In this episode, we’ll look more closely at what Zionist propagandists’ are selling to naive souls as “Western values” that are common to both Christians and self-identified Jews. We’ll also meet two of the “Founding Fathers” of the modern state of Israel in order to consider their religious arguments in favor of a Jewish state.
An article / transcript appears below for those who prefer to read.
Click HERE to learn more about the Talmud, its stunning treatment of transgenderism, and its unique influence on contemporary Jewish identity.
TRANSCRIPT
After a year-long delay, one dead anti-pope, and yet another Israeli war of choice involving the United States, it’s time at last for the next installment of The Zionist Deception.
In the introductory episode, viewers were introduced to a group called the Philos Project, a Zionist funded purveyor of propaganda the mission statement of which reads:
The Philos Project equips Christians to stand with Israel and the Jewish people, support persecuted Christians in the Middle East, and foster a revival of Western values rooted in the Hebraic origins of our faith.
By “Western values rooted in the Hebraic origins of our faith,” Philos is referring to so-called “Judeo-Christian values,” which, as we discussed in the Introduction, simply do not exist. In fact, in many ways, our respective values are polar opposites.
So, which value system – Judeo or Christian – are Zionists like the Philos Project truly dedicated to promoting?
The answer is already rather obvious, but let’s look more closely at what Philos has to say on the topic. Thankfully, their website provides a list of what they call “several core principles and convictions that provide the bedrock” of the Western values they seek to promote, values that they insist are shared by both self-identified Jews and Christians.
That list reads as follows:
– Human dignity and the sanctity of the individual human person.
– Faith in what is higher than man: God, the Good, The Truth, etc.
– The belief in objective truth and the constant search to find it.
– Respect for reason as a means of doing just that.
– The recognition of human limitations, the primacy of love, and the possibility of redemption.
– The rule of law.
In this, Philos has provided the basis for a case study into the Judeo-Christian hoax, which is foundational to the Zionist hoax as a whole.
In other words, if as postulated by the Zionists, the so-called Western values rooted in the Hebraic origins of our faith – meaning the Christian faith – is revealed to be little more than a series of blatant lies, then no Christian worthy of the name can possibly support the Zionist cause. On the contrary, we would be forced to recognize Zionism as a project inspired by the Father of lies, and thus we’d be compelled to vehemently oppose it.
With so much at stake, let’s briefly, but carefully, consider each one these allegedly shared values, beginning with:
– Human dignity and the sanctity of the individual human person.
As noted in the introductory episode, 84% of self-identified Jews support abortion. Rabbis and other Jewish leaders proudly profess that access to abortion is a “Jewish value” and, get this, a matter of their religious liberty. These things are the antithesis of human dignity and the sanctity of the human person as understood by Christians.
Strike one.
Next, we have:
– Faith in what is higher than man: God, the Good, The Truth, etc.
Notice how they shamelessly even went so far as to capitalize “The Truth” in order to make their target audience – poorly catechized Catholics and stone-cold heretics – feel at home. By definition, however, Jews reject Jesus Christ, He who alone is the Truth. In fact, the rejection of Christ is the single unifying article of faith that binds every Jew.
This necessarily means that they also reject He who sent Him, i.e., their claim to faith in God itself is dubious at best.
Now, that’s not to say that there are no Jews today who are sincerely seeking the Truth. There certainly are, but we have an obligation, in charity, to enlighten them. Confirming them in their rejection of Christ as if we walk on common ground is perhaps the most vicious form of Jew hatred.
Strike two.
Up next in the list of Zionist core principles:
– The belief in objective truth and the constant search to find it.
The bald-faced lies just keep coming.
For one, Jesus Christ is objective Truth incarnate. One is either with Him, or against Him, and these people are dead set against Him.
On a more practical level, one notes that Jews are at the forefront of the transgender movement, an agenda that all rational persons recognize as a blatant disregard for objective truth.
In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that transgenderism is yet another Jewish value. It actually has its roots in the Talmud, a revered compilation of rabbinic teaching that took shape between the third and sixth centuries. And here you thought that transgender mutilation was a recent invention.
The Talmud – which, again, is some 1500 years old – lists no less than eight genders, including persons who are born male or female, but switch gender through “human intervention.”
