descend into the temple of Hecate, Eusebius declared. There he saluted the goddess. Then he said: ‘Be seated, friends, see what happens, then judge whether I am not superior to most men.’ We all sat down. He burnt a grain of incense and chanted a whole hymn in a low voice. The statue began to smile, then to laugh. We were afraid at the sight.60 Julian was impressed, and within a short time Maximus became one of Julian’s advisors. He also was initiated into the ritual theurgy, a pagan occult ceremony during which prayers to deities are chanted. During initiations, participants usually become possessed. Moreover, the deities always give signs of their presence.61 Julian became frightened as he began to see those signs and apparitions during his initiation. After the occult initiation, it is reported that Julian became possessed and was thus the servant of the deities.62 From that time on, Julian became a full-blown pagan and communicated with the deities through divination.63 Convinced that he was guided by them, Julian became more and more aware that his actions and fate were all determined by divine oracles and voices.

By this time, Julian began to view Christianity as a barbarian cult and began to repudiate whatever Christian education he had previously learned. Later, Julian got initiated into pagan cults and ancient mysteries such as the worship of Mithras.64 Yet all of that was done in private. In public Julian would threaten with torture anyone who dared practice divination, but in private Julian was calling on the deities with the adepts.65 Julian’s dream seemed to have come true when Constantius died in 361 and he was made emperor. To his surprise, most of his soldiers now revered paganism and practiced it. He wrote a letter to Maximus declaring, We worship the gods openly; most of the soldiers who follow me reverence them! We have thanked the gods in the sight of men with many hecatombs [sacrifices to the gods].66 Julian continued to practice those sacrificial rituals for years, calling on all the gods such as Saturn, Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, Pluto, Bacchus, Silenus, Aesculapius, Castor and Pollux, Rhea,Juno, Minerva, Latona, Venus, Hecate, Mithras, and Dionysus.67

By his own admission, Julian saw that blatant persecution of Christians had not been a success in the past and was not the right method to conquer Christianity.68 Constantitus, the previous emperor, had banned all bishops. Julian issued an edict allowing them to come back, resuming possession of their confiscated property but not their sees.69 Not only that, Julian summoned all the clerical leaders of various beliefs from within Christianity, telling them that they were free to practice Christianity under no threat of torture. Julian’s admirer, Ammianus Marcellinus, saw this as a divide-and-conquor strategy. Since the leaders had different forms of practicing their faith, Julian reasoned that they would end up quarreling among themselves, which would eventually destroy the Christian faith from within. That strategy failed and it ended up strengthening the faith of the believers.

Julian then tried to apply other failed methods, such as forbidding Christians to teach in public schools where Greek and Roman literature provided the background of education. He insisted that if Christians were going to teach such books, they must be willing to embrace the religion of the authors. He wrote, Homer, Hes-iod, Demosthenes, Thucydides, Isocrates, Lysias, all founded their learning on the gods. Did not some of them believe themselves to be consecrated to Hermes and others to the muses? It seems therefore absurd to me that those who explain their works should not worship the gods they reverenced.70 ( Julian had forgotten that his teacher was Christian.) That edict was a complete disaster because two of the most erudite and prodigious teachers of the time were Christians—Prohaeresius of Athens and C. Marius Victorians of Rome. Once the edict was given, they both resigned from their posts, which meant that the public schools had lost two of their most qualified teachers. A third prodigious Christian teacher was Libanius. Julian did his best to win him over to paganism, but failed. He finally allowed Libanius to teach without adopting the pagan gods whom the Greek writers revered. Since Christians were no longer allowed to teach in the public schools, they began to study the Greek language and write books in the same language, which could serve as a replacement of the Greek writers.71

Julian also wanted pagan priests to set up charitable organizations in order to compete with the Galileans.72 In 362 he complained to a pagan priest that Christians were gaining the upper hand because of their moral character, even if pretended, and that their benevolence toward strangers and care for the graves of the dead attracted people to the Christian movement. He continued, I think that when the poor happened to be neglected and overlooked by the priests, the impious Galileans observed this and devoted themselves to benevolence. The impious Galileans support not only their poor, but ours as well; everyone can see that our people lack aid from us.73 But Julian quickly found out that paganism, as Rodney Stark put it, lacked the kind of voluntary system of good works that Christians had been constructing for more than three centuries.74 Julian was disappointed by his inability to persuade people to see the true value of paganism. For example, In Galatia, at Pessinus where stood a famous temple erected to the Great Mother, he had to bribe and threaten the inhabitants to do honour to the goddess. At Beroea he harangued the municipal council on the duty of worshipping the gods. ‘They all warmly praised my discourse,’ he says somewhat sadly, ‘but none were convinced by it save the few who were convinced before hearing.’75

