This article was authored by Ralph Haulk back in 2012. Seeing how the Armstrongist are getting increasingly unhinged these days, we thought this concept was worth another look.
People are more and more waking up to the fact that there is a “Jewish Connection” between our present economic system and the Jews. I have long maintained that the ‘Mystery Babylon” could only be the Jews, but a former schoolmate of mine, who grew up to be a lawyer and an Episcopalian minister (which makes him doubly disgusting to me), pointed out the beginnings of Jewish economic philosophy in Genesis 46 and 47.
You are already aware of the story of Joseph, rising to the power of Pharaoh’s finance minister, but a more detailed description of his plans and policies are given away in Genesis. When Joseph invited the tribes of his father and brethren into Egypt, he had this story planned out for the Pharaoh:
Genesis 46: 32: “And the men are shepherds, for their trade hath been to feed cattle; and they have brought their flocks, and their herds, and all they have.”
Then Joseph advised his family: “
…when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say ‘ What is your occupation?’ That ye shall say, Thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle, from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers; that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians”.
What ensued from that is a sharp contrast of economic philosophies. Israel took their herds to Goshen, and Pharaoh let them grow and trade freely, as well as making them “rulers” over his own herds and flocks(Gen. 47:6).
| It was then that the famine had taken hold in Egypt, and Joseph had been fortunate enough to store grain for the Pharaoh. There was no bread in the land, so the Egyptians were forced to buy grain from Joseph, who happily took all their money. As the famine extended, the Egyptians came again to Joseph, and asked him for a solution to the problem, as they had no more money. Joseph worked out another deal (Gen. 47:16), and asked for their cattle.
Of course Israel was officially in charge of the Pharaoh’s cattle, so they had free reign in the land to trade and build further fortunes. Then the Egyptians ran out of cattle, and the famine persisted. The next step was socialism, verse 19, suggested by the people:
“Buy us and our land for bread, and we will be servants unto Pharaoh: and give us seed, that we may live…”.
All the land then became the Pharaoh’s. The next step was simply to gather the people into cities. They were effectively caged so the armies of the Pharaoh could keep an eye on them.
But Joseph was very shrewd, as he left the land of the priests untouched. They had effectively the same freedom as Israel, and their leadership with such freedom would no doubt support the Pharaoh and justify his position as a god before the people. So, the Egyptians said, “In God We Trust”. Joseph had separated church and state, but had given exemptions so the church would be inclined to support the state. Very shrewd.(Gen 47:22).
All that remained was for Joseph to give the people seed to plant, so they could grow wealth for Pharaoh, and Joseph laid a tax on them, Genesis 47:24:
” And it shall come to pass in the increase that ye shall give the fifth part unto Pharaoh, and four parts shall be your own for seed…”
Sound familiar in principle? “And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part, except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh’s.”
Verse 27: “And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they had possession therein, and grew and multiplied exceedingly.”
The plan was simple enough: first, get control of the money. If the control of money is taken from the people, they are forced to begin trading possessions. Once possessions are taken away, the people are easily managed to become obedient citizens. If the religions are free, and if they are given their freedom by being servant to the king or the government, they will tend to support the benevolence of the government, with lines like “this divinely ordered capitalist system”.
The interesting twist is found in Genesis 50:20, as Joseph was about to die:
”But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive”.
But notice that Israel had free enterprise and wealth, while the Egyptians had traded their freedom and possessions away for security, even serving a priesthood that owed its ‘freedom” to Pharaoh.
|What we see in our own government today was laid out in principle thousands of years ago. Of course, we also see that free enterprise doesn’t serve the needs of empire and war. Israel became equal slaves to the Egyptians, forced to labor for the Pharaoh, because the Pharaoh had seen, in Exodus 1:9, ” The people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we”.||
The problem, as Pharaoh correctly saw, was that a free people tend to act in their own self interest, and if Pharaoh should wage a war with other countries, Israel might well choose to serve his enemies out of self interest. The motivation of government to grant “security” is well shown by that example. Since Israel was not willing to become “equal” with Egyptian citizens, they became subject to forced labor, with their possessions taken by decree. What Israel saw as slavery, other Egyptians would see as justice, “equality”.
The lesson, from Genesis to Revelation, is not lost on the Jews. Their history has been one of adaptation and control by trade and commerce, from Babylon to the present day. As historian Max DiMont points out in “The Indestructible Jews”, they have developed the beginnings of our present banking system, developed a process of common law by which nations would be ruled, and were selected as the finance ministers for gentile kings due to their ability to charge interest on non-Jews. As Joseph did in Genesis, once they gained control of the money, all else follows. This lesson is not lost on Christians either. They took the banking system from the Jews and began “saving souls” for God, king, and country, using the same formula.
