[** Export to PDF](/wp-admin/tools.php?ghostexport=true&submit=Download+Ghost+File&pdf=120)
A curious phenomena has occurred among many American Christians in recent decades that has seen them embracing multiculturalism as both a necessity and a natural good. In the 2016 election cycle, it has been a common refrain among both the American right and left that it would be “un-American” and “un-Christian” to prevent potentially dangerous foreigners from entering the country simply because of their religion. Similar attitudes can also be found in Europe. One could easily point to the Naturalization Act of 1790 to show that the United States was never meant to be a multicultural utopia, but that only further highlights how odd this modern attitude is for Americans faced with changing demographics and a war on Christendom itself.
Why are European and Euro-American Christians going out of their way to import foreigners who do not share their heritage, culture, or religion? Simply put, this is the purposeful result of social engineering. This is demonstrated by how quickly even supposed “conservatives” scramble to denounce any effort to actually conserve one’s people, culture, or religion as “racist.” It is a conditioned response like Pavlov’s dogs. They hear the bell, and they react without questioning it. It never even enters their minds that they are advocating for their own destruction because there is no real thought process involved. They have been programmed to see any sort of chauvinism on the part of Europeans and, particularly, European Christians as something to viciously attack. They repeat ad nauseam that “real American values” stand in strict opposition to any notion of preserving one’s own. They cannot tell you the real reason the Statue of Liberty stands there, but they can recite key lines of a poem added to it decades later regarding immigration. They do not know anything about historical immigration into the United States, but they can offer the conditioned response that it is “a nation of immigrants.” The dogs are drooling, and they have no idea why.

Barbara Lerner Spectre has some idea of why, however. She is an American-born Jew who spent three decades living in Israel before moving to Sweden in 1999, where she founded the European Institute for Jewish Studies in 2001. In 2007, Spectre, an avowed Zionist said, “We need a Jewish community in Europe … Israel cannot exist … without Europe. They are necessary advocates for Jewish issues.” In case anyone did not understand Spectre’s motivation and intent, she gave an interview in 2010 in which she said, “Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think [Jews] are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were … Jews are going to be at the center of that.” Spectre is not a native European. Her husband, Rabbi Philip Spectre, also is not a native European. They are American-born, Zionist Jews whose only concern is for “Jewish issues,” and they support importing non-Europeans into Europe because it “must take place” so that Europe will no longer consist of “monolithic societies.” Oddly enough, all of the Spectres’ children and grandchildren live in Israel, away from the multiculturalism that they advocate so strongly for Europeans.

This speaks to the reality that Zionists have been working to manipulate the West and to divert efforts away from domestic issues to instead focus on “Jewish issues.” Barbara Spectre has only been active since 2001, but she is part of a much larger effort that stretches back decades. For example, the Institute for Social Research was founded by Felix Weil—an Argentinian-born Jew—in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, in 1923. The purpose of the ISR was to engage in the study of “sociology” from a Marxist perspective, and the institute was coincidentally home to many Jewish Marxists. That is why the ISR fled Germany in 1933 after Adolf Hitler was named chancellor; moving first to Switzerland and then to New York City in 1935. As then-director of the ISR, Max Horkheimer—a German-born Jew—wrote Traditional and Critical Theory in 1937, which was the real beginning for what is known today as the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism.

Horkheimer’s “critical theory” is important because it is a rather nebulous application of Marxist ideas to aspects of society, and it can be freely adapted by cultural Marxists to “critique” anything. Despite first appearing in the 1930s, World War II and the beginning of the Cold War ensured that most in the West would not embrace such open Marxism, albeit these Jewish Marxists did initially find a safe haven among academics in New York City. By the 1960s, however, the American Left was openly espousing Marxist ideology including the Frankfurt School, and they quickly gave birth to so-called “critical gender theory,” “critical race theory,” and “queer theory,” which are at the very heart of things like radical feminism, black power movements, and the push for normalizing degeneracy. Going hand-in-hand with these efforts has been the push to control speech so as to control how people think, which has become known as the “PC culture” where the American Left has defined everything to be offensive including factual information.