I will link an article below that goes into greater detail, including the fact that leading rabbis consider the Talmud more central to so-called Judaism today than the Bible.
Strike three. Even so, let’s continue…
The next lie on the list:
– Respect for reason as a means of doing just that [searching for objective truth].
One might immediately think once again of the assault on objective truth known as transgenderism. Additionally, as we’re seeing more and more clearly, the very idea that there is such a thing as Judeo-Christian values is an obvious violation of the principle of non-contradiction. This is what the Zionist call “respect for reason.”
This next item on the list is especially interesting:
– The recognition of human limitations, the primacy of love, and the possibility of redemption.
The unmitigated gall of these people is truly without limit. Here they speak of the “possibility of redemption” when in reality only a small minority of Jews are awaiting a literal Messiah, a redeemer.
This is one of the fundamental misconceptions that many Christians hold with respect to the self-identified Jews of today.
In other words, in addition to fact that the vast majority of self-identified Jews do not believe in, nor are they looking for, the coming of the Messiah, the so-called Judaism of today doesn’t recognize original sin at all, much less its effects. The Jewish view is utterly incompatible with Christianity with respect to the necessity or even the mere possibility of redemption.
The last “core principle” on the Zionist list of values:
– The rule of law.
Throughout its history, the modern state of Israel – the concrete manifestation of Zionism – has consistently thumbed its nose at the rule of law, ignoring one U.N. resolution after the next, violating with impunity the terms established in by the Geneva Convention, and laughing in the face of the International Court of Justice.
In addition to Israel’s blatant disregard for human law, the prevailing Jewish view on high profile moral issues – like abortion, homosexuality, and transgenderism – are at odds with the natural law.
Since October 2024, much of the entire world has come to recognize just how little regard the Zionists have for the rule of law thanks to the genocide in Gaza.
By my count, that’s five strikes. Even one is enough to eliminate any possibility for a follower of Christ to support Zionism.
Rather than wrap the series up right here, however, I want to return to the Philos video that was introduced in the Intro.
Speaking to Catholics who as yet remain unconvinced by their propaganda campaign, their spokesperson, Simone is her name, asks the following:
Can you define Zionism as you understand it and maybe as you think Israelis understand it, and explain how Zionism is different from your understanding of nationalism?
No problem, challenge accepted, but how about we forget about perceptions and cut right to the chase.
Neither my understanding of Zionism, nor that of the average Israeli, much less whatever spin Philos wishes to put on either one, is especially relevant. What matters far more is how Zionism defines itself, i.e., we need to talk about what Zionism actually is, in its leaders’ own words.
For this, we’ll take a look at how the pioneers of the Zionist movement themselves defined their cause, and how they went about attempting to justify their claims.
At this, we should note that several forms of Zionism have always existed, at least in name, e.g., political, cultural, religious, etc.
While Zionist leaders were united in the outcome that they sought (an independent Jewish state), individually they were known to favor a specific form of Zionism, each one with its own talking points.
In practice, whether as part of a well-planned strategy or just a fortunate coincidence, this allowed the leaders of the Zionist movement to tailor their rhetoric to suit a variety of different audiences. The goal in each case, however, remained the same:
To elicit support for the idea that a Jewish state should be established in Palestine.
For example, in pitching their cause to world political leaders and other persons of influence in the secular arena (business, entertainment, media), the promoters of Zionism might offer primarily political and cultural arguments, e.g., reminding their audience of how often the poor Jewish people had been expelled from numerous European nations over the course of many decades (why this happened is story rarely told) and they should as a matter of fairness, therefore, have a nation of their own.
The establishment of a Jewish homeland, they argued, had two major benefits:
First, the safety and stability of the Jewish people, but also for the good of European culture as a whole, which, obviously, had difficulty accepting Jews.
That said, my primary interest, and presumably that of Philos and others who are attempting to sell Zionism to Catholics, lies in the religious arguments. So, let’s consider what some of the leading Zionist pioneers had to say on this note.
Writing in his autobiography, Chaim Weizmann, the first President of Israel, recalled how in 1939 he had stated, “I know God promised Palestine to the children of Israel, but I do not know what boundaries He set.”