Karl Marx laid out the formula quite well. When money becomes the “universal equivalent”, the general purchasing power, all things can be had for money. But people do not sell for money, wrote Marx, until the possessor had “alienated’ himself from the property. This meant, wrote Marx, that the “so-called inalienable rights, and the fixed property relationships corresponding to them, break down before money”. He was, after all, a Jew. He was also quite correct in that regard. What Marx wrote, Joseph had long ago put in practice.
Philosopher Daniel Dennett writes in a book titled Religion As A Natural Phenomenon, a tiny parasite called the Lancet Fluke has captured the brain of an ant, and forced it to climb the tallest blade of grass. The ant gains nothing from this, but the Fluke profits by using the ant to get itself into the stomach of a sheep or cow to reproduce itself. The cow eats the grass, and the Fluke produces another generation. Of course the ant has no reproductive machinery, and perhaps that is the reason the Fluke can use it so easily. Perhaps there is a kind of “ecstasy of the cells” in the ant when they discover they have a driven purpose of reproduction, even if not their own. Other parasites infect fish and mice for similar reasons. Dennett writes:
After I left the old WCG in 1974, my neighbor talked me into joining the marines, which was interesting, because I did gain access to a lot of writings and publications in California (land of fruits and nuts) than I would have in the foothills of Appalachia.
I ran across a book written by Brad Steiger titled “Mysteries of Time And Space”, and found it quite entertaining, especially the part about UFOs and “cosmic ‘Big Brothers’.
I have since misplaced the book but Steiger makes a most interesting point. There is no better way, wrote Steiger, of taking over this world than by seeding a crossbred race to operate from within our own species. These “special children” may be totally unaware of any special identity, but are being quietly shepherded by their cosmic “Big Brothers” in a process that will take many generations of mental and spiritual evolution. After that time, wrote Steiger, they may receive a signal which only they will understand, taking over special places in world government.
Most members of the old WCG and offshoots are aware that heaven is not the reward of the “saved” but are taught right off that God is indeed selecting a few who will qualify for places as kings/priests in “The World Tomorrow.”
As for “seeding a crossbred race”, my mind instantly went to genesis 21:1-2: “And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken. For Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.”
What did Abraham contribute to Isaac’s birth? Not even sperm, apparently, since Sarah couldn’t get pregnant anyway. While kicking around among the UFO literature of the day, I found a book written by Art Gatti, titled “UFO Encounters of the Fourth Kind”, which dealt with sexual liaisons between women and UFOnauts of that time.Gatti writes: “Cyrus H. Gordon’s scholarly Before The Bible (Collins, London:1962) points out that, where Genesis points out that the Lord “visited” Sarah, the Bible uses the word paqad,which is the verb meaning a man visiting his wife to have intercourse with her.””And the lord did unto Sarah….”
Let’s re-examine the promise made to Abraham and put it in terms more consistent with the above:
“You, Abraham, if you accept my promise, will have a son. This son will be the first of other children to be born under exactly the same conditions, the same circumstances. They will be foreknown, as Isaac is, they will be predestined, as Isaac is, and they will be called and developed by over time, specially selected to take over positions of world government when I decide”.
Once the deal was made, Abraham only had to trust that Yahweh would keep his promise. Abraham only needed to believe. Isaac would be born, and other children would be born as Yahweh selected, over time, under exactly the same promise and the same terms, as Isaac.
This is absolutely brilliant in its simplicity. It allows people to believe whatever they wish, to put any interpretation on God they choose. It allows freedom of choice to any degree the human mind is capable, but it keeps Yahweh quietly in charge of a process that is NOT dependent on the understanding of the world’s population. It could be carried out simply and quietly while humans fought and killed over who had the most peaceful religion.
Think about Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus. Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven. The word “again” comes from the Greek “anothen” and means “from above”, not “again”. The word “annagennao” means literally “again born”, as used in 1 Peter 1:3, “…hath begotten us again unto a lively hope…”.
I would propose that Peter refers to a group that is “born from above”, and at a later time,“born again”, that is, made aware of their special place. The evidence for this comes abundantly from the verses above it.”Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the spirit…”
The word “spirit” plays an important part in both Jesus and Paul’s teachings. These ‘special children are “ready to be revealed in the last time”(verse 5).
Jesus tells Nicodemus there is a birth of the flesh, and a birth of the spirit. It is assumed by Christianity that we are “born again” upon acceptance of Christ, and baptism, but that is not exactly what Jesus said. Nicodemus was well aware of a “special birth” and assumed that all Israelites were literally born to inherit God’s kingdom. The idea that a person must be “born again” or “born from above” was a surprise to him. Can a man re-enter his mother’s womb?
