Presidential Election 2024 is finally in the rearview mirror. The results are in, and it wasn’t even close.
The big winner? Jacob.
Again.
And just so we’re clear, if Kamala Harris had prevailed, Jacob still would have emerged as the big winner.
Who in God’s name is Jacob?
Only the most powerful force in American politics, that’s who. I will explain momentarily, but before we get to that, please allow me to rewind just a bit.
In the lead up to the election, I took some heat from “trads” who took exception to my belief, based upon well-established Catholic moral principles, that we have an obligation to vote when doing so might serve to prevent a more unworthy candidate, and thus the greater evil, from prevailing. That most certainly was the case this time around.
But wait, you said that ‘Jacob’ is the big winner either way!
Yes, indeed, but that’s a far cry from saying that the effect on the common good would be the same moving forward regardless of which candidate won. The undeniable fact is that there were major differences between the two competing platforms.
Consider, for example: Even if the Harris and Trump platforms were identical save only for border policy alone, the obligation to vote would still exist if for no other reason than to curtail the drug and human trafficking that has been allowed (encouraged even) to take place under four years of Democrat rule.
Yeah, but…
Tell that to the American mom whose son died of a fentanyl overdose, or the Guatemalan father who, desperate for a better life for his family in the U.S., handed his life’s savings over to a Cartel mule only to see his teenaged daughter raped and then sold into slavery upon arrival in this country.
Ambivalence (or more pathetic still, denial) in the face of these sorts of evils and the impact they are having on real people is not a Catholic attitude. At all. Sorry.
Even so, I fully accept that many of those who convinced themselves of a moral obligation to abstain from voting, albeit deeply confused, meant well.
In any event, my intent in this post isn’t to retry that case. It’s over. Trump, the lesser unworthy candidate, won, and whether or not one wishes to admit it, the common good will be positively impacted in certain ways (like the example above) as a result.
At the same time, however, as far as the “big picture” is concerned, Trump’s victory changes very little. Jacob wins once again.
And exactly who is this Jacob of whom I speak?
I am referring here to the Middle Eastern Talmudic Terrorist State that calls itself Israel, which to my mind is a misnomer insofar as “Jacob” would be far more fitting.
Recall from where the name Israel comes and what it means. Briefly…
In Genesis 31, we find Jacob living in the house of his father-in-law, Laban, the uncle of his mother, Rebecca. After residing and laboring there for fourteen years, Jacob was told by God, “Return into the land of thy fathers and to thy kindred, and I will be with thee.” (vs. 3)
Jacob is obedient.
Along the way, he implores the Lord’s protection. A man humbled, aware of his weakness, he prays, “I am not worthy of the least of all thy mercies, and of thy truth which thou hast fulfilled to thy servant … Deliver me from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am greatly afraid of him.” (cf. Gen. 32:10-11)
One night while alone, the Scriptures tell us that a man wrestled with Jacob until morning (vs. 24). This “man” was held by such Church Fathers as St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and St. Augustine to be a manifestation of Christ prior to the Incarnation.
Jacob refused to cease wrestling with the “man” unless he blesses him first. The Scriptures read:
And he said: What is thy name? He answered: Jacob. But he said: Thy name shall not be called Jacob, but Israel; for if thou hast been strong against God, how much more shalt thou prevail against men? (vs. 27, 28)
Later, we find that this change of name was confirmed by the authority of God Himself:
Thou shalt not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name. And he called him Israel. (Gen. 35:10)
Previously in our reading of Genesis, we have seen how God changes the name by which one is to be known as a means of signifying their spiritual transformation, indicating their crucial place in His plan of salvation (e.g., Abram became Abraham, Sarai became Sarah). When we get to the Gospels, we find that same dynamic at play when Simon bar Jonah is renamed by Christ, Peter, which means “Rock.”
