March 29, 2010 journal, we are approaching a new day when all this confusion will be wiped away and the saints of God will receive their just reward for ever and ever to live and to be with the Lord God Almighty wherever he is in a heavenly atmosphere free of sin. The grip Satan has on this old world will be broken and Satan will be chained down in hell for a thousand years even forever. We will have glorified bodies and be capable of traveling in space anywhere in the universe for all eternity to spend with our Lord God. I am not speaking of the Illuminati's planned New World Order of the B*us*h Kissinger Antichrist league of demons whose ancestors failed in ancient times to build the Tower of Babel. I am speaking of the real Lord God Yesu/Yahweh who has power to change lives and grant eternal life to the believers who are saved by His grace and His divine sacrifice. The enemies of the true Christian Church are the enemies of God and God Almighty will avenge them in his time. The blasphemous Talmud calling gentiles (or Christians) goyim for cattle, really identifies the enemy of God's people yet the modern church is blind to it. The following website best describes in simple language the great obstacle for American people to overcome in these last days when mass confusion rules on this earth for now. "The pro-Israel lobby-Jewish media power acts as leverage for Jewish political power. A well funded and highly organized lobby, as described by Walt and Mearsheimer[19], has been able to ensure that there is rarely a US politician who dares to stand in the way of what the lobby perceives to be in the best interest of Israel, regardless of the effect on the United States and the American people. Doing so or saying anything critical about Israel or organized Jewry, would automatically result in massive funding through AIPAC and other Jewish lobby groups for his or her opponents, both within and outside his or her party. Most likely, it would also result in a concerted media effort of the likes of AJC, New York Times, Forward, Boston Globe and hundreds of others, to portray the politi-cian as an anti-Semite. Given the fact that in many cases only a couple of percentage points make the difference between winning or loosing the election, no candidate can afford this kind of trouble. Not surprisingly, ambitious politicians from both parties, Republican & Democrats, are at pains to demonstrate an 'Israel first' attitude on guest appearances at various lobby events such as the annual AJC and AIPAC meetings or by acting as speakers on thousands of regional and national lobby events organized by an ever growing number of Jewish lobby groups. Needless to say, they would not get an invitation if they were suspected to foster anti-Semitic feelings. Jewish media & lobby groups are enjoying an unprecedented degree of power over Western societies in which criticism of or resistance against this power is a fail-proof method of committing political, social, financial and career suicide. This essay will now examine - as part of a comprehensive ethical analysis of the subject of anti-Semitism - whether they are using this power in an ethical manner. The Ethics of Anti-Anti-Semitism Why is it that many J--w-s react so defensively when non-J-e-w-s say anything bad about another J-w? Why is it okay to talk about the stranglehold of the Cosa Nostra over Italian society, but anti-Semitism to even mention the existence of a Jewish equivalent? Why is it okay to talk about the killing of baby girls and embryos in China or the burning of married women in rural India, but not about ritual Passover sacrifices of abducted Christian children in the Middle-Ages? ( Maybe still) Why is it okay to call the Pope a Nazi collaborator, the American president a child molester with a weakness for young boys, and the virgin Mary a whore, but racist to suggest that some Je-ws had either prior knowledge or were involved in 911, for example 'lucky Larry' Silverstein, who bought the WTC for US$124 million a few months before 9/1*1/ and made a healthy profit of US$ 4 billion in insurance payment out of it? Why is it okay to suggest that President Roosevelt deliberately set up the Pacific fleet in Pearl Harbour for the Japanese navy to shoot & destroy like a barrel of fish, shortly after cornering the Japanese government by a crippling oil embargo, but a crime deserving the most severe punishment to suggest that there might be something wrong with the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust? What makes criticism of a J-e-w by a non-J-e-w the latter automatically a racist, regardless of the merits of his or her criticism? Paranoia, bad conscience, supremacism or ruthless politics? This over the top Jewish defensiveness is commonly explained with the experience of the Holocaust. J-e-ws supposedly react kind of paranoid when criticized because of the vilification and persecution their ancestors experienced three generations ago in Nazi Germany. Does that justify ruining and imprisoning the critics for their alleged acts of anti-Semitism without regard to their reasoning? Another explanation for the extreme Jewish defensiveness could be bad conscience. Employee's who feel that they are not qualified for their role, often react more defensively when being criticized than employees who are more confident. Could it be that many Jews overreact to any criticism because they suspect the criticism to be well founded and therefore rather attack the man than the argument? An even less flattering theory suggests that many J-e-ws feel that they are so high above non-J-e-ws that they consider any criticism by non-J-e-ws to be unacceptable similar to noble people or officers in the olden days who refused to be judged by anyone but their peers? After all, the holiest book of Judaism, the Talmud, describes