The old WCG quoted John 3:8 a lot, but notice what it says: “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound therof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is everyone that is born of the spirit“.
John 1:13 also gives an interesting statement on this: “Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God”.
So far, we see an account almost exactly like that proposed by Steiger, above. We see in John 6:37: “All that the father giveth me shall come to me…”
John 6:44: “No man can come to me except the father which hath sent me draw him…”. This indicates that Yahweh, the actual father of these children, whoever they are, will call them to Jesus by special appointment, not freewill choice. The word “draw” there, comes from the Greek which means, more or less, against one’s intentions. In other words, while they’re looking in one direction, they will be drawn in a direction they do not anticipate. The Greek is “helkos” and is also used in similar fashion in Acts 16:19, drawn against their will, or against the principles of nature.Paul goes into greater detail on the birth of “flesh” and “spirit” in Romans 9:8: “That is, they which are the children of the flesh(Israel) are not the children of God. But the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
What promise? Verse 9: “For this is the word of promise, ‘At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son’.”
In verse 11: Paul takes it even further: “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to the election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth.” Then Paul goes into great pains, in Romans 9:16-22, to show that there simply exists no decision procedure, no “algorithm”, no process of human will by which we may show ourselves any closer to God than anyone else. Verse 16: “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy“.
Paul has gone to great pains to show that it is simply impossible for humans, of their own will, to qualify for this position. There is Romans 8:7, Romans 8:29-30, and Romans 9:8-22.
But then, you go into Galatians 3:29, which is even more obvious: “And if ye be Christ’s then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
Galatians 4:28: “Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise“.
Who are they, assuming they ACTUALLY EXIST? I have no idea, nor does anyone else. There is simply no process by which we can define or recognize them, since they are completely dependent on a deal controlled by Yahweh, made with Abraham.
Two different births, one of flesh (Israel), and one of “spirit” or promise. The word “spirit’ and “promise’ are used interchangeably in Galatians 4:29 “But as then he that was born after the flesh, persecuted him that was born after the spirit, even so it is now”.
The allegory that Paul uses was the birth of Isaac, of a free-woman, and Ishmael, who was born of a bond maid. The “bond” was then referred to Sinai, the law given to Israel, which places people into bondage to law. Isaac was born of promise, a deal made with Abraham which came 430 years before Sinai, so it stands in full intent apart from the law (Galatians 3:17).
Yahweh, therefore, had two basic plans in mind. By giving the law to Israel, he actually created a system that would lead to division, confusion, and discord, but he quietly maintained a promise between himself and Abraham that was not dependent in any way on the will, intent, or decisions of humans as individuals, religions, or governments.
This is far simpler, more brilliant in its simplicity, and can be fully implemented according to a system that is not dependent in any way on human will.
If it’s true, there is no need to worry about human authorities, religions, or governments. If it is NOT true, there is STILL no need to worry about human religions or governments in terms of “God” since you are automatically free of them.
The only correct choice to make in terms of religion, therefore, is given in Matthew 24:23. Don’t believe any of them. The only correct choice you can make, religious or atheist, is to be free from human ideologies and superstitions.
I recently saw a show on PBS titled “Prohibition”. I’ve always had some interest in this era of history, with the crime and violence resulting from the attempt of the people to do “good”. What I did not know was that Prohibitionists helped usher in the Sixteenth Amendment, allowing the federal government to directly tax people, and avoid tax dependence on alcohol sales. I also did not realize that Prohibitionists encouraged hatred of Germans in WW1 so that German breweries such as Pabst and Schlitz could be demonized as evil on two fronts, being part of the German enemy, and producing alcohol that weakened the resolve and courage of “true” Americans.
If there is such a thing as ‘the purity trap” and societies behave in such a way as to suggest there is, then why do we focus on a system of laws and rules that are impossible to keep, venerate them, offer praise and sacrifice to them, and then regularly violate them?
Human society appears to live in contradiction to itself.
Western religion, mainly Christianity and Judaism, has focused on that very fact, the inability to live by the very standards we set as “absolute” or “perfect”, and then we declare it as a necessity to be “forgiven” so that we can avoid the eternal punishment that comes from trying to do what we cannot do in the first place!
This looks like a game where the dice are loaded, the dealer has stacked the deck, and there is no way to win but to surrender to the inevitable. Why make the rules at all if we know we can’t live up to them?
The main reason I see in terms of evolutionary significance, is that we need to know that there are basic standards that apply, and we must be aware that we aren’t perfect in the obedience to those standards. Why is this useful from an evolutionary perspective?
Because we have the ability, by looking at the desired standards, to know whether we are maintaining those standards both as individuals and as a group. This is basically why we have the Ten Commandments as a venerated set of rules, and why we originally held the US Constitution as the venerated set of rules by which individuals could remain free.