About the name Israel, the Haydock commentary states:
This name was more honorable [than Jacob], and that by which his posterity were afterwards known; being called Israelites, and not Jacobites … It means a prince of God, or one standing upright, and contending victoriously with God. Many have expounded it, a man seeing God; aiss-rae-al.
Jacob’s wrestling was viewed by St. Augustine as an image of one who perseveres in prayer, struggling for virtue.
NB: The notion of “contending with God” is not properly understood as man “kicking against the goad” (Acts 26:14), resisting the will of God, but rather the exact opposite. Jacob was renamed Israel because had undergone a metanoia, a spiritual conversion from the man he once was to a man who, although still imperfect, humbly accepted and acknowledged his dependence upon God.
But why was Jacob so fearful of his brother, Esau?
It is in this part of the story that we find the reason why, in my opinion, the modern terrorist state of Israel would be far better known as Jacob. Though the story is likely familiar to all, I will summarize.
Even as Rebecca was pregnant, the twins struggled in her womb. The firstborn child was hairy and was, therefore, named Esau (which means, hairy). The second child was born gripping his brother’s foot and so was named Jacob, which means wrestler or supplanter.
As the firstborn male, Esau was in line to receive the birthright – a double share of his father’s inheritance along with authority over the family. He was also entitled to the blessing of his father, Isaac, which imparted a special spiritual favor and the promise of future prosperity.
As adults, Esau was a man’s man, a hunter and a cultivator of the land. Jacob, by contrast, was more of a homebody and mama’s boy. We are told of the brothers, “Isaac loved Esau, and Rebecca loved Jacob.”
One day, as Jacob was home cooking pottage, Esau returned from the fields tired and hungry from his labor. He asked his brother for some of the food, saying, “I am exceedingly faint.”
Though the Scriptures do not say as much, one can well imagine that the ingredients of the pottage – a stew thought to consist of vegetables and lentils, with or without meat – were at least in part the fruits of Esau’s labors. Even so, Jacob, rather than feeding his brother, demanded of him, “Sell me your birthright first.”
Esau, an evidently carnal man driven by his lower passions, agreed.
“Esau swore to him and sold his birthright.” (Gen 25:33)
Years later, when Isaac was elderly and nearly blind, he realized that his death was near. So, he called Esau to his side and bid him to go hunting, that he might bring home the meat and prepare his father’s favorite meal. At which point, Isaac told Esau, he would impart to him the blessing that he was due as firstborn.
Rebecca overheard this and plotted to secure the blessing for Jacob, her favorite, instead. She bid him to quickly get two kids from the flock so she might prepare a meal for Jacob to give to his father while posing as Esau, thus tricking Isaac into giving the blessing to him while his brother was out hunting.
Rebecca clothed Jacob in Esau’s garments, that he might smell like his brother, and even went so far as to place the skins of the kids on his hands and his neck so that he might feel hairy to the touch, like Esau. All of this in order to make certain that Isaac would be none the wiser of their deception.
Jacob was uneasy about the operation, saying, “I fear lest I shall bring upon myself a curse instead of a blessing.”
Rebecca, however, reassured him, “Upon me be this curse.” (Gen 27:13)
And so it was that Jacob the supplanter bribed Esau for the birthright that was not his own, and also stole by way of deception his brother’s blessing as well.
In light of this, can there be any doubt that the modern terrorist state of Israel would be more accurately named Jacob?
Recall that “Israel” was the name given to Jacob by God as a way of signifying his spiritual transformation – from the conniving manipulator who took advantage of his brother’s hunger and his father’s infirmities for ill-gotten gain – into a man who recognized his own unworthiness, an upright “prince of God,” striving to reside in His will, fervently wrestling to attain the only blessing that truly matters.
Only a damned fool – and there are plenty of them, even among self-identified Christians – would suggest that the Middle Eastern Talmudic Terrorist State of Israel is an honorable and godly enterprise.
On the contrary, it is far more “Jacobian.”