Weizmann’s words provided a strong hint that the Zionists, once a foothold was established in Palestine, would adopt an ever-expansionist mindset, the quest for a “Greater Israel.”
In a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Mike Cuckabee – who like Donald Trump and his closest advisors is a so-called “Christian Zionist” – was confronted with the fact that the piece of land under discussion, as we read in Genesis 15:18, includes the area from the Nile to the Euphrates.
This encompasses, as Carlson pointed out, “Jordan, Syria, Lebanon. It would also be big parts of Saudi Arabia and Iraq.”
Asked if all of this land is what rightly belongs to Israel, the Ambassador replied, “It would be fine if they took it all.”
While this statement caused a minor firestorm, it shouldn’t have. Cuckabee was simply echoing what leading Zionists, like Chaim Weizmann, have been suggesting since well before the modern state of Israel was ever established.
In 1919, for another example, when Palestine was ruled under a British mandate (thus often referred to as “Mandatory Palestine”), Weizmann, speaking at an English Zionist Federation gathering, said:
“The Bible is our mandate. The Bible, which was written by us, in our land, in our language, is the greatest title deed that any nation can have to any country. It is not merely a question of politics; it is a question of the deepest religious conviction.”
Recall what Weizmann stated years later: He said, “I know God promised Palestine to the children of Israel, but I do not know what boundaries He set.”
If indeed he believed that the Bible contained “the greatest title deed” any nation could have, and this being “the deepest religious conviction,” then certainly he would have known very well what boundaries were set by God.
The takeaway? Weizmann was a liar, a man who thought nothing of taking the Lord’s name in vain for profit, in this case, to secure a land deal. In other words, he was a genuine Zionist, and a model for those who followed.
Weizmann, as mentioned, was the first President of Israel.
Now let’s talk about the first Prime Minister of Israel, a much more powerful position in Israeli government, David Ben-Gurion.
He too was known to claim recourse to the Sacred Scripture. For example, he is quoted by Jewish sources such as The Ben-Gurion Heritage Institute as saying:
“If the Bible is one main pillar holding up the Jewish ethos, the other (and equally important one) is nationhood. The uniqueness of the Jewish people and of Judaism consists in this: no other religion is connected with physical existence of a nation. Remove Jewish history and there is no Judaism.”
Another example, Ben-Gurion stated of the Jews attachment to the land of Israel:
“To my mind it accounts for the fact that if the Bible stresses creativity, the Jews not as individuals but as Jews were, and only are, truly creative when living in their own land.”
In 1936, twelve years before the establishment of Israel, Ben-Gurion repeated Weizmann’s clever statement, telling a British Royal Commission, “The (British) mandate is not our bible. The Bible is our mandate.”
More could be said about the men who led the Zionist charge, but at this I think we have a good idea of how the pioneers of the Zionist movement – in this case, the founding fathers of the modern state of Israel – how they understood their cause.
In closing, I would only add one more thing:
Already, it’s been made obvious to viewers why this series is called the Zionist Deception, but let me give you just a couple more reasons:
Neither Chaim Weizmann, nor David Ben-Gurion – despite how often they claimed recourse to Almighty God and to His words in Sacred Scripture – were men of faith, at all.
In a 2024 interview with the Times of Israel, the Jewish historian, Jehuda Reinharz said:
“Weizmann’s disdain for Polish Jewry and Eastern European Jewry in general, was first of all a rebellion against the culture from which he himself stemmed.”
In other words, Weizmann was something of an apostate from the Jewish religion. Reinharz continued:
He adopted the elitism of the upper-class English man. The result was a feeling of contempt toward the Jews in the eastern European villages and cities, their dress, their mode of living and their religious beliefs.
Get that? Weizmann held religious Judaism in contempt.
As for the Bible, and the word of Almighty God inscribed therein? For him, this was just another weapon to be used in furtherance of the Zionist cause.
As for Ben-Gurion, citing three different Jewish sources, his Wikipedia bio states:
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.
Now you tell me, what supposed Judeo-Christian values could possible exist between men who have contempt for Jews, who hate Judaism, and quote the Bible extensively?
Think on that until our next episode where we’ll consider the claim that God gave the Jews an irrevocable deed to Palestine, or what Chaim Weizmann called the greatest title deed that any nation can have…