Ammianus Marcellinus, himself a pagan and a biographer of Julian, thought that Julian’s effort to unite paganism in the Roman Empire with the common people in particular was, according to Bury, a devout imagination not worth the trouble he wasted on it.76 His effort only attracted the narrow circle of Neoplatonist sophists, and they had no influence with the people.77 Julian called his effort Hellenism, but that effort failed for various reasons. At its root, paganism lacked the mechanism to transform life from the inside out. Moreover, as Bury put it, paganism, with Julian as the chief proponent, did not have the prophetic fire and inspiration—and Julian was no prophet.78 Julian’s paganism, in its essence, lacked the living principle of growth, and could not last.79 What turned out to be true was the prediction of a Christian by the name of Athanasius, whom Julian had exiled and persecuted. Julian’s paganism, Athanasius said, will soon pass.80 Henry Chadwick called Julian’s aspiration to rebuild the temple a political, quasi-Zionist proposal81 which never saw the light of day.

If Julian could rebuild the Temple, then Christ’s prophecy would be shown to be a fraud, and Christians would have no good reason to trust the other things that Christ taught. Julian was on a mission. Christianity is based on the veracity and truthfulness of its founder, and Rabbinic Judaism was solely dependent upon the Temple. As one scholar put it, Julian’s enterprise was that the rebuilding of the temple would prove false the prophecy of Jesus that not one stone of the temple would be left upon another. The falsification of this prophecy would constitute a blow to the credibility of Christians.82 Another scholar declares, There was probably anti-Christian sentiment to the plan [rebuilding the Temple]83 because Julian sought to undermine Christianity without resorting to outright persecution.84

In other words, Julian sought to weaken Christianity and substituted paganism in its stead,85 and to do that he had to ally with the Jews. Julian even wrote a letter entitled To the Community of the Jews, trying to gain their confidence and thus make friends with them.86 As Jones puts it, Julian knew Jews were the main opponents of Christianity;Jews were also involved in every persecution. So he decided to use them to refute Christianity once and for all.87 At first, things seemed to prosper. Jewish women used their garments to help carry away the earth removed by diggers busy with making room for the new foundation.88 Julian the Apostate and his Jewish allies were getting the upper hand. But as the foundations were being dug, flames burst from the ground, and burnt several workmen to death. The work was patiently resumed, but a repetition of phenomenon—probably due to the explosion of natural gas—interrupted and discouraged the enterprise.89

Even the night before constructions began, Eusebius tells us, there arose a huge storm, the earth shook, and huge balls of fire burst forth from the ground and continued to do so through the next day. Instruments melted, workers were burnt to death, strange crosses appeared on clothes and bodies, a luminous cross shone in the sky, and the enterprise had to be abandoned. A violent tremor caused a portico to collapse, killing a number of workers.90 Another Christian named Gregory of Na-zianzen, who was never charged of falsifying or inventing facts by the pagans and critics of the day,91 wrote of the Jewish women who were working on the rebuilding of the temple when the incident happened: A sudden whirlwind and the convulsion of the earth caused them to rush to a nearby church.. .as they reached the door of the church which was open, suddenly those doors closed, as if by an invisible hand, which filled with fear the impious and protest the devout. It is reported unanimously and held for certain that when they tried to open the door of the church, flames that burst forth from the inside prevented them from forcing the door open. The flames then burnt some of them and destroyed others.. .Still others lost various limbs of their bodies to the flames that burst from inside the church and burnt some of them to death.92

Ambrose and Ammianus Marcellus seem to have confirmed Gregory’s testimony.93 Some scholars like G. W. Bowersock declare that the event was probably an earthquake and therefore a natural phenomenon, as if Ambrose and Ammianus did not know what an earthquake was. Then Bowersock proposed another implausible scenario: Sabotage in the form of engineered miracle is also a possibility with a range of candidates, Christian and Jewish, who might have wished to terminate the project.94 Whatjew would try to interrupt such a work and what would they gain in return? And what are the consequences for doing so—particularly if caught? What Christian would be involved in sabotaging the work of the emperor Julian, particularly when history tells us that Christians during that era were known to be docile? Bowersock never explains this.