non-Jews as cattle which can be killed, abused and exploited at will by Jews. Goyim, how the Talmud calls them, are only there to make J-e-ws richer and their life more comfortable, just like cattle or slaves. For someone brought up in this kind of tradition, being criticized by non-J-e-ws might indeed feel like blasphemy. Or could it be, as some critics suggest, that the libel of anti-Semitism is purely a cynical political weapon, abused by a powerful lobby to fend off their political enemies? Maybe it is a mixture of all four, depending on the person, but it's difficult to research this matter, given the viciousness with which any doubts in the saint-like innocence of all J-e-ws is routinely punished. Do ends justify all means? Decisions with ethical consequences can be guided by different moral philosophies. From a teleological or consequentialist perspective, which focuses on ends and consequences, acts are considered to be morally right or acceptable if they produce a desired result. From that angle, it could be argued that modern anti-anti-Semitism was morally acceptable because it produces the desirable end of preventing a repeat of Nazi style discrimination and persecution of J-e-w-s. The downside of this approach though is that it is frequently abused for egoistic purposes, as it is the case of what Normal Finkelstein describes the 'Holocaust Industry', i.e. the misuse of the Jewish Holocaust for the maximisation of financial and political self-interest. Other examples are the coercing of US politicians by pro-Israel lobby groups such as AIPAC to blindly support Israel - financially, militarily and politically - or otherwise be labeled an anti-Semite and face, at the next election, opponents both from within the own party and from the opposition, who are swimming in Jewish money. Critics of the teleological or consequentialist approach argue that everyone must be treated with respect because they have universal rights including the freedom of conscience, consent, privacy, speech and due process. According to this so-called deontological philosophy, individual rights must not be violated. They demand that both intentions and actions of our behaviour should conform with universal moral principles. From a deontological perspective it is difficult to justify, why someone should be ostracized, his career destroyed and his freedom taken, because he exercised his right of free speech to criticize aspects of modern Jewry or make claims that the mainstream narrative of the Jewish Holocaust was a hoax and should be reinvestigated." The role of the media Corporate media are playing a big role in the taboo nature of anti-Semitism. Not only do they consistently reinforce beliefs surrounding the topic, they also remind us of what happens to those people who dare to break the taboo. We all have heard of numerous cases of people who attracted the anger of the self-declared guardians of the taboo and saw their careers and livelihoods destroyed. In fact there are thousands of new cases every year where people get imprisoned for anti-Semitic activities, most of them for committing 'Holocaust denial' related offences, also known as 'Holocaust revisionism'. Not many people can afford to risk loosing everything, their jobs, their livelihoods, their family and friend, simply for being regarded to be an anti-Semite. Not many people are willing to risk their own future, leave alone that of their partner and children, by wearing that label. It is hard to think of anything worse that could happen to a 21st century Westerner than being burdened with this stigma. Jewish Power (In media first is Fox) So why is the media so interested in maintaining the taboo? The answer lies in who owns respectively controls Western media. It is hardly a secret that they are controlled by J-e-ws. Not many people talk about it, for fear of attracting the dreaded label, but anyone who has heard of Rupert Murdoch, Haim Saban, Michael Eisner, Mortimer Zuckerman, Leslie Moonves, Jonathan Miller, Neil Shapiro, Jeff Gaspin, David Westin, Sumner Redstone, Mel Marmazin, Don Hewitt, Jeff Fager, David Poltrack, Sandy Krushow, Lloyd Braun, Barry Meyer, Sherry Lansing, Harvey Weinstein, Brad Siegel, Peter Chrnin, Marty Peretz, Arthur Sulzberger, William Safire, Tom Friedman, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Cohen, Jeff Jacoby, Norman Ornstein, Stephen Emerson, David Schneiderman, Kenneth Polack, Barry Diller, Kenneth Roth, Richard Leibner, Terry Semel, Mark Golin, Warren Lieberford, Jeffrey Zucker, Jack Myers, Sandy Grushow, Gail Berman, Stephen Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, David Geffen, Joran Levin, the list goes on and on, he or she must realize that there can't be any reasonable doubt about the fact that our media are controlled by J-e-w-s. There can also be no reasonable doubt that they act together as a political and social force pursuing distinctly Jewish and pro-Israel interests [18]." Above remarks came from following website How were they able to acquire the entire American media for billions of dollars? It is my guess they got all the money from the Fed and it is also my guess it was unaccounted for. Wall Street, Federal Reserve, the Media TV and newspapers are all in the same basket. They most all originated in Khazar Russia being descendants from the House of Esau and converted to Judaism in the seventh century and claimed Palestine as a homeland, in 1948 it was given to them by England at the direction of the United Nations and kicked out the Palestinians resulting in war ever since. Prior to that theft they were already in control of America forging the Fed in 1913, and the Great Depression in 1929 in disastrous results. It is just the tip of the iceberg considering these Edomites are in every branch of American government power.