The charts above are taken from the Google Books Ngram Viewer, and they show the prevalence of terms in books over the decades. We can see in the first chart that feminist/feminism and racist/racism only became prevalent after 1960, and the second chart shows that “social construct”—the cultural Marxist term used to deny both gender and race—came into use in that same decade. Interestingly, “transsexual”—the idea that gender can be separate from biological sex—also popped up at that time. “Gay marriage” also began to rise in the mid-1960s, but it wasn’t until the late 1980s—following the AIDS epidemic and leftist attempts to make gays victims of society rather than victims of their own degeneracy—that the issue really gained steam.

Of particular interest is the last chart showing that “neoconservative” and “secular humanism” both began to takeoff in the early 1970s and followed a similar pattern over the succeeding decades. This is important because the United States has seen a steady march toward the political left, and this has gone hand-in-hand with two things: namely, the demonizing of Christian conservatives and the Right being subverted by so-called “neoconservatives.” Unsurprisingly, the supposed dichotomy between “left” and “right” in the last few decades only serves to highlight the prevalence of Jews controlling both sides of this battle of ideologies.

Indeed, recently, Jews in the media, particularly the leftist media, have taken to identifying themselves with (((echoes))) on Twitter because members of the Alt-Right had already been doing so. Some within the neocon media have done the same, but key Jewish figures such as Bill Kristol, of The Weekly Standard, and David Frum, of The Atlantic, have not done so. This is likely because they do not want people connecting their Jewishness with their neoconservationism, which they also go out of their way to avoid acknowledging. Kristol, for example, often holds himself up as the Fidei defensor, the Defender of the Faith, for classical conservatism. Kristol’s father, Irving Kristol, however, was one of the fathers of neoconservatism.

Writing in 1976, Irving Kristol acknowledged that there could “be no doubt that the political tendency deemed neoconservative does exist … that it has become quite influential as of late in shaping political attitudes in intellectual and academic circles, and that its views have even infiltrated the world of media and government” (Source). In 1995, he also wrote that “the United States is a ‘creedal’ nation” and that being “American has nothing to do with ethnicity, or blood ties of any kind, or lineage, or length of residence even. What we scornfully call ‘nativism’ in the United States is what passes for authentic patriotism among many Germans and Frenchmen” (Source). Now, compare this neoconservative view of the United States with what the likes of George Washington, John Adams, and their compatriots said and did in 1790.

It is not hard to understand how Jews came to control the American Left. After all, Jewish Marxists of the Frankfurt School were welcomed with open arms by domestic Marxists, and their ideology offers ready-made excuses for radical leftists who want to blame their failings on the bourgeoisie whether that means white people, Christians, non-degenerates, or whoever else. Regardless of who the specific enemy is, these modern Marxists agree that they are owed something and that government must be used to punish their enemies. The real question is how Jews came to subvert the American Right with a slightly less radical form of leftism.

As we can see from this chart, the terms “Judeo-Christian” and “Abrahamic religions” largely came into use in the late 1950s yet did not truly become prevalent until the late 1970s, which also happens to coincide with the rise of neoconservatism. This is the key to understanding why gentiles like Erick Erickson, of *The Resurgent*, rabidly defend neoconservatism as the “true conservatism,” working to undermine everything that is actually traditional about the United States in the process. For his part, Erickson, a Presbyterian, was primed for ideals such as multiculturalism as he lived in the United Arab Emirates from age 5 until he was 15. It is worthy of note that Erickson’s hometown, Jackson, Louisiana, was already 25% non-white in 1980 when his family moved overseas, and the non-white population had increased to 43% by 1990 when they moved back ([Source](http://places.mooseroots.com/l/323370/Jackson-LA)). While Erickson himself may have been an easy target for neoconservatism, we must not underestimate how subversive and manipulative this movement has truly been.