Christ’s word, as it turned out, was vindicated. As Schaff put it, the united power of heathen emperor and Jewish nation was insufficient to restore a work which had been overthrown by the judgment of God.95 Julian and the Jewish people went back to a state of despair and fear. Julian, formerly ‘madly eager’ to finish the project, was suddenly filled with fear, afraid fire might fall on his own head too. So ‘he and the whole Jewish people withdrew in defeat.’96 Ammianus had no good explanation as to how fire burst from the ground and gave no reason to believe that it happened naturally. Sensing his shame, Julian blamed the Christians of setting the fires in order to stop the construction, despite the fact he could not find a single Christian responsible. Julian failed to see the connection because he was spiritually blind: it was once again the judgment of God reminding the Jewish and Julian that His words are irrevocable and that rebuilding the Temple is a radical rebellion against

His word. Just before he died, Julian eventually conceded defeat, saying, Thou hast triumphed, O pale Galilean. Another account had him crying out, Helios, thou hast ruined me!97

Yet some historians have failed to mention some of the key events that led to the ending of the construction of the temple.Justo L. Gonzalez writes without any clarification or further details that the temple projects were moving along as rapidly as possible, when death overtook him [ Julian] quite unexpectedly.98 Nothing was said about what happened the night before construction, and nothing was said about Julian’s despair that the temple was a failed attempt. Likewise, Paul Johnson did not even mention the alliance between Julian and the Jews with respect to rebuilding the temple in his popular book History of the Jem." Yet it could hardly be ignored, for both Christian and pagan writers wrote about it as a major event. Gregory of Nazianzen declared that the event was so catastrophic that on seeing this, they [the Jews] were so terrified as to invoke in one voice the God of the Christians and tried to expiate Him with many praises and supplications.100 Why would Johnson and Gonzalez not touch on these key issues? We shall see why later.

Fast forward centuries later, where Dispensational Premillenialists have been at the forefront of saying that rebuilding the temple is right in line with Bible prophecy. This was so politically expedient during the Nixon era that one of Charles Colson’s friends in the White House, a flaming zionist who would lecture U.S. officials about eschatology, arranged the clandestine demolition of the Dome of the rock, an Islamic shrine in Jerusalem, to make way for the prophesied rebuilding of the Jewish temple.101 As we shall see, some of the tenets of Dispensational Premillenialism are based on the premise that the Temple must be rebuilt. By proposing such a radical agenda, Dispensationalists seem to have learned little from history and seem to be following in the footsteps of Julian the Apostate. Dispensationalists have already made a false alliance with the Jews, and they seem to have gotten more than they bargained for. Some Dispensationalists like John Hagee have already declared that Jesus never claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and that the Jewish wanted to have Him as the Messiah but He refused.102 Were he alive today, perhaps Julian the Apostate would be stunned to see Hagee is trying to revive a failed revolt against God.

The Temple never got rebuilt during the time of Julian and beyond, even though apocalyptic visions and messianic politics did not die out in the fourth century.¹⁰3 From a theological point of view, what happened to Julian was clear evidence of the handwriting on the wall, but the Jews still could not see it. The revolutionary spirit once again never rested on the destruction of the Temple. More than a century prior to Julian, the Bar Kochba rebellion was a revolutionary movement in the strict sense of the word that led thousands of Jews into slavery and spent the lives of thousands of others.104 Had it not been for its theological nucleus—Rabbinic Judaism—it would not have happened. In a nutshell, the theological background of any significant subversive activity in Europe is Rabbinic Judaism, and its offspring has taken different shapes and forms. A classic case is the French Revolution, which has Freemasonry as its substratum.

Will Durant tells us that the first French Freemasonry lodge, which was founded in 1734, was the nucleus of political intrigue in France, which gradually prepared the way for thephilosophes.105Jacques Barzun agreed with this sentiment, adding that during the Enlightenment Freemasonry created a strong bond among thinkers and politicians alike.106 Barzun however seems to think that Freemasonry is a benign organization, while others like Pierre Goubert and Maarten Ultee denied any link between Freemasonry and the French Revolution, saying things like those who drew such conclusions were ridiculous reactionary historians.107 As we shall see, this is far from the truth. Montesquieu, Voltaire, D’iderot, D’Alembert, and nearly all the atheists or infidels during that era were Freemasons. Jewish scholar Peter Gay of Princeton saw the rise of paganism during the Enlightenment period,108 but he never addressed Freemasonry, which played a key role in the Revolution. Likewise, Jonathan I. Israel of Princeton has dismissed it as insignificant.109 As we shall see in greater detail in a specific chapter, this is not the case. The lodge indirectly produced a cadre of philosophes, or intellectuals, who wanted to eradicate Christianity by any means.