In an evolutionary sense, therefore, we have a way of looking at ourselves while not being dependent on how others view us. This, very idea, in itself, creates detachment from the group, because once we begin actually looking at specific standards, we have the ability to decide for ourselves, how those standards apply to us personally. Instead of following basic patterns of imitations provided by evolution in the form of “mirror neurons”, we can look at a detached code of conduct apart from those who seek to control us by their own standards. There is instantly a new, defineable reality apart from simply copying others.
If, for example, the law says ‘thou shalt not kill’, and I have killed no one, I do not need anyone else to judge whether or not I have killed anyone. In each of the Ten Commandments, whether they come from a supernatural entity or not, these laws give us the right and the power to say “prove I did this”. That is, we can maintain innocence by forcing others to demonstrate publicly that we have done anyone harm.
Whatever the law, or however strict it may be, once it becomes a law for all to see and understand, then all are responsible to see that it is upheld in the strictest possible form. In this sense, there are a few of the Ten Commandments that we can declare we have not violated in some sense. Most of us do not steal, most do not kill, most do not bear false witness or lie, most try to honor our parents, etc. As for the first two commandments, this may get a bit tricky, since in trying to define God in some human form, we tend to violate the second commandment.
As a result, we get caught in the “purity trap”, by which we try to perfectly identify ourselves with God, and see ourselves collectively as a group, being the agents of God. We know what happens when groups of people see themselves as agents of God. The Spanish Inquisition would be one example. The Roman Catholic Church would be an example of itself, along with the protestant churches that literally killed neighbors in the search for perfect obedience to God.
Prohibition, like many laws being passed now, are not based on actions in which any citizen can bring charges, but on acts in which no one is harmed, yet an individual can be punished by the state itself, acting as accuser and prosecutor.
Prohibition is the first example. Should any person be punished for simply taking a drink,(or taking a drug) even if he or she has harmed no one? Can the state itself act as witness, prosecutor, and judge of such an offense?
The original understanding from the biblical perspective is that everybody “sins”, everybody breaks the law in some way, so we should not rush to condemn the actions of another, especially when the other has done no harm to us. That is known as the presumption of innocence, and corresponds to Isaiah 54:17, and Isaiah 50:8.
That is, if the group begins to believe it acts collectively in the interests of “God”, then the group itself has chosen representatives to be a witness, prosecutor, and a judge. But Isaiah 50:8 specifically declares that the accused is allowed to challenge the accuser, under protection of God. This would mean that the state, as accuser, is acting as both protector and accuser, with its own interest being the guide in any decision. This means that the state has gone beyond the power to respect one’s right to believe in God, and has also declared itself AS God, on behalf of the people.
The people, seeking to protect society from itself, now sees itself as the humble servants of God, doing “right” for the betterment of society. As Eric Hoffer points out in “The True Believer”:
“The truth is that the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, the light of the world, a prince disguised in meekness. who is destined to inherit the earth and the kingdom of heaven…he who is not of his faith is evil: he who will not listen shall perish”.
This is where the “purity trap” absolves us of individual responsibility. We can secretly support it, while publicly saying, “What can I do? It’s the will of the people.”
I recently had a judge tell me this when I challenged the seat belt law, on clearly stated principles decided by the Supreme Court. In the interest of protection, he told me, “Your Constitutional rights now take second place to the compelling interest of the state”. He further explained to me that he “had no choice” but to decide as the legislature and higher courts told him. Apparently he had never read Jeremiah 5:26-31. Nor had he read Isaiah 29:21.
It is also apparent that the officer who gave me the ticket had not read Exodus 23:1-2. By the creation of laws, by acting as prosecutor, witness, and judge, the laws themselves are violated! They are violated because they are there for us to know, understand, and apply in our own interest. This is what the Pharisees in Jesus’ day did, and why he accused them of “shutting up the Kingdom of God to men” in Matthew 23:13.
When the state itself becomes both witness and prosecutor, the accused has no right to challenge the accuser, since he is held accountable ONLY to the state. As Hoffer explains:
“Even when men league themselves mightily together to promote tolerance and peace on earth, they are likely to be violently intolerable toward those not of a like mind….When we renounce the self and become part of a compact whole, we not only renounce personal advantage, but are also rid of personal responsibility…The hatred and cruelty which have their source in selfishness are ineffectual things compared with the venom and ruthlessness born of selflessness.”
The great evolutionary step of law was that every person, man or woman, can claim equality before the law, and have the right to face his or her accusers, and challenge them to prove the validity of their accusations.
Anyone who tells you that the law is to be controlled collectively for your own good, that you have no right to think and act in your own interests as long as you harm no other, is a liar.