How do you convince conservatives to stop conserving things? Simply put, you have to convince them that they live in Bizarro World where up is down, left is right, right is wrong. Simply telling them that conserving their people, culture, and religion was wrong obviously would not work, so the fledgling neoconservatives instead needed to expand the concepts of people, culture, and religion until conservatives were trying to conserve others and, as a consequence, sacrificing their own to do so. Thus, conservatives were told that the United States was not founded by white men for their own posterity, and they were assured that the nation’s principles were not specifically Christian in nature despite the vast majority of the Founders being Christian, founding documents referencing the Creator, &c. That was racist and bigoted, they were told. Instead, the United States was founded on “Judeo-Christian” values, and the nation was always “creedal” in nature where the Founders intended for the borders to be open to the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free” wherever they were found, especially if they were Jewish. Questioning these assertions, we have been told, is the sort of thing the Nazis did right before the Holocaust. Such thought crimes will not be tolerated by the Jewish Right just as it is attacked by the Jewish Left. Of course, that is just a coincidence.

The concept of the “Abrahamic religions” reinforces the “Judeo-Christian United States” from a more specifically religious angle. The reasoning is that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship the same deity, the God of Abraham. Accepting the validity of this requires that Christians lower their own religion to being one possible interpretation of God’s will. Jews and Muslims may not believe in Jesus, we are told, but they nonetheless worship the same God. Jews are given credit for the “Judeo-Christian values” of the United States, and Christians are bludgeoned over the head with the “Abrahamic religions” being equally valid, peaceful, and welcome in the West. This is seen by the countless articles written by Jews telling us that it is downright “un-American” and “un-Christian” to not open our borders to Muslims, the same Muslims who pose an endless threat to Israel according to the same Jewish media, the same Muslims murdering Christians across the globe.

We have already seen that the Founding Fathers had no qualms about barring non-whites from receiving naturalized citizenship in 1790. Mind you, the free population of the United States was already 98.15% white at the time. Obviously, they did not intend for the nation to be a multicultural, multiracial utopia. But what of Jesus? Did he tell Christians to embrace the Pharisees, predecessors of modern rabbinic Jews? Would Jesus be lecturing Christians today that they must open their nations to violent savages?

In Matthew 2:6, the wise men prophesied that Jesus would be “a Governor, that shall rule [the] people of Israel.” Indeed, in John 14:6, Jesus said, “No one comes to the Father except through me.” In John 8:42-47, Jesus said to the Pharisees that if “God were [their] Father, [they] would love [him],” but they were “of [their] father the devil, and the lusts of [their] father [they] will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” In John 2:15, Jesus whipped the Pharisees at the Temple, flipped over tables, and chased them all out. In Revelation 3:9, we are warned about the “synagogue of Satan,” which is comprised of people who say they are Judeans (people of Israel) but are not.

In which part of this are we seeing “Judeo-Christian values”? Where Jesus condemns the future rabbinic Jews as the murderous, dishonest children of Satan? Or where he made his own whip just to beat them and chase them from the Temple? Or where he specifically rejected those who rejected him as the son of the Father? We can safely dismiss “Judeo-Christian,” and any “Christian” who continues to embrace the Pharisees should just acknowledge that they only truly care about the “Judeo.”

This also serves to highlight why “Abrahamic religions” is a meaningless term for any real Christian. Beyond Jesus condemning the Pharisees and saying they have no special path to God, there is also a long history showing that modern Judaism is far removed from Christianity. For example, the Babylonian Talmud was not compiled until the early 6th century AD with edits occurring later, and the Masoretic Text—the definitive version of the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible—was compiled between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. Rabbinic Judaism also has a number of Post-Talmudic writings dating from between the 8th and 12th centuries AD. Additionally, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which have been dated to between 5th century BC and 4th century AD, were discovered between 1946-1956, and scholars have discovered changes that appear in the Masoretic Text.