By 1759, Voltaire began to adopt the phrase "Ecrasez l’infame! Crush the infamy! in most of his correspondence and repeated it a hundred times and in a dozen forms; occasionally he used it as a signature.110 Durant, as an agnostic historian, declares that Voltaire was against organized religion, but it became apparent that there was something more, for Voltaire was against the Incarnation, Atonement, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and other core tenets of Christianity. Voltaire at one point even accepted the Talmudic idea that Mary had an affair with a Roman soldier, and called Jesus a fou, an idiot.111 I have the colic, Voltaire wrote, I suffer much; but when I attack l’infame my pain is relieved."112

But to destroy the church cannot be the work of one man. Voltaire called upon men of his rank. He declared: "To overturn the columns only five or six philosophes are needed who understand one another.113 He wrote to D’Alembert, another hater of Christianity, I hope you will destroy l’infame; that is the great point. It must be reduced to the state it has in England; and you will reach this end if you wish. This is the greatest service which we can render to the human race.114 Voltaire commanded those like him to Strike, and hide your hand.. .I hope that every year each of our fraternity will aim some arrows at the monster, without its learning from whose hand they came.. .Attack, brothers, skillfully, all of you, l’infame. What interests me is the propagation of the faith and of truth, the progress of philosophy, the suppression of /’in/ame."115

As such, books became weapons, and literature became war. Not only did Diderot, D’Alembert, Helvetius, and a dozen others bring their pens to the battle, but Voltaire himself, always dying, became a veritable armory of anticlerical missiles.116 By 1767, Voltaire was already happy about the progress the philosophes had made. He wrote to D’Alembert, Let us bless this happy revolution which has been produced in the minds of all honest men in the last fifteen or twenty years; it has surpassed my hope.117 Yet by the end of his life, he lost faith in the revolutionary movement which he had helped shape. Suffice to say that in all his tirades against Christianity, at the end of his life Voltaire could never escape the fact that the universe spoke loud and clear, giving evidence that God is real and is not silent.

In general, as we shall see in more detail, the French Revolution was the offspring of Freemasonry, which was heavily based on Jewish mysticism.118 The revolutionary spirit has never died out, and over the centuries has jumped around from place to place and movement to movement and has even taken different forms and variations. As we shall see, it manifested itself briefly in fourteenth-century Spain when usury was used at an exorbitant rate, which ended up suppressing the peasants and provoking anti-Jewish reactions in the region. It sent shockwaves across much of Europe during the Hussite rebellion in the fifteenth century. It reached its pinnacle during the Peasant Revolt in the sixteenth century when judaizing Christians ended up smearing excrement on crucifixes and vandalizing and destroying churches and monasteries. From 1221 until 1796, the Act, or Statue, was proclaimed in Poland. It provided the background for exclusively Jewish courts in Poland, free of society’s rules and, in the process, exempted Jews from engaging in slavery. This eventually led again to usurious activity, which drove the peasants into abject poverty and led to anti-Jewish reactions,119 although some scholars state that the peasants’ charges were based on false grounds.120 As we shall see, this itself is based on false historical grounds, and even the father of modern Jewish historiography Heinrich Graetz admitted that by immersing themselves in the study of the Talmud, Polish Jews found a sophisticated way to cheat the Gentiles.121 That the revolutionary spirit which fell upon somejews used usury as a weapon to reduce the majority to abject economic poverty has been pointed out by other historians of various stripes, an issue to which we will return when we examine usury.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the revolutionary spirit produced false Jewish messiahs such as Shabbatai Zevi (1626-1676), who spearheaded the Sabbatean movement, and later produced staunch disciples and lesser known messiahs such as Barukhia Russo, Miguel Cardoso, Mordecai Mokia, Lobele Prossnitz, and Jacob Joseph Frank, compounding disaster on disaster.122 The revolutionary spirit swept Europe in the nineteenth century with the rise of Marxism, which was the ideological brainchild of Karl Marx and Moses Hess.123 In the nineteenth century, it showed itself in much of Europe and sections in America in the sex industry, which was largely a Jewish enterprise—an enterprise which gave rise to Hitler’s negative conception of the Jewish.124jewish historian ArnoJ. Mayer of Princeton declares that Bolshevism drove Hitler into a bloody conflict with the Soviet Russia.125 It also had a great influence on the slavery business in the nineteenth century and beyond—a business which again was largelyjewish and which is now laid at the feet of helpless Europeans.126 In the twentieth century, the revolutionary spirit morphed in the psychoanalytic movement with Sigmund Freud as the founder,127 who brought the plague (Freud’s own words) to America in 1909. This gradually branched off into the obscenity scene in the 1920s and all the way to the 1940s in New York and other parts of the United States.128 Freud ended up redefining sexuality and pornography and was indirectly a key figure in the sexual revolution. Wilhelm Reich, Freud’s cousin, took Freud’s ideology and spread it across the board, and for that he was eventually kicked out of Germany.