How so?
Modern day Israel is the fruit of Zionism, a movement spearheaded by men motivated not by authentic Old Testament Jewish religious concerns, but rather by raw political power and avarice.
Theodor Herzl, David Ben-Gurion, Menachem Begin, etc…
Like many of the biggest names in the Zionist cause, not one of these men were “observant” Jews or even considered themselves religious. The latter two literally served as heads of Zionist organizations (Haganah and Irgun) that carried out numerous terrorist attacks in Palestine in an effort to secure the Holy Land as a “Jewish” state.
And yet, all of them leveraged religious and Biblical language in order to solicit the support of naïve Christians and moderately religious minded Jews. Consider the following Wikipedia entry (well cited with footnotes from Jewish sources) about the first Prime Minister of Israel:
Ben-Gurion described himself as an irreligious person who developed atheism in his youth and who demonstrated no great sympathy for the elements of traditional Judaism, though he quoted the Bible extensively in his speeches and writings. Modern Orthodox philosopher Yeshayahu Leibowitz considered Ben-Gurion “to have hated Judaism more than any other man he had met.” He was proud of the fact that he had only set foot in a synagogue once in Israel, worked on Yom Kippur, and ate pork.
Why did Ben-Gurion quote the Bible extensively despite his irreligion?
The short answer? To deceive, and in a manner even more egregious than that of Jacob, using God’s word in order to secure for himself and his Zionist collaborators that which they were not entitled to possess, namely, what they call Eretz Israel, the land of Israel.
One notes that Jacob, in committing his act of deception, harkened to the voice of his mother, Rebecca, who pledged to take upon herself whatever curse their wicked plan might invite. Theirs was an act of betrayal against Isaac who, in the literal sense, was the head of the household, the father, and the husband. Just as importantly, however, Isaac was also, in the spiritual sense, a figure of Christ Jesus. (Recall the scene described in Gen 22 when Abraham consents to sacrifice, Isaac, his only beloved son.)
The Zionists, for their part, also harken to the influence of another, in this case, the Talmudic voice such as it echoes within the Synagogue of Satan, a vile anti-Christian movement that was also born of betrayal and a inaugurated with a pledge, one reminiscent of Rebecca, “His blood be on us and our children!”
As Christians, we glory in the Blood of Christ insofar as it is salvific for those who receive of it worthily.
Blood of Christ, price of our salvation: Save us! (cf Litany of the Most Precious Blood of Jesus)
As for those “who both killed the Lord Jesus, and the prophets, and have persecuted us, and please not God, and are adversaries to all men” (1 Thessalonians 2:15), i.e., those pledging to take His Precious Blood upon themselves and their children, these in our day are the Zionists, the members of the Synagogue of Satan (Apocalypse 2:9, 3:9) who, as Jacob, wrap themselves in righteous costumery even as they labor to dominate the nations that rightly belong to Christ the King.
About the “Synagogue of Satan” as mentioned in Apocalypse 2, the Haydock Commentary tells us that the words spoken to the church of Smyrna were meant as “a commendation for suffering in poverty and tribulation, when they were rich in grace.”
In other words, the church at Smyrna was an image of the Church of Rome herself, ever faithful even in the midst of her persecution. Haydock goes on to comment on Apoc. 2:9, stating:
Thou art blasphemed by those false teachers, who call themselves Jews and Israelites, and the chosen people of God, waiting for the coming of the Messias, but are not to be looked upon as such; having refused to own their true Messias, Jesus Christ, they are the Synagogue of Satan, the greatest enemies of the true faith.
These are no small words, the greatest enemies of the true faith, that is to say the greatest enemies of the Kingdom of Christ on earth, the Holy Catholic Church, her divinely given mission, and Christian society wherever it exists the world over. Their presence and activity in this world are epitomized in the Zionist cause, its leaders, and its terrorist state, Israel.