In short, Judaism as it exists today did not exist in Jesus’s time. Following the destruction of the Second Temple, the Pharisaic sect shifted from relying on priests to relying on rabbis, and the new religion continued to evolve until the Middle Ages. Referring to “Judeo-Christian” or the “Abrahamic religions” masks the fact that Judaism is not the same thing as the ancient Hebraic religion and has nothing to do with Jesus’s time. The Pharisees doubling down again and again on being Pharisees did not produce something closer to God.

Now, let’s consider that Muhammad was born in Mecca in the late 6th century AD. Neither Christianity nor Judaism was prevalent in Western Arabia, but Muhammad may have had some knowledge of these other religions since Mecca was a center of trade with other peoples. Muhammad revealed his new religion to his followers in the early 7th century AD, and it gained prominence among poor Arabs as Muhammad—himself from a poorer clan and denied inheritance from his father due to his posthumous birth—encouraged the wealthy to provide for the poor. The new religion was resisted by other Arabs, but Muhammad ultimately conquered Mecca with its pagan structures as well as the rest of Arabia by the time of his death in AD 632. By 661, Muslims had conquered many lands from the Eastern Roman and Persian empires in the Levant, North Africa, and West Asia, which naturally brought countless Christians and Zoroastrians under Muslim control. It was from among these that the Muslims found many bureaucrats, scholars, &c.

The Quran itself was not compiled until the decades following Muhammad’s death as he only ever told his followers of his visions and divine messages. Of course, this means we do not know exactly what Muhammad’s earliest followers believed, or how Muhammad himself explained being prophet for a religion that was not found among his own people. We must at least entertain the idea that the earliest incarnation of Islam was rather nebulous and only took on “Abrahamic” elements following Islam’s violent expansion into Christian lands. After all, Muslims still pray facing the Kaaba in Mecca, a pagan structure that already existed in Muhammad’s time. Why do they pray to a structure built to house pagan deities and idols?

Such elements of Arabian paganism have since been repackaged for “Abrahamic” consumption. For example, Muslims claim that the Kaaba was originally constructed by Abraham himself along with Ishmael, his son by the slave Hagar. Over time, they claim, the Ishmaelites (Arabs) lost their way and gave into paganism and idolatry. Of course, we know this is false as Abraham and the Hebrews were not an Arabian people, and they certainly were not the founders of Mecca. The Arabs did not turn to paganism, but they were rather pagan all along. It is true that the Old Testament tells the story of Abraham casting out Hagar and Ishmael after the latter mocked Isaac, but the point is explaining why the Israelites and Ishmaelites did not get along. Indeed, Genesis 16:12 tells us that Ishmael was a “wild ass of a man” and that “his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him.” Does that not sound like Muslims of today?

So what exactly ties Islam to Christianity? Nothing whatsoever except that the Muslims spent their first several centuries of existence invading Christendom. They can claim that they were doing the Lord’s work, but being monotheistic and claiming a shared origin after the fact is not proof in and of itself. Muhammad was not a Christian, or even a Pharisee. He was an Arabian pagan born among Arabian pagans, and his religion retained elements of that paganism. It was only after Muhammad’s followers were immersed in Christendom and Christianity that we know for certain they claimed to be Ishmaelites spreading the “true Word of God.”

Modern Islam, like modern Judaism, is the product of centuries of developments following the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus himself condemned the Pharisees as worshiping Satan, and he said that if they truly knew the Father that they would know him. Apply the same standard to both modern Judaism and Islam. Each claims to represent the true will of God, but both reject Jesus. There can be no such thing as “Judeo-Christianity,” and there can be only one valid religion following God. Christians must wake up and recognize why they have been subverted, by whom they have been subverted, and how they have been subverted. Christians cannot continue as Pavlov’s dogs, drooling all over themselves each time the bell rings.