Using pornography as a weapon is a particular choice because sexual decadence ended up taking the lives of thousands of people right after the Hebrews got out of Egypt (see Numbers 25). In Numbers 22 through 31, we find an interesting phenomenon. Balak, king of the Moabites, Israel’s enemy, tried unsuccessfully to have his sorcerer Balaam use divination to curse Israel. After many failed attempts, Balak became desperate. Finally, when all hope had faded, Balaam told Balak that one way to bring down the people of Israel was to entice them into sexual debauchery and decadence. The book of Revelation later tells us that it was Balaam who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication (Revelation 2:14). Sexual fornication is a quick way to fall into spiritual decadence,129 and the early church was reprimanded for this issue in the book of Revelation.130

First-century Jewish historian Josephus cites Balaam saying to Balak, Do you therefore set out the handsomest of such of your daughters as are most eminent for beauty, and proper to force and conquer the modesty of those that behold them, and these decked and trimmed to the highest degree able. Then do you send them to be near camp [Israel’s camp], and give them in charge, that the young men of the Hebrews.. .when they see they are enamored of them, let them take leaves; and if they entreat them to stay, let them give their consent till they have persuaded them to leave off their obedience to their own laws, the worship of that God who established them, to worship the gods of the Midianites and by this means God will be angry at them.131

Josephus says that when the Israelites began to be blinded by lust and sexual immorality, they fell into sedition and became the slaves of the Midianite women, doing whatever the Midianite women asked them to do, including making pagan sacrifices to the gods of the Midianites. Josephus continues, Once the youth had tasted of these strange customs, they went with insatiable inclinations into them; and even where some of the principal men were illustrious on account of the virtues of their fathers, they also were corrupted together with the rest.132 This eventually prompted God to destroy twenty-four thousand of them. Augustine would say later that lust makes one blind, and this was clearly the case with the Israelites when they got enticed in what was later called the affair of Peor. Commentator Matthew Henry declared that Israel’s sin did that which all Balaam’s enchantments could not do.133 Other commentators declared that Baal-Peor was the god of prostitution, in honour of whom women and virgins prostituted themselves.134

In other words, sexual debauchery is more powerful than magic or enchantment or sorcery. Thousands of years later, Anton LaVey harnessed that sexual power and turned it into a real cultural revolution in the late 1960s and 1970s in America,135 which explicitly called for a subversion of Christianity.136 Like Sigmund Freud and Wilhelm Reich before him, and like David Cronenberg and Al Goldstein after him, LaVey thought that people need to be released from the cage of Christian morals.137 In the process, Christian morality was replaced with sexual liberation and perversion.138 LaVey’s organization was the first group among many to revive sexual magic that had been dead for a long time in much of the West, most particularly in America.139

Perhaps what made LaVey’s ideas popular was that he combined the ideas of Nietzsche, Crowley, and others into a mess of pottage.140 Crowley, who was a freemason and a Cabbalist,141 proclaimed the rejection of all morals, most specifically the morality that is rooted and grounded in Christianity, and implicitly placed man in charge. When Christ was about to be crucified, He prayed in the Garden of Geth-semane, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done (Luke 22:42). Crowley reversed Christ’s words and intoned his most quoted maxim: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.. .There is no law beyond do what thou wilt.142 In the process, Crowley became a revolutionary and dreamed of a day when Christianity would be overthrown and replaced with a new heaven and new earth.143 Crowley called this the New Aeon. The man known as The Beast worked tirelessly throughout his life to bring about this revolution. He saw the arts as a weapon that would play an influential role in the revolution.144 In the end, Crowley died perplexed and in despair in 1947.145 Like Nietzsche before him, he did not live to see the cultural revolution, although he longed to see its fruition during his day.146