Among the nations that the Zionists and their collaborators seek to dominate over and against the Sovereign Rights of Christ the King is the United States of America. Although the U.S. Constitution itself is incompatible with the duties that are incumbent upon nations in light of those rights, the thumb of the Synagogue rests firmly on all three branches of the Federal Government, both Republican and Democrat, multiplying this nation’s offenses against the Lord exponentially.
The election of Donald Trump doesn’t change that reality one bit.
Since his election, Trump has pledged to lift all military supply restrictions on Israel his first day in office, even as it engages in a blatantly obvious genocide operation in Gaza, while also simultaneously laboring to incite a wider conflict with Iran. He has further pledged to crack down on so-called “antisemitic propaganda” on college campuses, which, one can be certain, includes just about anything that makes self-identified Jews uncomfortable, including but not limited to calling attention to Israel Defense Force’s wanton murder of innocent women and children.
More telling of things to come still, he has nominated a whole host of Zionist sympathizers for key positions in his upcoming administration, a number of whom are, like himself, Evangelical heretics who seem thoroughly convinced that the terrorist state of Israel is a manifestation of God’s holy will.
One need not be a Protestant heretic, however, to buy into the Zionist ruse.
The Hindu, Vivek Ramaswamy, whom Trump recently named as co-head of the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, also evidently drank the Zionist Kool-Aid. He very succinctly summed up the prevailing mindset among most of America’s ruling class when he publicly described the “Jewish state” as a “divine gift, gifted to a divine nation, charged with a divine purpose.”
It’s as if a non-negotiable prerequisite for achieving political power in this country is that one be willing to defend – or at the very least, passively accept – such things as Israel’s land annexation (aka theft), its genocidal behavior, its perpetual victimhood status, and its incessant warmongering.
One must also choose not to notice that the “Jewish state” – far from existing in order to honor the God of the Old Testament – is infested with LGBT activism, grants wide access to publicly subsidized abortions, and brutalizes the anti-Zionist religious Jews residing in the Holy Land – its own citizens.
One must also, it seems, remain ignorant of the reality that the modern terrorist state of Israel is nothing more than a manifestation of the Talmudic myth of Jewish supremacy over all humankind, one that has been wreaking havoc on Christian society for centuries on end, i.e., well before the establishment of a “Jewish state.” (See The Jewish Question in Europe, La Civilta Cattolica, vol. VII, no. XIV, 1890),
And this is a divine nation with a divine purpose?
If a declaration such as this isn’t a shining example of calling evil good, putting darkness for light, and bitter for sweet (Isaiah 5:20), nothing is.
So too is calling the modern terrorist state under discussion “Israel.” It’s like referring to Jacob disguised in his brother’s clothing “Esau” all over again; one but need eyes to see in order to recognize the deception.
David Ben-Gurion – the terrorist leader and esteemed statesman of that putrid cesspool of evil – wrote in 1962 concerning his vision of the future:
In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah. Higher education will be the right of every person in the world. A pill to prevent pregnancy will slow down the explosive natural increase in China and India, and by 1987, the average life-span of man will reach 100 years.
Get that? A Shrine of the Prophets … prophesied by Isaiah… These are the words of a man who, “by his own admission was irreligious, even atheistic as a youth” (See David Ben-Gurion: For the Love of Zion, 2008).
In other words, these are the proclamations of a serial liar who, like Satan tempting Christ in the desert, uses Scripture not out of reverence, but as a weapon in an attempt to undermine the true divine purpose, the building of the Kingdom of Christ on earth, the Catholic Church, destined to be spread among all men and all nations. (cf Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, 12)
Make no mistake: The Zionist dream of a Supreme Court of Mankind in Jerusalem, no doubt with self-professed Jews at the head, the same for which Israel stands, is the antithesis of the Kingdom of Christ. It is the avowed enemy of Christian society.
That’s the big picture. The one that the election of Donald Trump did not change.