Nietzsche, like Crowley, proclaimed the death of God and placed man in His place,147 and even put a curse on Christianity.148 The resemblance between LaVey, Nietzsche, and Crowley is striking. Nietzsche deliberately infected himself with syphilis in a form of demonic pact.149 (Crowley was an expert on sexual magic and was kicked out of Italy for practicing it.150) By taking this route, Nietzsche became a revolutionary in the literal sense of the word; hence, The Antichrist. Nietzsche advocated the transvaluation of all values, wherever values are found, and replaced them with the will to power, the will to dominate, and the will to be free from all boundaries, including sexual restraint.151 Nietzsche longed for the day when Western man would drop Christianity and embrace the cult of Dionysus as portrayed in his first book The Birth of Tragedy. In the process, Nietzsche, like Arthur Schopenhauer before him (who also got syphilis, some say deliberately),152 became perhaps the loneliest philosopher in the entire Western world.

Nietzsche was perhaps vindicated by the life and work of LaVey, who immersed himself in sexual encounters with celebrities such as Jayne Mansfield and Marilyn Monroe.153 LaVey had a hand in some cult movies of the 1960s, including ‘Rosemary’s Baby. The director for Rosemary’s Baby was Jewish filmmaker Roman Polanski, also known for directing supernatural movies such as The Ninth Gate and sexually explicit, almost pornographic, movies such as BitterMoon.

In 1977, Polanski, then age 44, was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, Samantha Gailey. Polanski asked Gailey’s mother for permission to take photographs of the girl for the French magazine Vogue, and the mother agreed. Then Polanski asked the girl to change, well, in front of him. Gailey, who changed her last name to Geimer, remembered, It didn’t feel right, and I didn’t want to go back to the second shoot.. .Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn’t quite know how to get myself out of there. I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!,’ and then I didn’t know what else to do. We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this.154

Geimer testified to her lawyer that Polanski gave her a sedative, and the lawyer declared that despite her protest, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her.155 In his defense, Polanski declared on 60 Minutes, The girl is not a child. She is a young woman. She’s had, and she testified to it, previous sexual experience. She wasn’t unschooled in sexual matters. She was consenting and willing. Whatever I did wrong, I think I paid for it.156 Geimer was thirteen years old at the time.

Blinded by his lust, Polanski could not figure out right from left. Biographer Thomas Kiernan writes, Roman just couldn’t understand why screwing a kid should be of concern to anyone. He’s screwed plenty of girls younger than this one, he said, and nobody gave a damn.. .When in France, he arrogantly displayed pubescent girls under his spell who were used and discarded, shouting, ‘I love young girls.. .very young girls.157 Yet despite these things, Polanski’s lawyers repeatedly argued in court that his client is a criminal only by accident.158 Hardly.

In Rosemary’s Baby, Rosemary is raped by Satan in a dream and later bears his child. Sexual deviancy is also a part of The Ninth Gate, a movie which Polanski labeled an advertisement for hell.159 This description could be applied to BitterMoon as well, which biographer Christopher Sandord pinned as soft-porn melodrama, filled with moral corruption, violence, voyeurism, black comedy, escalating claustrophobia. Polanski declared, Trust yourself, rather than putting your faith in God, the law, the state and the ideologies they embody, or indeed, in other people.160 Biographer Ewa Mazierska writes that this is actually "the message we can find in most of his films. Polanski’s anti-clericalism and distrust in the forces of law and professional authority potentially situate him in a sympathetic relation towards his female characters and towards members of ethnic minorities who are oppressed by these institutions. This is often, but not always, the case. Those who seek connections between Polanski’s life and work might see a link between the author’s life experience and the ideas he espouses in his films Unlike his more politically-minded

colleagues, he is not afraid to use certain politically incorrect ideas or stereotypes to make the narrative work."161

Like Freud, who flirted with incest,162 Polanski views incest as a pleasurable thing, something he inserted into Chinatown.¹⁶3 Then Polanski lets the cat out of the bag when the interviewer was concerned that most people would view his film as being very un-American. In response, Polanski declared that he wanted to make a Polanski film.164 In other words, to create a Polanski film is to go against the status quo, and to go against the status quo inevitably leads to opposing Christianity. For Polanski this would invariably lead to sexual deviance, which to him is Jewish. Ewa Mazierska declares, Polanski’s films reflect his Jewishness and Polishness, as well as testifying to his nomadic character and lifestyle.165

After living abroad for thirty-two years in order to escape charges of rape, Polanski was arrested in 2009. Suddenly the Jewish community